Capture an OS image

[MaKaVe|i]

I need to capture an image of an OS I have installed on a desktop. Now I have never done it before. So I was wandering what is the best software to use to do this? What is the easiest software to use? Does anyone have a step by step guide on how to do this? Thanks.

[EQTakeOffense]

What do you mean by 'capture an image'? You mean, like a screen shot?

If it's Windows XP hit Ctrl + Print/Scrn and then open Paint and do Ctrl + V. This basically allows you to copy and paste your image.

[MaKaVe|i]

No not a screen shot. You can make an image of says Windows XP that you already have installed on a machine so that you can install that image onto other pc's.

[sniperchicken]

First off you need a program of some sort that will install everything with all the settings properly. And then you need a second PC, the one it's being installed on, to be nearly identical to the original.

Can't help much more than that though.

[Gatticus]

http://www.acronis.com/homecomputing/products/trueimage/

[MaKaVe|i]

http://www.acronis.com/homecomputing/products/trueimage/

thanks... I will have to try that program out.

[djnes]

And then you need a second PC, the one it's being installed on, to be nearly identical to the original.
Not if you use the Sysprep + Ghost combination. Licensing issues aside, the machines don't need to be identical at all.

[Zepher]

Not if you use the Sysprep + Ghost combination. Licensing issues aside, the machines don't need to be identical at all.

Yep, that is how my backup disk image is setup. As soon as the drive is copied to the new one and put into a machine, it automatically starts doing the windows hardware drivers install and when that is done, the machine is all set with all the programs I already had installed.

[oakfan52]

Not if you use the Sysprep + Ghost combination. Licensing issues aside, the machines don't need to be identical at all.

Only if the HAL is the same. Can't go from a MPS Multiprocessor PC to a ACPI Uniprocessor PC using sysprep. Therefore, the harware must be similar. You can do things like exicute an app like Devcon to flip the hal just after sysprep and make it work.

[Zepher]

Only if the HAL is the same. Can't go from a MPS Multiprocessor PC to a ACPI Uniprocessor PC using sysprep. Therefore, the harware must be similar. You can do things like exicute an app like Devcon to flip the hal just after sysprep and make it work.

Actually, it does work, at least going from a non HT Proc to an HT Proc.
When I swapped to my 2.8E from a 2.4A, I ran sys prep and it now shows multi-processor in device manager and I have 2 Proc bars in the Task Manager.

[djnes]

Only if the HAL is the same. Can't go from a MPS Multiprocessor PC to a ACPI Uniprocessor PC using sysprep. Therefore, the harware must be similar. You can do things like exicute an app like Devcon to flip the hal just after sysprep and make it work.
I've used the same image on single proc machines to setup a Pentium D machine, and also a dual P3 server/workstation machine.

[MaKaVe|i]

Not if you use the Sysprep + Ghost combination. Licensing issues aside, the machines don't need to be identical at all.


Do you have a step by step guide on how to use the sysprep + ghost combination?

[djnes]

Sticky (http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=772307)

[Gatticus]

You don't have to use Ghost+Sysprep. I will work fine with Acronis True Image too.

[Nasty_Savage]

Regarding the HAL file, at least with Dell Optiplexes we were able to match machine model to load the corresponding hal needed in a model.vbs script...

[Whatsisname]

you can do it with a live GNU/Linux distribution and dd

[Uncle]

Acronis all the way. Everytime I make a few changes and the computer is stable I update the Image. I usually have 3 images saved at any one time including an original install with all my OS changes. Of course I also keep an Image of xp, after a couple of weeks with Vista It looks like I won't be going back. I've worked out all the issues that bothered me and have my games running stable.
Only complaint I have with Vista compared to xp is some of the changes I have to make are a few layers deeper and and in a different location. After 16 years from Dos, I've learned to be patient and realize its another learning curve, but when you get paid for what you know, being patient is easier.

[sirholio]

some of the changes I have to make are a few layers deeper and and in a different location.

yup, and I'm sure we'll all get used to the placement just like we did when xp was a little different too.

[Josh_B]

You don't have to use Ghost+Sysprep. I will work fine with Acronis True Image too.

