Norton Ghost and X64 troubles

[SteveM]

xp disk installed? No this is vista

Refer to post 6 that you made :
"Ghost has worked with thie setup before, the only change was that the vista boot loader 1.2.1 (?) was on a different hard drive whereas the OS was on another one again, this pressumably is why I didnt have a problem then."

Again .......... Is the Hard Drive that has Windows XP installed on, pluged into the system whilst all these problems occur ?

 

[tomkat2006]

no forget xp, doesnt have anything to do with it, vista was loaded onto one hard drive but automatically put some boot info on a second HD in the same pc

 

[Bubba]

Alrighty then, bear with me because I'm a (look at my label) clueless newbie but..........

Tomcat. When you get done sata II'ing, jumpering and all that try something that worked for me in a similar situation. Regardless of who plopped 50 million GB's of Ram and three fuel injected turbo chargers in a clean install of Vista 64, everyone else I have talked to or read says the same thing. Start with one stick of RAM. Install the Vista. Install SP1. Do the upgrades. Install your other components one at a time. Then install your extra RAM. Again I really AM a clueless newbie lol so I don't know if motherboard actions cross brands, but what I had to do before I could get my system to quit locking up was the following in the BIOS: Take the memory setting off auto and manually input the CAS stuff, (for me it is 9-9-9-24), even though the auto settings were exactly that. I had to set the CMD to 2T. I've been told that one clock cycle won't work with 4 sticks (but not why) and being curious, after I got everything running I went back and made it 1T and guess what? BSOD on boot. I had to set the FSB Memory Clock to unlinked, and manually set both the FSB (QDR) MHz and the MEM (DDR)MHz to 1333 (my actual memory speed). Even though my RAM says 1.5 volts I had to bump it up to 1.85 volts (one little step at a time) before the system quit locking up. Same with the CPU, I had to bump it up a little. I didn't add my second Vid card until the system was stable. I only have one HDD for now so I didn't have to worry about that, but if I were you I would get my system stable with all my RAM and the bare minimum of excess hardware. Once it is all going good THEN fiddle with your 6 other hard drives and raid and all the rest.

I may be (and most probably am) full of poop, but I had the same problems as you described, working, not working. Booting then not booting. I spent probably 30 hours on the phone to Vista support in 3 days, along with God knows how many hours with EVGA, WD, and Patriot. They all blamed the other guy yet none of them would offer a solution lol. When all else fails try what worked (so far) for me. LOL I'm still too scared to put my XtremeGamer sound card in after hearing and reading about all the problems Creative has had with Vista.......

oh one other thing. Have you checked your CPU temp immediately after you lock up. I have been told that a hot processor causes lock ups as well. (If anyone can confirm or dispute that i would be grateful.)

If none of that works tell me and I'll shut the hell up til I know more lol. It just seemed like your situation was similar to mine if I read it correctly.

 

[Bubba]

Steve, thanks for clearing that SATA II thing up for me. In some of the documentation I have seen on my MoBo it said SATA, some it said SATA II, and yet other places SATA 3.0 Gb/sec. I was as lost as a Christmas goose and the little time I had to research it left me no better. That was as good of an explanation as I have ever seen on a subject. Brief, informed, informing, with the history and origin of the name and confusion, and in simple terms that even a clueless newbie could understand it. Let me go give you some rep on that one (or whatever the "great post" thing is called.)

That is one reason this place is so good. If I read enough threads a lot of my questions get answered before I have a chance to ask them. Heck, I'm getting "questions" answered before I know enough to even know to ask them. Hopefully some of this stuff will stick to my tiny little mind.

EDIT: I was also curious about the jumper option on my Raptor (though relieved I didn't have to know before I installed it lol) and you covered that as well.

 

[sidewinder]

Steve, thanks for clearing that SATA II thing up for me. In some of the documentation I have seen on my MoBo it said SATA, some it said SATA II, and yet other places SATA 3.0 Gb/sec. I was as lost as a Christmas goose and the little time I had to research it left me no better. That was as good of an explanation as I have ever seen on a subject. Brief, informed, informing, with the history and origin of the name and confusion, and in simple terms that even a clueless newbie could understand it. Let me go give you some rep on that one (or whatever the "great post" thing is called.)

Bubba,

Steve did a "cut and paste", without credit, from here:

Serial ATA - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good old plagiarism at its finest....

And I still have no idea why he brought up the issue in the first place. The problem, if it were LBA related, would not be affected by the jumper setting on the drive since the motherboard in question (and your's) supports both SATA 1.5 Gbit/s and SATA 3.0 Gbit/s standards just fine.

S-

 

[Bubba]

Oh well, where ever he got it, I appreciate the knowledge lol. As the the rest, it's beyond my current skill level to comment on. One clear point though rings through all of our heads on this and that is that it is not the restore disk.

Oh and were you one of the ones who doesn't like Norton? May I ask why? I thought Symantec was supposed to be pretty good. I've used it in the past because we got it free from my wife's job, and I got it this time because by the time all the rebates were processed it was free again lol. I never really heard anything bad about it, but then again this is the first time I've really been on a website populated with so many computer whiz's (I say thay whiz part seriously, not sarcastically, you folks amaze me and make me jealous all at the same time), and I see many of you are quite negative about it.



