Acronis True Image 2009 Users Report!!!

[NBK]

Hi

I need some software to back-up my Windows XP SATA disc to another SATA disc. Is this Acronis TI 2009 any good?

Thanks
NBK

[PeterT]

I do not have TI 2009, but I do have the previous version (v11 Home). I do not install it in Windows. I just boot from the CD and run it that way. It works fine.

[swannema]

My advise: forget it.
I used to like Acronis quiet a lot, but too me it looks like they are spending more money on advertising than developing their software. The last straw for me was, that TI can no longer back up modern Linux partitions that do have an Inode setting of 256 and no longer 128. The answer to Linux people from Acronis: It's a problem of the Linux community and not ours, but they still claim ext3 compatibility.

Take a look at Terabyte's offers for imaging.
TeraByte Unlimited :: Boot Manager :: Partition Manager :: Drive Image :: Disk Copy :: Drive Wipe :: Hard Drive Utilities

It's faster and cheaper and so far has worked just fine for me.

[Baud]

As far as I can see, you're not concerned with Linux; so go ahead, it's worth the while.

[NBK]

Thanks for your responses,

I went ahead and ordered Acronis TI 2009. Wish me luck!!!


NBK

[rjs735]

Anyone who has PC and doesn't have Acronis or a like product will be using a lot of time spinning wheels when the time comes for any kind of recovery.

I had put off buying it but I finally broke down and got V11. Since I had it I have had the chance to clone laptop disks one just as a replacement from an 80gb to a 320gb. The second was almost the same going from a 20gb to a 100gb. I had created a test system XP on the 20gb till I got the system straightened out and then bought a 100gb.

Both times it took about 45 min from start to finish to clone the drives. ( new drive USB connceted) and then swap HDS.


I highly recommend Acronis.

[rjs735]

I reccomended Acronis TI home 2009 to one of my clients> he bought it. Took a full system BKup and ran into a problem that he thought a system retore would fix. So he did a full system restore from the backup he took . He made it on an USB external HD.

The restore ran fine did not fix his problem with a messed up favorites that was messed up after he took the backup. ALso now his explore favorites ( not IE favorites) links don't work and are totally gone. His user links in IE on MSn are gone and can't even add them back. Downloading updates for Vista doesn't work. downloaded updates for quickbooks download ok but the install process fails with not win32 program.

Anyone else have a similar experience if not beware. We are trying to contact Acronis support whic is not easy. Std is email and if you want phone it's extra cost.

So I am gettting a lot of heat and I am not very happy with Acronis.

[zapionics<alt>]

Originally Posted by rjs735

...Anyone else have a similar experience if not beware. We are trying to contact Acronis support whic is not easy. Std is email and if you want phone it's extra cost.

So I am gettting a lot of heat and I am not very happy with Acronis.

I dont think I understood the exact problems your customer has encountered... you mean you cannot install programs on that machine now? And what are "user links in EI on MSn"?

[rjs735]

It appears as if any downloaded update will not install because of the win32 error. Vista updates will not download.
The MSN issues is that you cannot create a user profile customized with you viewing selections like stock market. Like sports results.

Basically the issue revolves around the integral tie of IE7 and Vista Business. The MSN issue is not an issue under Firefox but everything else is the same.

As a result of posting this I found the post created by Ctal and found the Wilders security forum which has Acronis tech support posting responses to Acronis user issues. What convoluted support but at least gets some answers.

[chuckbam]

I did a restore with Acronis TI home 2009 and it worked very well.

[JBNimble]

I am using Acronis True Image. Never had a problem.

But I ALWAYS clone to another drive (sometimes the second in the box, other times to an external drive via USB).

I NEVER trust an image from any software. Yes, I know it frequently works, but 60% or 90% is not good enough.

[chuckbam]

Originally Posted by JBNimble

I am using Acronis True Image. Never had a problem.

But I ALWAYS clone to another drive (sometimes the second in the box, other times to an external drive via USB).

I NEVER trust an image from any software. Yes, I know it frequently works, but 60% or 90% is not good enough.

If you clone to the same drive and the drive fails, that is no good

I have 4 drives in a RAID 0. So I clone every week and even have an off-site backup. I have a few directorys that I manually back-up several time a week.

[zapionics<alt>]

Originally Posted by JBNimble

...Yes, I know it frequently works, but 60% or 90% is not good enough.

I dont understand this; I've never heard of or seen statistics like that... if TI had a failure rate of 40% or even 10% I would be alarmed and would stop using it... are you just speaking figuratively? Or do you have some information about that?

I need to know as I depend on that program a lot...

[JBNimble]

Zappo,

I pulled those numbers out of a hat. All I really know about imaging is that lots of people complain that it fails when they need it. Based on those reports, failure seems to be higher than 10%, and verifying an image is a pain.

Cloning an entire drive to a separate drive has never failed for me. Moreover, I can verify the clone immediately, by connecting it as the primary drive -- switching the SATA cables (if the clone is in the same box).

If I used RAID, I'd only use the version (forget which) that is tolerant a drive failure.

For routine backup of my own work (which I keep on the second partition), I open a command window and use the DOS command
xcopy e: f:/e/c/h/r/k/s/v/d
This is an incremental backup. It will copy (from partition e to partition f) only those files which are not on f: at all, or are on f: with an older date/time. Partitions e: and f: are on two different physical drives.

Xcopy will NOT work for the c: partition in 2000 or XP, or presumably Vista.

[JimTram]

Wow - you had me nervous there for a moment. I have a different take on imaging. I use Acronis. I research and find out roughly how many users there are of the product. Then I go to their forum and do an extrapolation of the negativity of a sample and make my conclusions based on some reasonable analyses. This still means nothing if your one in a thousand that has a bad image. Validation in Acronis only ensures the image is intact. If you already have corrupted files/viruses - its of no help.

I too prefer the clone method as all it takes is a change in the drive order through the BIOS to get things up and running. The disadvantage is many people like myself use a second internal drive for data/images. In many cases its of a smaller capacity. Myself I have a 650G as primary, 320G as secondary size. Depending on primary drive size growth - this may become an issue.

With imaging there is approx. 30% compression.

Originally Posted by JBNimble

Zappo,

I pulled those numbers out of a hat. All I really know about imaging is that lots of people complain that it fails when they need it. Based on those reports, failure seems to be higher than 10%, and verifying an image is a pain.

Cloning an entire drive to a separate drive has never failed for me. Moreover, I can verify the clone immediately, by connecting it as the primary drive -- switching the SATA cables (if the clone is in the same box).

If I used RAID, I'd only use the version (forget which) that is tolerant a drive failure.

For routine backup of my own work (which I keep on the second partition), I open a command window and use the DOS command
xcopy e: f:/e/c/h/r/k/s/v/d
This is an incremental backup. It will copy (from partition e to partition f) only those files which are not on f: at all, or are on f: with an older date/time. Partitions e: and f: are on two different physical drives.

Xcopy will NOT work for the c: partition in 2000 or XP, or presumably Vista.