Hi,

I want to have XP pro for my primary OS, and then another OS (XP home) for
music production/composing where the OS footprint is as minimal as possible
(maybe even without Antivirus and TCP/IP) to leave processing power to the
music studio applications.

Is such a setup compatible with Norton Ghost 9? I ask because support staff
for SystemCommander8 advised against using SC8 and Ghost on the same machine.
They said these were incompatible, but I never understood if it was due to
the dual boot config or something else particular to SC8.

"Peter" wrote:
> I want to have XP pro for my primary OS, and then another OS
> (XP home) for music production/composing where the OS
> footprint is as minimal as possible (maybe even without Antivirus
> and TCP/IP) to leave processing power to the music studio
> applications.
>
> Is such a setup compatible with Norton Ghost 9? I ask because
> support staff for SystemCommander8 advised against using
> SC8 and Ghost on the same machine. They said these were
> incompatible, but I never understood if it was due to
> the dual boot config or something else particular to SC8.


Ghost is not a boot manager. It has no effect on WinXP's
multi-booting functions. System Commander *is* a boot-
managing utility. It may not be compatible with WinXP's
built-in boot manager, but there's not reason to expect that
it wouldn't get along with Ghost as they typically wouldn't be
running at the same time. If System Commander changes
the boot sectors or MBRs sufficiently that Ghost would be
confused, I'd stay away from System Commander.

*TimDaniels*

System Commander writes to the MBR. That is how you are able to choose which
partition/drive to boot into. Because SC gives you much more flexibility
than Windows XP dual boot mode, SC must do this.

Ghost 2003 will reboot the machine into a special version of DOS for the
purposes of running the program when you are working with the Windows
partition/drive. The information to do this is also written to the MBR to
allow it to happen. Many times Ghost 2003 will not boot up. Sometimes SC
gets corrupted and you have to reload it. You can have only one set of
entries to the MBR at a time. If that entry does not clear out when no
longer needed you will have problems.

Ghost 9 does NOT use this method. It images the Windows partition just fine
from within Windows. You restore by booting from the recovery CD. The MBR is
bypassed by the use of the boot CD. The MBR does not come into play, except
to boot the computer to System Commander, where you make your operating
system choice.

I have been using System Commander since 1993-94 with little or no problems.
It has always done as advertised.

--


Regards,

Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User

Quote from George Ankner:
If you knew as much as you think you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!

"Timothy Daniels" <TDaniels@NoSpamDot.com> wrote in message
news:AL-dnYB_qvsJyxvenZ2dnUVZ_t6dnZ2d@comcast.com...
> "Peter" wrote:
>> I want to have XP pro for my primary OS, and then another OS
>> (XP home) for music production/composing where the OS
>> footprint is as minimal as possible (maybe even without Antivirus
>> and TCP/IP) to leave processing power to the music studio
>> applications.
>>
>> Is such a setup compatible with Norton Ghost 9? I ask because
>> support staff for SystemCommander8 advised against using
>> SC8 and Ghost on the same machine. They said these were
>> incompatible, but I never understood if it was due to the dual boot
>> config or something else particular to SC8.
>
>
> Ghost is not a boot manager. It has no effect on WinXP's
> multi-booting functions. System Commander *is* a boot-
> managing utility. It may not be compatible with WinXP's
> built-in boot manager, but there's not reason to expect that
> it wouldn't get along with Ghost as they typically wouldn't be
> running at the same time. If System Commander changes
> the boot sectors or MBRs sufficiently that Ghost would be
> confused, I'd stay away from System Commander.
>
> *TimDaniels*

"Richard Urban"wrote:
> System Commander writes to the MBR. That is how you are able
> to choose which partition/drive to boot into. Because SC gives you
> much more flexibility than Windows XP dual boot mode, SC must
> do this.
>
> Ghost 2003 will reboot the machine into a special version of DOS
> for the purposes of running the program when you are working with
> the Windows partition/drive. The information to do this is also written
> to the MBR to allow it to happen. Many times Ghost 2003 will not
> boot up. Sometimes SC gets corrupted and you have to reload it.
> You can have only one set of entries to the MBR at a time. If that entry
> does not clear out when no longer needed you will have problems.
>
> Ghost 9 does NOT use this method. It images the Windows partition
> just fine from within Windows. You restore by booting from the recovery
> CD.


