HP Pavillion question

[redwudz]

I was lucky. When I bought my HP laptop, they had a free USB powered floppy drive thrown in with the package. It always shows up as drive A. I wish a USB flash drive would work that way. I've used it on several computers when the OS or a program demanded a floppy drive. I don't put floppy drives in any computers I build any more. If someone complains, I give them a USB flash drive.

I forgot newer laptops use SATA drives. I've been lucky with the desktop computers I've put together with SATA boot drives. So far I haven't had to use a floppy to set up the boot drive and install the OS.

I think I mentioned before that companies like HP probably get a discount on the cost of the OS to install a crippled version. Also the crapware manufacturers pay to put their stuff in there. Probably costs HP almost nothing for the OS.

But it sounds like you got it all working.

[ntscuser]

There's an extra complication. If you restore an image of Windows taken from another PC, you normally have to do a "repair install" which HP's OEM version does not support. If you borrow an install disc from a friend to do the repair - which I'm told is perfectly legal - it has to be the exact same version of Windows ie: WinXP Home SP2 or whatever before it will be recognised.

I also found the hard way that XP's "files and settings transfer wizard" will not function unless both PC's use exactly the same version update of Windows, and that includes any auto-updates which may have been downloaded from MS in the meantime.

[AlecWest]

There's an extra complication. If you restore an image of Windows taken from another PC, you normally have to do a "repair install" which HP's OEM version does not support. If you borrow an install disc from a friend to do the repair - which I'm told is perfectly legal - it has to be the exact same version of Windows ie: WinXP Home SP2 or whatever before it will be recognised.

I also found the hard way that XP's "files and settings transfer wizard" will not function unless both PC's use exactly the same version update of Windows, and that includes any auto-updates which may have been downloaded from MS in the meantime.

Exactly. That's why a user wanting to install a different OS must wipe everything out and start from scratch. It's a pisser ... but it's apparently the only thing that works.

P.S. I haven't tried Ghost yet but it's on my agenda. I have an older version of DriveImage, the precursor to Ghost from PowerQuest (before Norton bought them out). But, it doesn't support (sigh) DVDs. Imagine a zillion-CD backup of a modern-day large HD . However, I went online and found what has to be one of the LAST retail stores selling a new in-the-box Ghost V9.0 (V10.0 is out):

https://www.pronetcd.com/detail.asp?PRODUCT_ID=10281772

So, I ordered it. The reason I wanted V9.0 is because it was only $29.99 - whereas V10.0 is about twice as much, and only after a rebate. Both V9.0 and V10.0 come with a free copy of the 2003 Ghost version ... which, like DriveImage, is Win98SE friendly. In short, it's like getting two Ghosts for the price of one. I can install Ghost V9.0 on my laptop and in my desktop's XP partition ... and install Ghost 2003 on my desktop's Win98SE partition.

BTW, V10.0 came out in 2005 so it's already 2 years old. V9.0 came out a year earlier. And while one or both may be Vista-friendly, I don't think either one was designed with Vista in mind. I suspect a V11.0 is due (grin).

P.S. The retailer I got Ghost V9.0 from is also selling a bundle of Ghost V9.0 and Symantec Partition Magic V8.0 for only $64.99 ... in case anyone's interested:

https://www.pronetcd.com/detail.asp?PRODUCT_ID=10290984

[p_l]

The bummer about Partition Magic is that since Symantec bought it, it hasn't been updated, Symantec has no plans to do so and it doesn't work with Vista.

[AlecWest]

The bummer about Partition Magic is that since Symantec bought it, it hasn't been updated, Symantec has no plans to do so and it doesn't work with Vista.

That's no problem. Just don't upgrade to Vista . Makes me wonder, though, if the current Ghost will work with Vista ... and if Symantec has no plans to update it either. Hmm.

[BJ_M]

the anagram of Symantec is "MEAN CYST"

[p_l]

The current version of Ghost, or whatever Symantec is calling it these days, is supposed to be compatible with Vista, but perhaps less easily so with backups (GHO files) made with earlier versions. Read more here.

Ghost 2003 was the last version I used (pretty good) before switching to Acronis True Image version 8 (better), and now version 10 (even better).

[AlecWest]

Ghost 2003 was the last version I used (pretty good) before switching to Acronis True Image version 8 (better), and now version 10 (even better).

FWIW, I read a PC Magazine blurb where the reviewer ranked Ghost V10.0 and Acronis almost even, but gave a slight edge to Ghost. As long as the V9.0 I bought works in XP and its companion 2003 Ghost works in Win98SE, I'll be a doubly happy camper. But, it's nice to see that Symantec is getting some competition ... especially since they've not updated Ghost in 2 years.

[ntscuser]

We're drifting off-topic somewhat but I refuse to install Ghost (plus a lot of other Norton stuff) for the simple reason it requires Microsoft.net which has caused me many problems with my HP Pavilion in the past.

One positive aspect of owning an HP Pavilion is it has encouraged me to make regular backups since I never know when it is likely to need formatting again!

[AlecWest]

We're drifting off-topic somewhat but I refuse to install Ghost (plus a lot of other Norton stuff) for the simple reason it requires Microsoft.net which has caused me many problems with my HP Pavilion in the past.

One positive aspect of owning an HP Pavilion is it has encouraged me to make regular backups since I never know when it is likely to need formatting again!

I already had NetFramework installed because one of the video utilities I use requires it. Haven't had any issues surface yet.