High won't be smaller than MAX, but the time increase from high to max is ridiculous. I tried max once several years ago and never used it again. High compression is the best: fast with a small sized image file. It's fine you don't want to test the PE based Acronis boot media. Look at the extensive comparative study of the performance of 20 imaging programs, either from within Windows or from boot media. You can see clearly that Acronis uses less time and produced smaller image files, especially when backup/restore from boot media (BTW, Raymond used the Linux boot media of Acronis). Details provided in the link below. Code: https://www.raymond.cc/blog/10-commercial-disk-imaging-software-features-and-backuprestore-speed-comparison/2/ I also attached a snapshot of my own image files from Acronis, IFL and Macrium V6 free. All made from boot media. Macrium took the longest while produced the larges file size.
Again, I am very surprised that your test indicated Acronis took longer time and produced larger image file. Puzzled me.
oliverjia, The first thing that maters for a backup utility is whether it can successfully restore a backup created under different situations. I am talking about a backup created from inside a running Windows here (I know you do not use it, but for most users that is the most important aspect of a backup utility). The speed of backup creation and back restoration are secondary, unless the difference in speed between two utilities is ridiculously different like 50% or more. In the link that you provided, when a full backup is initiated from within windows, the difference between Acronis (03:35) and Macrium (03:57) is negligible. This difference can occur due to various reasons, the compression used, the difference in the image container format or the small difference in the advanced options between the two utilities. For example, for Macrium, this time difference can easily be accounted by the option of "verify the file system before image creation" which is checked by default and which causes Macrium to run its version of Chkdsk before each backup is run. I do not know whether this was taken into account by the folks at Raymond or by you when your ran your tests. When you are creating a backup from a boot disk then again the difference in image creation can be due to a host of similar factors like the ones mentioned above, but most importantly the type of the boot media used, e.g. Linux vs WinPE. Then WinPE 3.0 vs 4.0 vs 5.0 etc. and also whether the drivers included in the media are generic drivers or match the hardware of the system under test. So unless the difference between the backup speed of two imaging utilities is ridiculously long like 6 minutes vs 12 minutes, then it becomes mostly irrelevant in comparison. I have nothing against Acronis, but it has let me down multiple times when restoring an image created from within Windows, which is far more important to me then a minute or two of extra time or a 300 to 400 mb of additional image size. So when someone asks my opinion about the best imaging software, I advise them to get a software that can restore successfully every time; a 100% success rate, regardless of whether the image was created from a boot media or from within a running Windows.
LOL. Each to his/her own I guess. I have been using Acronis ever since 2002, on at least 30 computers, for hundreds of backup/restore, and it never let me down a single time, backup or restore. Yeah I know there are plenty of Macrium Reflect fanboys in this forum, but facts are facts. There were tests in different scenarios in the Raymond test I linked, and they all pointed to what I said: imaging speed and image file size, Acronis won. While his test showed the complete opposite, which really puzzled me. I did not talk about restore reliability at that moment. Your argument is not relevant to the discussion I was having with MPSAN. OK, as you wish, now let's talk about restore reliability, which is also of ultimate importance. Maybe Acronis let you down for a few times, but: 1. from a logical point of view, how do you prove that these failure were solely because of Acronis? Maybe your HDD had a bad sector, maybe your OS had some glitches at the time of restore. Do you have a control? If you did not have image file that was made by other imaging apps for the same OS status, then you can not be sure it's Acronis' fault. If you made an image using MR or any other imaging app, that was made right before/after you made an image with Acronis, and you successfully restored your system with that app while Acronis failed you, then you can claim that Acronis failed you. Did you do that? I keep at images made at least two imaging apps of m freshly installed OS, as I showed in the attached picture in my last post. 2. from a statistical point of view, your experience counts nothing as compared to the huge user base of Acronis. If Acronis was so unreliable as you said, why WD and Seagate (and some SSD vendors) both choose Acronis as their OEM disk imaging software supplier? If Acronis is really so unreliable, then even if Acronis offers better discount, HDD/SSD vendors would still turn to other apps, because there are many disk imaging apps in the market. The reality is no, they still use Acronis after so many years. You may hear more people moaning about Acronis, that's because the user base is so huge that even 0.00001% of them complaining, you'll hear a lot of noise. Have you ever heard anyone complaining about Redo backup? about PING? No because there are so few people use them, so even the product is a total failure, the users will just move one. So more complaints does not mean a inferior product. So again, your argument is weak in front of facts and data. Yeah everyone has their own favorite imaging apps, but you still have to respect the fact. Reliable or unreliable, personal experience of an individual does not really matter. Not yours, not mine. Oh BTW, when both use high compression, and use PE 5.0 x64 boot media, Acronis is faster by ~50% on all 5 of my computers. If I remember correctly, Acronis always finishes within 2-4 min, and MR normally took 5-7min, when imaging my OS SSD to an internal HDD. Now, you continue your MR from within Windows, because it works for you better for your needs. I continue use Acronis boot USB to do cold imaging/restore, that's all I want. I don't want a resident imaging app in my OS.