Is the OP's purpose to create image files and to restore them?
Or to create clones?
Or to make incremental backups?

Maybe we should ask him what it is that he'd be doing.


> The MBR is bypassed by the use of the boot CD. The MBR does
> not come into play, except to boot the computer to System
> Commander, where you make your operating system choice.


So are you saying Ghost 2003 is incompatible with Sys Cmdr
and that Ghost 9.0 *is* compatible?


> I have been using System Commander since 1993-94 with little
> or no problems. It has always done as advertised.
>
> --
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Richard Urban
> Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User
>
>
> "Timothy Daniels" wrote:
>> "Peter" wrote:
>>> I want to have XP pro for my primary OS, and then another OS
>>> (XP home) for music production/composing where the OS
>>> footprint is as minimal as possible (maybe even without Antivirus
>>> and TCP/IP) to leave processing power to the music studio
>>> applications.
>>>
>>> Is such a setup compatible with Norton Ghost 9? I ask because
>>> support staff for SystemCommander8 advised against using
>>> SC8 and Ghost on the same machine. They said these were
>>> incompatible, but I never understood if it was due to the dual boot
>>> config or something else particular to SC8.
>>
>>
>> Ghost is not a boot manager. It has no effect on WinXP's
>> multi-booting functions. System Commander *is* a boot-
>> managing utility. It may not be compatible with WinXP's
>> built-in boot manager, but there's not reason to expect that
>> it wouldn't get along with Ghost as they typically wouldn't be
>> running at the same time. If System Commander changes
>> the boot sectors or MBRs sufficiently that Ghost would be
>> confused, I'd stay away from System Commander.
>>
>> *TimDaniels*
>
>

Am I the OP ?

Anyway, when my system works fine, I use Ghost to once in a while make a
full image of C: (OS) and of D: (installed programs/documents partition),
which I keep for backup or simply if I want to go back to a basic functioning
config after having installed/uninstalled too many programs or messed too
much with drivers etc. Basically as a way to cleanse my system every 6 months.

I have not got around to create the dual boot setup yet since I wanted to
know if Ghost was compatible with dual booting. (SysCom8 support left me
wondering if it was their product that was incompatible with Ghost or if it
was any kind of dual boot config that was incompatible with Ghost. They were
quite specific that I should uninstall Ghost if I wanted to use System
Commander 8, but we may have not specified in our communications that it was
Ghost 9 I have.)

So the dual boot mode native in XP has no problems whatsoever with Ghost ?

/P

"Timothy Daniels" wrote:

> "Richard Urban"wrote:
> > System Commander writes to the MBR. That is how you are able
> > to choose which partition/drive to boot into. Because SC gives you
> > much more flexibility than Windows XP dual boot mode, SC must
> > do this.
> >
> > Ghost 2003 will reboot the machine into a special version of DOS
> > for the purposes of running the program when you are working with
> > the Windows partition/drive. The information to do this is also written
> > to the MBR to allow it to happen. Many times Ghost 2003 will not
> > boot up. Sometimes SC gets corrupted and you have to reload it.
> > You can have only one set of entries to the MBR at a time. If that entry
> > does not clear out when no longer needed you will have problems.
> >
> > Ghost 9 does NOT use this method. It images the Windows partition
> > just fine from within Windows. You restore by booting from the recovery
> > CD.
>
>
> Is the OP's purpose to create image files and to restore them?
> Or to create clones?
> Or to make incremental backups?
>
> Maybe we should ask him what it is that he'd be doing.
>
>
> > The MBR is bypassed by the use of the boot CD. The MBR does
> > not come into play, except to boot the computer to System
> > Commander, where you make your operating system choice.
>
>
> So are you saying Ghost 2003 is incompatible with Sys Cmdr
> and that Ghost 9.0 *is* compatible?
>
>
> > I have been using System Commander since 1993-94 with little
> > or no problems. It has always done as advertised.
> >
> > --
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Richard Urban
> > Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User
> >
> >
> > "Timothy Daniels" wrote:
> >> "Peter" wrote:
> >>> I want to have XP pro for my primary OS, and then another OS
> >>> (XP home) for music production/composing where the OS
> >>> footprint is as minimal as possible (maybe even without Antivirus
> >>> and TCP/IP) to leave processing power to the music studio
> >>> applications.
> >>>
> >>> Is such a setup compatible with Norton Ghost 9? I ask because
> >>> support staff for SystemCommander8 advised against using
> >>> SC8 and Ghost on the same machine. They said these were
> >>> incompatible, but I never understood if it was due to the dual boot
> >>> config or something else particular to SC8.
> >>
> >>
> >> Ghost is not a boot manager. It has no effect on WinXP's
> >> multi-booting functions. System Commander *is* a boot-
> >> managing utility. It may not be compatible with WinXP's
> >> built-in boot manager, but there's not reason to expect that
> >> it wouldn't get along with Ghost as they typically wouldn't be
> >> running at the same time. If System Commander changes
> >> the boot sectors or MBRs sufficiently that Ghost would be
> >> confused, I'd stay away from System Commander.
> >>
> >> *TimDaniels*
> >
> >
>

