Does anyone Ghost XP installs anymore?

D

Dr.Khron

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 28, 2002
Messages
259
Since the days of Win98, I've been a big fan of using multiple HDs and keeping Ghost images of my OS at various stages...

I keep a 9 gig FAT32 drive in my rig now just so I can easily make Ghost images of my OS. But I'm starting to doubt the value...

XP Pro is super stable, I really haven't had the need to use Ghost to install a fresh coopy of my OS. Was nice insurance when I did my initial overclocking, but I havn't messed with a thing in 3 years.

I can see where its still very useful for IT managers and so forth, but I don't think that I need it anymore... Would be nice to lose the FAT 32 drive altogether.

Thoughts, comments?

-Dr.K
 
i thought about doing it but then i forgot to before i installed a lot of stuff
 
I use driveimage pro, not ghost, but yes, I still image my drives.. I usually have one backup that is Xp fully updated but without most of the drivers, that's my version of a clean install.. I also make a weekly backup.. When I run out of disk space on my spare drive, I just delete the oldest 2 or 3 images.. I rareley need them, but when I do, they are a godsend..

The version of drive image pro that I use has no problem with ntfs, and I thought that ghost did not either...
 
Why Fat32? Ntfs would store larger single files (4gb?)

I still Ghost though, once a month I make a backup of the wifes laptop, and I keep a base image of each household machine as well.
 
Why Fat32? Ntfs would store larger single files (4gb?)
Click to expand...

Um... becasue the DOS based Ghost client can only write images to FAT32 disks, not NTFS.

I know that you can set it up to do it over a network, but that always seemed too complicated... the DOS boot disk version of Ghost is simple and fast.

Maybe this changed in version 10? I still use the previous version.
 
Ghost32.exe - been out for years. WAY better than any DOS version.

I load up fresh Windows every 4-5 months - no need to Ghost. I use Ghost to image XP on 1300+ workstations at work. Enterprise Ghost Solution Suite.
 
My desktop no. My notebook I have images made with true image. Pretty much I screw up the notebook install quicker(keep leaving it asleep and the battery dies after a few days). At work I use it all the time.
 
I used to use ghost images at home, but then I decided to just use a completely unattended setup from a DVD instead. Ghost is a lot quicker, but then again when I screw something up real good I usually need about 40 minutes to just do something else and stay away from the computer :p

At work I use a RIS server that I setup in my office to kick off a ghost image by booting the client from the NIC (normally F12). No need for a bootcd/disk and usually only takes about 7-10 minutes on a 100mb FD connection.
 
I back up WinXP every few months. I've never lost anything but if I did it would be more frustrating to need to reinstall everything since I use my computers for development. My data files are in more than one location so I don't worry about those.
 
Perhaps taking a look at True Image might be along the lines that most people are interested in.

Making images while still running Windows; incremental ones that only record the changes from the last image instead of making entirely new ones (what a waste of space that is); the ability to mount said images as working drives you can read data from to access the files inside the image; and a lot more stuff.

It's one of the most awesome products that's ever come out and it has worked nearly flawless since I started using it just after it hit the market.

Can't recommend Acronis True Image enough. Or NOD32, for that matter. :D

bb
 
I use Ghost with ERD Commander (similar to BartPE) to make Ghost images on a portable USB drive of all of my computers. It's simple, and restores the entire system in a few minutes.

I don't trust those software apps that make an image while Windows is running. Maybe on a server with Volume Shadow Copy....but not an XP box. Ghost has been the standard for years....and has been MUCH MUCH more reliable for me.
 
I guess it depends on your definition of "reliable." I've been using True Image since day 1 - I used Drive Image since it's day 1 before that until Symantec pooched PowerQuest like everything else they touch. Neither of those products has EVER failed me in any way, and I restore images sometimes 50x or more a week, sometimes 10x or more in a single day depending on what I'm testing.

To each his own, of course.

bb
 
I can't understand why anyone would want to try and backup a running system? That's like changing the oil in your car while you're driving it. An image is meant to be a snapshot..."frozen" in time, so to speak.

When you factor in the Ghost Corporate features, like ghostcasting, etc, it's not even a competition anymore. Someone who does upwards of 50 images a week should definitely be using the Ghost Console.
 
Dr.Khron said:
Um... becasue the DOS based Ghost client can only write images to FAT32 disks, not NTFS.
Click to expand...

You must be using 2002 version or earlier because I use Ghost 2003 Dos boot method and it can write to and read from NTFS.
 
djnes said:
I can't understand why anyone would want to try and backup a running system? That's like changing the oil in your car while you're driving it. An image is meant to be a snapshot..."frozen" in time, so to speak.
Click to expand...

Can you say "downtime is a bad thing in certain situations." Good, I knew you could. Sometimes it's absolutely necessary to just keep the damned machine running. What would you say if I used Microsoft Backup or some other particular type of active backup that works when the OS is still in operation? Right, same thing I would: it's a necessity sometimes.

And that oil analogy is awful. A more appropriate one would be taking your car apiece part by part and replacing the parts as you're driving it so that by the time you get to your destination, it's a totally new vehicle.

djnes said:
When you factor in the Ghost Corporate features, like ghostcasting, etc, it's not even a competition anymore. Someone who does upwards of 50 images a week should definitely be using the Ghost Console.
Click to expand...

True Image blows the doors of Ghost, period. Try it sometime, just try it sometime and you might find yourself liking Ghost that much less. Things change, new software comes out, and sometimes the "industry standard" just doesn't keep up.

As I said, to each his own.

bb
 
I've heard lots of good things about True Image. I need the server imaging software for work - prolly will be buying within a months time.
 
br0adband said:
True Image blows the doors of Ghost, period. Try it sometime, just try it sometime and you might find yourself liking Ghost that much less. Things change, new software comes out, and sometimes the "industry standard" just doesn't keep up.
Click to expand...
Thank you for assuming I'd be ignorant enough to comment on software I've never tried. I've tried several versions (as I alluded to above) from 7 through 9, and I decided having roughly one out of three images fail to restore properly wasn't good enough. Ghost works each and everytime, and gives me better options for Ghosting over a network. Period, as you say.

As far as downtime, we're talking about client machines, and/or home machines at the moment, so that point is moot.

I love how you end each of your posts as "to each his own", but than you can't seem to fathom someone has a different opinion than you. Hypocrasy? I think so. Ghost works, plain and simple, and gives me more options in terms of where I can send my images, and how I can deliver them. To each is own indeed, but don't think you're going to tell me that your experiences should be worth me to me than my own, in terms of my own software choices. Now I see one many of the big names on these boards have left the OS forum. :rolleyes:
 
djnes said:
Ghost works, plain and simple, and gives me more options in terms of where I can send my images, and how I can deliver them. To each is own indeed, but don't think you're going to tell me that your experiences should be worth me to me than my own, in terms of my own software choices. Now I see one many of the big names on these boards have left the OS forum. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Interesting. I've had much better luck with true image. To be fair most of my issues with ghost were always errors making the image. You gotta stick with what works for you though.
 
I used to use Ghost, but I no longer do. I don't really have the need to use Ghost anymore. I just keep all my data backed up and do a clean install of Windows about every six months...it probably takes a little more time than restoring a ghost image, but not that much more time. I used Ghost alot when I used to work in corporate IT situations, but I'm my own boss now, so I don't worry about it. I just make sure to have at least two backups of everything that is essential to me.

Lyquist
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top