I have encountered this type of "ridiculous" differences when creating images on my hardware. Example: IFW 4:47 min (19 GB), Macrium 11:44 min (21 GB). Nobody can guarantee that a software can restore successfully 100% of the time, no matter how many restores you have done. All you can do is to present anecdotal evidence: "For me, it has always restored well". A more practical advice would be: "For me, this software has failed x times. Don´t use it."
If Acronis works for you and has never let you down, then by all means use it. As I have already mentioned that I have nothing against Acronis, just some bad personal experiences. Acronis always restored fine for me when I used it to create a cold image of my system, it was during hot imaging that it failed for me on a consistent basis. Cold imaging is relatively easy as the disk and all programs are in a consistent state. Perhaps this is why Acronis has never failed you either. Also, I knew it was Acronis at fault because when I switched to Paragon on the same system, it managed to restore my system fine on a consistent basis. The point about Acronis been selected by WD and Seagate, has more to do with business agreements than a reflection on the product's reliability. Case in point: Nero Burning Rom has been going down hill since 2007, but even then it was usually included free with all the DVD/CD Roms on the market. Same for Cyberlink PowerDVD, it had gone down the drain between 2008-2012, but still managed to be included with all DVD/CD roms etc. The user base of Acronis is mostly due to the fact that it is included free with WD and Seagate Hard drives, and not because people go out of their way to choose it. By the way, I am not a Macrium fanboy. I only use Macrium because it has not let me down as of yet. If it does, then I can assure you that I will switch. Plus, I can understand that during cold imaging the backup speed is very important, as you cannot use your PC and want the backup to finish as soon as possible. During hot imaging, the software works seamlessly in the background and most of the time you are not even aware that an image has been created. Thus, backup speed during live backups is irrelevant.
Well I can't speak for that as I have never used IFW. Did you ever determine why Macrium took so long to create the image? I do have experience with Paragon software where using the same software with the same engine and the same settings, the time to complete a backup image took longer, almost (50% longer), with the old .pbf container, then when the container format was changed to the newer pVHD. So, the container format has a lot to do in the speed of image creation. I agree. You determine the reliability of a software either by doing your own tests or by talking to the current/previous users of the software. For example, I have used Paragon for 2 years and Macrium since 2009 and both have not failed me even once. I have done countless restores with both.
I just wanted to clarify that I am not a Reflect "fanboy"! In fact I have owned Acronis almost from the beginning. However, I just started using Reflect Free v6 on my new system as I no longer like the overhead in INSTALLED TI 2014 and 2015. I still use TI on my wife's system, and even the rescue media to create an image once in a while on my new system, but for me Reflect Free v6 does all I need it to do and I have done restores. To be fair, TI has done restores on my wife's system as well. Only once, did a TI verify NOT work.
The best page imaging program is certainly not Acronis by far, many IT PRO`s will agree with this. Was good back in the days, to many corrupted images and other issues. The program is know not to be stable. So in business i had to look at a reliable safe option. I backup and restore machines on a regular basis My options: 1.Easeus, Macrium, Paragon 2.Farstone 3.Terabyte software
One thing no one ever mentions is that Macrium will not detect or let the user image (micro) SD cards, usb sticks (removable) and other things. Surely I'm not the only one who images other things than a hard drive.