Ghost 9 has no bearing on the MBR at all. The MBR instructs the system
where, on the hard drive, to go to boot the operating system. It doesn't
come into play when you boot from a CD. So I guess you would be able to say
that there is no compatibility problem with Ghost 9.

--


Regards,

Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User

Quote from George Ankner:
If you knew as much as you think you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!

"Timothy Daniels" <TDaniels@NoSpamDot.com> wrote in message
news:G-GdnVFdnMEmKRvenZ2dnUVZ_tCdnZ2d@comcast.com...
> "Richard Urban"wrote:
>> System Commander writes to the MBR. That is how you are able
>> to choose which partition/drive to boot into. Because SC gives you
>> much more flexibility than Windows XP dual boot mode, SC must
>> do this.
>>
>> Ghost 2003 will reboot the machine into a special version of DOS
>> for the purposes of running the program when you are working with
>> the Windows partition/drive. The information to do this is also written
>> to the MBR to allow it to happen. Many times Ghost 2003 will not
>> boot up. Sometimes SC gets corrupted and you have to reload it.
>> You can have only one set of entries to the MBR at a time. If that entry
>> does not clear out when no longer needed you will have problems.
>>
>> Ghost 9 does NOT use this method. It images the Windows partition
>> just fine from within Windows. You restore by booting from the recovery
>> CD.
>
>
> Is the OP's purpose to create image files and to restore them?
> Or to create clones?
> Or to make incremental backups?
>
> Maybe we should ask him what it is that he'd be doing.
>
>
>> The MBR is bypassed by the use of the boot CD. The MBR does
>> not come into play, except to boot the computer to System
>> Commander, where you make your operating system choice.
>
>
> So are you saying Ghost 2003 is incompatible with Sys Cmdr
> and that Ghost 9.0 *is* compatible?
>
>
>> I have been using System Commander since 1993-94 with little
>> or no problems. It has always done as advertised.
>>
>> --
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Richard Urban
>> Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User
>>
>>
>> "Timothy Daniels" wrote:
>>> "Peter" wrote:
>>>> I want to have XP pro for my primary OS, and then another OS
>>>> (XP home) for music production/composing where the OS
>>>> footprint is as minimal as possible (maybe even without Antivirus
>>>> and TCP/IP) to leave processing power to the music studio
>>>> applications.
>>>>
>>>> Is such a setup compatible with Norton Ghost 9? I ask because
>>>> support staff for SystemCommander8 advised against using
>>>> SC8 and Ghost on the same machine. They said these were
>>>> incompatible, but I never understood if it was due to the dual boot
>>>> config or something else particular to SC8.
>>>
>>>
>>> Ghost is not a boot manager. It has no effect on WinXP's
>>> multi-booting functions. System Commander *is* a boot-
>>> managing utility. It may not be compatible with WinXP's
>>> built-in boot manager, but there's not reason to expect that
>>> it wouldn't get along with Ghost as they typically wouldn't be
>>> running at the same time. If System Commander changes
>>> the boot sectors or MBRs sufficiently that Ghost would be
>>> confused, I'd stay away from System Commander.
>>>
>>> *TimDaniels*
>>

"Peter" wrote:
> Am I the OP ?


Yup. OP = Original Poster.


> Anyway, when my system works fine, I use Ghost to once in a while
> make a full image of C: (OS) and of D: (installed programs/documents
> partition), which I keep for backup or simply if I want to go back to a
> basic functioning config after having installed/uninstalled too many
> programs or messed too much with drivers etc. Basically as a way
> to cleanse my system every 6 months.


