I want to create images from my laptop's hard disc to an external USB
2.0 drive under WinXP Professional and have a copy of Ghost 8.0. I am
concerned about "virtual partitions" that Ghost seems to create (and
also find the documentation somewhat unfriendly) and haven't installed
it yet. Is there anything to fear by Ghost's meddling with my disc
structure? Would Drive Snapshot or other package be a better choice to
make reliable images which can easily be restored, with minimal impact
to the source disc? Thanks.


Best regards,
shella.clum@booomail.com
webmaster@bankarea.com
http://www.bankarea.com

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

<shella.clum@booomail.com> wrote in message
 news:aacec$43941aa6$d99c5301$4026@allthe
newsgroups.com...
> I want to create images from my laptop's hard disc to an external USB
> 2.0 drive under WinXP Professional and have a copy of Ghost 8.0. I am
> concerned about "virtual partitions" that Ghost seems to create (and
> also find the documentation somewhat unfriendly) and haven't installed
> it yet. Is there anything to fear by Ghost's meddling with my disc
> structure? Would Drive Snapshot or other package be a better choice to
> make reliable images which can easily be restored, with minimal impact
> to the source disc? Thanks.
>
>
>  Best regards,
> shella.clum@booomail.com
>  webmaster@bankarea.com
>  http://www.bankarea.com

I just got Ghost 10 last week.
Yes, the "documentation" is awful.

Ghost 10 uses the terminoligy "recovery point" instead of "image file".

When you backup a drive, you firdst make a base recovery point, then
subsequent backups of that drive create incremental recovery points, so you
end up with a "recovery point set" for each drive.

You can then restore files from whichever recovery point you choose.
And, if you wishm yiu can "explore" the recovery points. When you explore,
Ghost creates virtual drives, with unique drive letters, but tat does not
ad=ffect your current logical drives.

I've not at all been pleased with Ghost 10.
Yesterday, I posted several threads at
http://radified.com/cgi-bin/YaBB/YaBB.cgi?board=general to try to get
solutions, you might want to check out that forum.

I then tried the demo version of Acronis True Image 9.
I like True Image better than Ghost, but I did find an issue and raised the
questions in sime treads in the TRue Image forum at
http://www.wilderssecurity.com/forumdisplay.php?f=64. Acronis actually
responds in that forum.

I've not yet checked whether I've yet received responses.
--
http://www.standards.com/; See Howard Kaikow's web site.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

Hi Howard,

Was one of your problems network performance?  If so did you try
Options/Performance and check out Network Throttling?

-- John

"Howard Kaikow" <kaikow@standards.com> wrote in message
news:dn1ic3$2efv$1@pyrite.mv.net...
> <shella.clum@booomail.com> wrote in message
>  news:aacec$43941aa6$d99c5301$4026@allthe
newsgroups.com... 
>
> I just got Ghost 10 last week.
> Yes, the "documentation" is awful.
>
> Ghost 10 uses the terminoligy "recovery point" instead of "image file".
>
> When you backup a drive, you firdst make a base recovery point, then
> subsequent backups of that drive create incremental recovery points, so
> you
> end up with a "recovery point set" for each drive.
>
> You can then restore files from whichever recovery point you choose.
> And, if you wishm yiu can "explore" the recovery points. When you explore,
> Ghost creates virtual drives, with unique drive letters, but tat does not
> ad=ffect your current logical drives.
>
> I've not at all been pleased with Ghost 10.
> Yesterday, I posted several threads at
> http://radified.com/cgi-bin/YaBB/YaBB.cgi?board=general to try to get
> solutions, you might want to check out that forum.
>
> I then tried the demo version of Acronis True Image 9.
> I like True Image better than Ghost, but I did find an issue and raised
> the
> questions in sime treads in the TRue Image forum at
> http://www.wilderssecurity.com/forumdisplay.php?f=64. Acronis actually
> responds in that forum.
>
> I've not yet checked whether I've yet received responses.
> --
> http://www.standards.com/; See Howard Kaikow's web site.
>
>

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

Be careful with Norton System Works. It messed up my computer and did not
fully uninstall.
-Pere


........................................
The Top 50% pay 96.54% of All Income Taxes
The Top 1% Pay More Than a Third

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

"JohnA" <John@discardstring-TheAtas.org> wrote in message
news:0ERvf.44875$Ou3.18714@dukeread09...
> Hi Howard,
>
> Was one of your problems network performance?  If so did you try
> Options/Performance and check out Network Throttling?

No, neither Ghost 10 nor Acronis 9 backup network drives.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

That's funny, I backup on a network drive using Ghost 10, worked in Ghost 9
too...

"Howard Kaikow" <kaikow@standards.com> wrote in message
news:dpucaf$aak$1@pyrite.mv.net...
> "JohnA" <John@discardstring-TheAtas.org> wrote in message
> news:0ERvf.44875$Ou3.18714@dukeread09... 
>
> No, neither Ghost 10 nor Acronis 9 backup network drives.
>
>

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

> No, neither Ghost 10 nor Acronis 9 backup network drives.

I also use Ghost 10 (and Ghost 9) to take a backup image, where image
is stored on a different networked pc.

I think Howard is referring to taking an image-backup of a remote pc
from a separate (usually server) pc.  That's availble only in the
server or enterprise (Norton LiveState) versions of Ghost.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]