Acronis can run from within Windows, which is nice.

Ghost gets better compression though. :eek:

[djnes]

Acronis can run from within Windows, which is nice.
Maybe I'm old school, but I prefer my imaging programs to run outside of Windows. I prefer using Ghost because I only really need one file, and the free BartPE disc to do anything I need to accomplish. I'm sure others like Acronis, but it left me with too many corrupt images. I've been using Ghost for over 8 years now, so I do have that trust and loyalty built up.

[NTJedi]

Only if the HAL is the same. Can't go from a MPS Multiprocessor PC to a ACPI Uniprocessor PC using sysprep. Therefore, the harware must be similar. You can do things like exicute an app like Devcon to flip the hal just after sysprep and make it work.

Oakfan52 is correct... I strongly don't recommend using an image on a system with different hardware. Sure it has a good chance to appear as tho everything went fine... however there will be left over registry settings for the old hardware. These registry settings could cause no side effects, however they could also cause anything from strange errors to random blue screens to slower performance. Try it if you wish, but you'll have a greater chance of experiencing software issues.

[djnes]

That's the point of running Sysprep correctly. There's no harm in doing so, and nothing rogue is left behind.

[Josh_B]

Maybe I'm old school, but I prefer my imaging programs to run outside of Windows. I prefer using Ghost because I only really need one file, and the free BartPE disc to do anything I need to accomplish. I'm sure others like Acronis, but it left me with too many corrupt images. I've been using Ghost for over 8 years now, so I do have that trust and loyalty built up.

You are right, but Acronis can still run outside of Windows, too. (You can create a rescue disk.) I am sure you already know this though. (Just for the benefit of those who've not used Acronis before.)

Anyways, I have had too many issues with both to have a preference, but the licensing for Acronis is cheaper and I like the fact that it uses Linux for the rescue disk. :cool:

[Hornswoggler]

Either Ghost or Acronis, both should be able to get the job done. This is like arguing snap-on vs Craftsman or something equally silly. Of course, if somebody was going to get serious on a deployment and would actually use the advanced features of each, it would be worth comparing but from what I gather, the original poster is really trying to understand drive cloning or OS deployment from a more basic level. For the sake of keeping this conversation productive, lets just call it an "imaging tool".

OP, how about some more information on why you are capturing this image and what you are planning on doing with it? There are different "best practices" depending on what you are trying to do.

Some typical uses of an OS image backup: (assuming the Windows OS)

- Moving from one hard drive to another (same PC, just need basic drive copy)
- Creating a backup to later restore in event of a disaster (if you can take the outage, there are many imaging tools that can backup to either an image file or disk-to-disk. I know Symantec has a product that can do hot backups while the system is running, but most prefer a cold image)
- Creating an image for mass deployment (if this image backup will be deployed or cloned to multiple PC's, you need to change the SID at minimum, change the comptuer/host name, and probably run sysprep for PNP initialization if dissimilar hardware)
- Swapping motherboards could probably use sysprep too. I thought about doing this with my last system upgrade but decided to go fresh install anyways.

[zeplar]

One thing sysprep won't clean are services. My current image originally started on a 440BX and by now has NVIDIA and ATI services loaded. I can't recall if they were loaded because I ran the installer at some point. Haven't had stability problems, but could probably shave boot time and RAM usage ever so slightly by manually stopping or removing them.

[MaKaVe|i]

OP, how about some more information on why you are capturing this image and what you are planning on doing with it? There are different "best practices" depending on what you are trying to do.



I just want to capture the image because it is a fresh xp image that was just put on. I was planning on putting Vista on it so I could messed around with it and check it out and then when I was done I could put the xp image back on it.

[Hornswoggler]

I just want to capture the image because it is a fresh xp image that was just put on. I was planning on putting Vista on it so I could messed around with it and check it out and then when I was done I could put the xp image back on it.

Where do you want the image to go? Do you have a second hard drive to store it or do you need to archive this onto optical media?

I'm sure the tools and/or boot disks have evolved, but last time I used Ghost for an image file backup, it could only recognize fat32 and fat16 partitions to create the image file. Disk-to-disk cloning doesnt matter what the destination partition is (wiped it out anyways). Just keep this in mind incase of a snafu.