I clicked this thread mainly because the Norton box came with the Norton Internet security package (2008) as well as with Partition Magic and Ghost. I really have no need for the PM but was waffling about putting the Ghost on. It seems to me like Vista has the same feature built into it. If it's not a thread hijack, I would be interested in your thoughts, as well of those from anyone else. LOL if it IS a thread hijack please PM me the answer.

Edit: And here's a "rep up" to you for the wiki catch lol.

 

[sidewinder]

Bubba,

I have no real distaste for Symantec products. That was someone else. For backup software, I much prefer Acronis TrueImage, but there are issues there as well.

Vista Ultimate does have some cool backup features, but the software is limited. I would not rely on what was built in if you want to be able to recover from a crash easily and quickly.

S-

 

[tomkat2006]

As it happened, I had to restore my PC again, this time with Acronis, and wouldnt you know it - it reported a corrupt backup halfway through. Im fed up with PCs :|
Last night ANOTHER (different) PC goes down, restore it with Ghost image - no probs. Can only assume its 64bit thats to blame.

 

[silver]

tomkat2006, sorry your having such problems.

For starters I avoid all products with the symantec lable and have for about 3 years.

Still living in the past JOEL, still you apparently believe in the adage ignorance is bliss.:D

 

[joel406]

tomkat2006, sorry your having such problems.

For starters I avoid all products with the symantec lable and have for about 3 years.

Still living in the past JOEL, still you apparently believe in the adage ignorance is bliss.:D

Not exactly sure what "your" problem is silver nor do I really care. But ignorance comes from a lack of experience. And I solve IT issues EVERY day. And removal and disposal of Norton garbage is a big part of it. It malfunctions regularly(more so then its updated) absorbes system resorces and slows computers to a crawl. Obviously your ignorance is more terminal then blissful.

Belive what you like. Norton sucks. And any "properly " trained tech removes it and educates their customers on which security software is the right software to use.

Norton aint it.

 

[silver]

You see I've had plenty of experience with so-called "techies" on the whole they are dinosaurs with extreme prejudice about their pet hates, they can't or won't update themselves, to the modern applications, that have moved on to better things.

Go on, be a devil and read the latest reviews from "techies" with an open mind, Norton is the bees knees now.

 

[SteveM]

sIDEWINDER

cut and paste....................hmmmm then why did you ask the question in the first place ? as you know the answer...............quote silvers comment "ignorance is bliss"

joel46

EXACTLY Symantec products are CRAP. and for the exact reasons you have explained.
Good comment.

 

[joel406]

Ok this is getting close. I am not looking to offend or argue with anyone about security software, or any other kind of software for that matter.

If Norton works for you, rock on!

But my livelyhood is system matinence and design. Noton has been a problem since 2002. I have even been called out by Dell to trouble shoot network configurations that they themselves setup, and could not get to work(what does that say about Dell and their feild techs) and I found the problem within 10 minutes. Norton! Upon removal of their products the networks began working as desined. And yes I check their configurations before removing it. Norton is dirty software. Badly coded and unreliable. They may be enjoying a resurgence in the AV comparatives, but I stick with consistent products like NOD32, Avira or Avast. And Nortons firewall has "never" rated as well as Comodos free offering.

And to clear a little of the air I used Norton myself from 1995 till 2002. Once the company changed hands and I saw what was happening I got out. I have watched Norton take a serious header over the last 5 years. Just about everything they released seem more of an act of desperation then trying to deliver a working product.

Symantec is dead as far as I'm concerned. Just 3 days ago I had to remove Norton internet securty 2007 from a elderly couples 2 year old emachine. It dosent sound like a big deal(more humorus really), But all these poor people did was email their kids, do online banking and follow the PGA. Norton malfuctioned and took their little emachine from the paultry 31 processes it should have been running to 186. Evolution was moving faster then their system. A scan with NOD32 found 20 infections.

Way to long story.

Moral...

Norton works for some, but not for most.

Dont use Norton, its to big a risk.

 

[silver]

sIDEWINDER

cut and paste....................hmmmm then why did you ask the question in the first place ? as you know the answer...............quote silvers comment "ignorance is bliss"

joel46

EXACTLY Symantec products are CRAP. and for the exact reasons you have explained.
Good comment.

Another one who hasn't used Norton for at least 3 years. why do like living in the past, open your mind theres a whole new world out there.

 

[silver]

Ok this is getting close. I am not looking to offend or argue with anyone about security software, or any other kind of software for that matter.

If Norton works for you, rock on!

But my livelyhood is system matinence and design. Noton has been a problem since 2002.

There I agree with you but only as far as 2007,
Thats were you go wrong, the inability to accept that the latest Nortons are improved out of all recognition.

And to clear a little of the air I used Norton myself from 1995 till 2002. Once the company changed hands and I saw what was happening I got out. I have watched Norton take a serious header over the last 5 years. Just about everything they released seem more of an act of desperation then trying to deliver a working product.