I deduce from what Richard Urban posted that Ghost 9.0's image
restoration process wouldn't interact with System Commander
or fail in a way that leaves the MBR unable to pass control to the
"active" partition and its boot sector.


> I have not got around to create the dual boot setup yet since I wanted to
> know if Ghost was compatible with dual booting. (SysCom8 support left
> me wondering if it was their product that was incompatible with Ghost
> or if it was any kind of dual boot config that was incompatible with Ghost.
>They were quite specific that I should uninstall Ghost if I wanted to use
> System Commander 8, but we may have not specified in our communi-
> cations that it was Ghost 9 I have.)
>
> So the dual boot mode native in XP has no problems whatsoever with
> Ghost ?
>
> /P


With Ghost 9.0 - no problem. With Ghost 2003 and earlier, maybe
in rare failure modes (if I read Richard Urban correctly). If Sys Cmdr
alters the MBR as Richard said, WinXP's boot manager may be
bypassed entirely or it might itself pass control to the normal
boot sector of the selected partition.

*TimDaniels*

OK, thanks to the two of you !

/p

"Richard Urban" wrote:

> Ghost 9 has no bearing on the MBR at all. The MBR instructs the system
> where, on the hard drive, to go to boot the operating system. It doesn't
> come into play when you boot from a CD. So I guess you would be able to say
> that there is no compatibility problem with Ghost 9.
>
> --
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Richard Urban
> Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User
>
> Quote from George Ankner:
> If you knew as much as you think you know,
> You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!
>
> "Timothy Daniels" <TDaniels@NoSpamDot.com> wrote in message
> news:G-GdnVFdnMEmKRvenZ2dnUVZ_tCdnZ2d@comcast.com...
> > "Richard Urban"wrote:
> >> System Commander writes to the MBR. That is how you are able
> >> to choose which partition/drive to boot into. Because SC gives you
> >> much more flexibility than Windows XP dual boot mode, SC must
> >> do this.
> >>
> >> Ghost 2003 will reboot the machine into a special version of DOS
> >> for the purposes of running the program when you are working with
> >> the Windows partition/drive. The information to do this is also written
> >> to the MBR to allow it to happen. Many times Ghost 2003 will not
> >> boot up. Sometimes SC gets corrupted and you have to reload it.
> >> You can have only one set of entries to the MBR at a time. If that entry
> >> does not clear out when no longer needed you will have problems.
> >>
> >> Ghost 9 does NOT use this method. It images the Windows partition
> >> just fine from within Windows. You restore by booting from the recovery
> >> CD.
> >
> >
> > Is the OP's purpose to create image files and to restore them?
> > Or to create clones?
> > Or to make incremental backups?
> >
> > Maybe we should ask him what it is that he'd be doing.
> >
> >
> >> The MBR is bypassed by the use of the boot CD. The MBR does
> >> not come into play, except to boot the computer to System
> >> Commander, where you make your operating system choice.
> >
> >
> > So are you saying Ghost 2003 is incompatible with Sys Cmdr
> > and that Ghost 9.0 *is* compatible?
> >
> >
> >> I have been using System Commander since 1993-94 with little
> >> or no problems. It has always done as advertised.
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> Richard Urban
> >> Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User
> >>
> >>
> >> "Timothy Daniels" wrote:
> >>> "Peter" wrote:
> >>>> I want to have XP pro for my primary OS, and then another OS
> >>>> (XP home) for music production/composing where the OS
> >>>> footprint is as minimal as possible (maybe even without Antivirus
> >>>> and TCP/IP) to leave processing power to the music studio
> >>>> applications.
> >>>>
> >>>> Is such a setup compatible with Norton Ghost 9? I ask because
> >>>> support staff for SystemCommander8 advised against using
> >>>> SC8 and Ghost on the same machine. They said these were
> >>>> incompatible, but I never understood if it was due to the dual boot
> >>>> config or something else particular to SC8.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Ghost is not a boot manager. It has no effect on WinXP's
> >>> multi-booting functions. System Commander *is* a boot-
> >>> managing utility. It may not be compatible with WinXP's
> >>> built-in boot manager, but there's not reason to expect that
> >>> it wouldn't get along with Ghost as they typically wouldn't be
> >>> running at the same time. If System Commander changes
> >>> the boot sectors or MBRs sufficiently that Ghost would be
> >>> confused, I'd stay away from System Commander.
> >>>
> >>> *TimDaniels*
> >>
>
>