For a how-to, download and read the user manual for either acronis or ghost.

[MaKaVe|i]

Where do you want the image to go? Do you have a second hard drive to store it or do you need to archive this onto optical media?

I'm sure the tools and/or boot disks have evolved, but last time I used Ghost for an image file backup, it could only recognize fat32 and fat16 partitions to create the image file. Disk-to-disk cloning doesnt matter what the destination partition is (wiped it out anyways). Just keep this in mind incase of a snafu.

For a how-to, download and read the user manual for either acronis or ghost.


I would like to put in onto a DVD-R disk, and I could also store it on another hard drive I have.

[Hornswoggler]

I would like to put in onto a DVD-R disk, and I could also store it on another hard drive I have.

what about just installing Vista on that second hard drive you have?

I have never created an image straight to optical disk. I'm sure its possible... check the glossies on the above mentioned products and see if they support that. It's going to be an issue of real-mode dvd burner/aspi drivers, I think.

[MaKaVe|i]

what about just installing Vista on that second hard drive you have?

I have never created an image straight to optical disk. I'm sure its possible... check the glossies on the above mentioned products and see if they support that. It's going to be an issue of real-mode dvd burner/aspi drivers, I think.

because that 2nd hard drive is not in the desktop I am capturing the image from.

[bbz_Ghost]

All current drive imaging software supports DVD media for the backup medium. What I do is this:

Install the OS and during the initial installation I split the hard drive (let's not get into the pros and cons of that for now), and give myself a smallish system partition (let's not get into the pros and cons of this either) of around 15GB for my XP installs, 30GB for my Vista installs.

I then set up the rest of the drive as "Storage" space, one large partition.

Do the install, when it's done and before that very first reboot where I'd be asked a few questions, registration, network stuff, input the user name, I image the drive before that boot takes place. Meaning for XP this happens at the end of the installation where it counts down the last remaining moments and when it gets to 1 min remaining then the screen clears, I pop out the XP install CD and insert my True Image CD which is what the computer boots from after the restart. Then I do the image to the "Storage" partition and that becomes basexp.

Then I pop out the True Image CD, do the rest of the setup, do the tweaks, install the most commonly used software and utilities, then image that and it becomes the "working" image. Usually after that's done, I can then burn the basexp image (around 850MB typically) and the working image (around 2.8GB typically) onto a single DVD5 for later restoration if I choose, that way I never ever ever have to sit through the 30-50 min process of setting up the laptop (that's all I own anymore) again in the future and I can start fresh in about 9 mins with everything ready to roll.

With Vista it's a bit different because of its size, and they don't make dual layer rewritable DVDs yet, if ever. I just leave the image on the Storage partition usually for testing, or I can back it up on a 60GB USB 2.0 external drive (laptop drive, of course). Takes roughly 20 mins to image an Ultimate install and I end up with a file about ~5GB in size.

Of course, I've been working with vLite a lot lately and shrunk down not only the actual installation DVD requirements but also the resulting installation on the drive; removing most of the useless stuff on the DVD (the language files are pretty large), I've got the install down to barely 7GB which compresses nicely onto a DVD5 - but it's a vLite install so it's appropriately named and stored on a DVD5 rewritable.

At this moment I've got 43 different installations of various kinds, from Win98SE to Vista Ultimate 64 and everything in between, and about 22 different Linux distros both 32 bit and 64 bit, stored either on that 60GB external drive or on DVD rewritable media, and I can start fresh with any of them in 15 mins or less.

Longest time I've ever had a working Windows installation? 5 weeks and a few days... if I can go 4 days without needing a reinstall of some image it's a good week, but that's what happens when you test hardware and software for a living. :P

[BuGaLoU]

Maybe I'm old school, but I prefer my imaging programs to run outside of Windows. I prefer using Ghost because I only really need one file, and the free BartPE disc to do anything I need to accomplish. I'm sure others like Acronis, but it left me with too many corrupt images. I've been using Ghost for over 8 years now, so I do have that trust and loyalty built up.