I've no doubt you did have, I had the same, I found the only good part was the A/V part, the suite was terrible, and for your information, when I decided to try Norton 360 suite it was because it got terrific writeups, many putting it forward as a best buy.
It was unrecognisable I was very surprised, with the problems I'd had before, what a revelation, they've definitely got their act together,

Norton malfuctioned and took their little emachine from the paultry 31 processes it should have been running to 186. Evolution was moving faster then their system. A scan with NOD32 found 20 infections.

And of course it never entered your head to uninstall and reinstall, to see if that cured it, and did you check their subscription was up to date, no too eager with your pet hate.

You're a bit slap-dash with your actions, some lack of thought on problem solving, you need to hone your computer skills, that means updating your mind.

Way to long story.

Moral...

Norton works for some, but not for most.

Modern Norton works for all, if its installed correctly.

Dont use Norton, its to big a risk.

The only risk is listening to duff information, from Joel.

 

[sidewinder]

cut and paste....................hmmmm then why did you ask the question in the first place ? as you know the answer...............quote silvers comment "ignorance is bliss"

SteveM,

You need to read posts a little bit closer. I never asked any question about the SATA standards. I wanted to know why you suggested the checking the jumper that controls the SATA /150 versus SATA /300 setting of a drive when that setting could have absolutely zero effect on the problem the OP was experiencing. You then tried to link that to BIOS LBA settings and listed some older motherboards with older chip sets that SATA /300 was an issue with. The only problem with either of those was that the OP listed his motherboard and it is clearly not one of the ones you listed. If it were an LBA setting issue, the drive jumper setting would have been irrelevant.

Having done tech support for 28 years, I abhor tech support that includes suggested steps to take that have no possible bearing on the problem experienced. You get that all the time when calling some tech support line and getting connected to India where you get run through a script that makes little to no sense.

The bottom line here is that suggesting to the OP to check his SATA drive jumper setting would have the same effect as me asking the OP to kiss his mouse. And I am going to call anyone out of that type of troubleshooting.

S-

P.S. In this case, you appear to be the one that must be blissful!

 

[SteveM]

cut and paste....................hmmmm then why did you ask the question in the first place ? as you know the answer...............quote silvers comment "ignorance is bliss"

SteveM,

You need to read posts a little bit closer. I never asked any question about the SATA standards. I wanted to know why you suggested the checking the jumper that controls the SATA /150 versus SATA /300 setting of a drive when that setting could have absolutely zero effect on the problem the OP was experiencing. You then tried to link that to BIOS LBA settings and listed some older motherboards with older chip sets that SATA /300 was an issue with. The only problem with either of those was that the OP listed his motherboard and it is clearly not one of the ones you listed. If it were an LBA setting issue, the drive jumper setting would have been irrelevant.

Having done tech support for 28 years, I abhor tech support that includes suggested steps to take that have no possible bearing on the problem experienced. You get that all the time when calling some tech support line and getting connected to India where you get run through a script that makes little to no sense.

The bottom line here is that suggesting to the OP to check his SATA drive jumper setting would have the same effect as me asking the OP to kiss his mouse. And I am going to call anyone out of that type of troubleshooting.

S-

P.S. In this case, you appear to be the one that must be blissful!

Ok ............ You have been in support for 28 years !
Well answer this guys question and fix his problem instead off waffaling about your capabilities and ignorance....

1. Boot sector causing problems in loading OS of another drive - Boot loader ?
2. Why does the "Satan" drive require a new MBR to be installed on another
system ?

3. Why is the user having problems at the start of loading the new OS on a
system with only 2 gig of RAM ?
4. What are the BSOD identifying ?
5. Backup software not compatable with OS - x64 ?
6. Backups have a corruption within - why ?

Come on service engineer answer his questions, don't reply to my incorrect or correct statements.





Waiting..................................................................

 

[sidewinder]

SteveM,

I don't use Norton Ghost (I prefer Acronis TrueImage) and I don't have an X64 system. So I am not in a position to offer useful ideas and suggestions on this problem other than the obvious (contact Symantec). When I don't know about something, I don't guess and make suggestions that are useless.

S-

 

[joel406]

Answers to questions 1~6

Symantec products are probably polluting system.

Suggested repair method. Remove all symantec products.

Result:

Working system.

 

[SteveM]

SteveM,

I don't use Norton Ghost (I prefer Acronis TrueImage) and I don't have an X64 system. So I am not in a position to offer useful ideas and suggestions on this problem other than the obvious (contact Symantec). When I don't know about something, I don't guess and make suggestions that are useless.

S-

I see why your user name is sidewinder.

Look on the ****ikng Symantec web site and you will see the same ****ing answer I found. It don't support x64

"System Requirements
Current Version: 2.0
Windows Vista™ Home Basic/Home Premium/Business/Ultimate*
Windows® XP with Service Pack 2 Home/XP Pro/XP Media Center Edition
"

And you have been in support for 28 years..............
What supporting ****ing bull****.