A few points from me:

* You can use acronis outside of Windows with a boot CD or PXE boot via RIS.
* Ghost sucks now a days. I use to be a ghost fan too, but acronis is superior. Corrupt image root from another problem.
* The new version of Acronis Trueimage has a "universal" restore that will allow you to image across hardware platforms with no sysprep.
* Sysprep will work from single CPU platforms to Multi CPU platforms. It will autodetect most of the time and if it doesn't you just edit the boot.ini file.
* Sysprep will not work between an ACPI PC and a non ACPI PC.

[djnes]

* Ghost sucks now a days. I use to be a ghost fan too, but acronis is superior. Corrupt image root from another problem.
That's a matter of opinion, but yet you're presenting it to me like it's a fact and I'm a mron for not understanding. I gave Acronis a few shots before and had corrupt images. Ghost also has been able to recover an image from dying or near dead laptop hard drives that acronis didn't even recognize. Ghost as a Windows app indeed sucks, but anyone with Ghost experience knows not to even bother installing it. You need three files, and only three files. So I'm only left wondering, why one opinion should count more than another. I simply suggested a Ghost & Sysprep combination, and a few people insist on taking this off topic. Some like Ghost, some like Acronis....and some people need to learn that varied opinions are okay...really.

[BuGaLoU]

That's a matter of opinion, but yet you're presenting it to me like it's a fact and I'm a mron for not understanding. I gave Acronis a few shots before and had corrupt images. Ghost also has been able to recover an image from dying or near dead laptop hard drives that acronis didn't even recognize. Ghost as a Windows app indeed sucks, but anyone with Ghost experience knows not to even bother installing it. You need three files, and only three files. So I'm only left wondering, why one opinion should count more than another. I simply suggested a Ghost & Sysprep combination, and a few people insist on taking this off topic. Some like Ghost, some like Acronis....and some people need to learn that varied opinions are okay...really.

I'm simply steering the OP away from over zealous people. :) I think a poll would show more people liking acronis. None the less, if it works for you, it works for you. :)

[djnes]

I can give you a very good reason for that....brand hatred.

Ask some regulars around here about all the M$, Microshaft, Microshit, kiddie BS that goes on around here....how many "sheep" hate a brand because others tell them it's cool to hate that brand. Intel has been known as the dark side, on these boards.

A lot of people would vote for Acronis for the simple fact Norton has made Ghost in the past. Norton happens to make some very bloated products for the home user (SystemWorks, AV, etc) so instantly they are hated. Any poll on brands put up on these boards wouldn't reveal accurate results. Since Norton makes SOME shitty products, nothing they make can ever POSSIBLY be any good.

What you may refer to as overzealousness, is actually knowledge from years of experience. You had bad experiences with Ghost, I've had horrible ones with Acronis. Show me where that means one of our opinions should count for more than the other? To borrow from a very popular saying on here, pot, meet kettle.

[BuGaLoU]

I can give you a very good reason for that....brand hatred.

Ask some regulars around here about all the M$, Microshaft, Microshit, kiddie BS that goes on around here....how many "sheep" hate a brand because others tell them it's cool to hate that brand. Intel has been known as the dark side, on these boards.

A lot of people would vote for Acronis for the simple fact Norton has made Ghost in the past. Norton happens to make some very bloated products for the home user (SystemWorks, AV, etc) so instantly they are hated. Any poll on brands put up on these boards wouldn't reveal accurate results. Since Norton makes SOME shitty products, nothing they make can ever POSSIBLY be any good.

What you may refer to as overzealousness, is actually knowledge from years of experience. You had bad experiences with Ghost, I've had horrible ones with Acronis. Show me where that means one of our opinions should count for more than the other? To borrow from a very popular saying on here, pot, meet kettle.

Totally agree on the brand hatred crap. It's pretty much sad to see in in action.
I haven't actually ever had a bad experience with ghost, I just found the acronis much better, and it ties in nicely with several other of thier products (snap deploy, disk director, etc). To each, thier own though!

[djnes]

They definitely have some nice products, and having a few that work well together makes our jobs much easier. I'm also not a "Norton-lover" by any means. I have a box of Norton Anti-Virus 2004 CDs and I'm thinking of some creative ways to "dispose" of them.