Recently i had very bad experience with Acronis 2015 1. It prevented Windows from shutting down (no backup running at this time). 2. Failed to cleanup old backups according to configured cleanup schedule (and support say it is "known problem"). After disc became full backup started after each boot and then GUI stopped to response. 3. Finally it failed to access my RAID volume with backup files when run from created restore DVD. It worth mentioning that Easeus, Macrium and TM working with my RAID just fine. Isn't it bad enough to clearly remove it from list of good imaging programs?
Or perhaps use USB Image Tool (use device mode for bootable usb drives) http://www.alexpage.de/usb-image-tool/
Why use other tools? Macruim Reflect should be doing this as standard like other tools (Symantec Ghost, Clonezilla, True Image, Drive Snapshot, Image for Windows etc)........Seriously, people sing the praises of a tool that doesn't do what I consider to be the absolute basic of imaging. I can plug in my satnav and those five mentioned pieces of software (and others) will allow me to create an image of my satnav but Macrium Reflect will not even detect it unless its classed as a fixed drive.
I did not know that. Thanks for letting me know. I agree this should be addressed by Macrium. Up till now I did not have a need to backup a usb flash drive, but I would like to have the ability to do so if I ever felt the need. One other thing that Macrium does not do currently, and is important for some home users but definitely professional users, is the ability to directly write your images to VHD or VMDK format. Most of Macrium's competitors like Paragon have had this ability for some years. Paragon even has this available in their free version of B&R 14. If you backup your system to a VHD container, then with a few mouse clicks from within Windows, you can configure it as your secondary bootable OS and use the image as your daily driver.
Not totally sure, but I think USB Image Tool creates images in a sector-by-sector mode (including all sectors). That is, the size of an image of a 16 GB UFD is 16 GB, no matter how much space is actually used in it. Which image programs can backup and restore UFDs has been discussed in the past in these forums.
Robin, actaully USB Image tool by Alex could do data based imaging. However it's not that clever when selecting which sector are being used. Some of the deleted files could still be considered by it to be "used sector" therefore there sectors will also be imaged. So you see the image is normally much larger than the actual data on the USB. There is also Passmark ImageUSB, another tool to image bootable USB stick. Now this one can only do sector by sector backup, which results in an image file with huge size.
Paragon Backup and Recovery 14 Free Edition can backup and restore a USB flash drive with intelligent sector copy. It can also do an incremental image from a full backup. Since its free, and backed by a reliable imaging company, so I would highly recommend it for backing up flash drives. I am not sure whether it does SD cards, as I do not have one in my current system, so I could not test it. When using Paragon B&R 14, backup to the new default imaging container pVHD (using backup to VD button), it is lot faster and incremental backup is only available if pVHD is selected as the imaging container.
Can any two of the apps discussed in this thread coexist on the same drive at the same time without causing deterious effects to one another?
Yes. I have Macrium Reflect v6, IFW, and AOMEI on and the all coexist fine. Obviously you wouldn't want to run two at the same time.
I currently have Macrium and Paragon B&R 14 free installed together, without causing any problems. Most of the software in this thread should be able to coexist together, just don't run or schedule them to run together. I do believe I remember reading somewhere that Acronis True Image and ShadowProtect conflict with each other. Since I do not use either therefore I can not confirm it, so be careful about those two on the same system together.
Have a look at the poll and you will see that Macrium is most often ticked. From personal experience of years of using the free version available here: http://www.macrium.com/reflectfree.aspx I can only really tell you do yourself and your system a big big favour and use Macrium full stop. Since I started using Macrium I have come to forgotten how the Windows install and setup windows even look. Used to at least install Windows fresh once a month or more if the system got messed up. Now I have multiple images of stages of the system and can know that if I for example don't like a software that I installed for testing purposes, I can simply go back one image and bang, no trace whatsoever on the C:\ partition or registry or anywhere else. Once you reached a stage of the OS that you like make sure to save that image to an external storage as well so that you don't loose it in case your D:\ or other partitions get deleted by accident or something like that. TLDR Use Macrium Reflect edit: Not read through the discussion, sorry, overflew a couple of posts and want to add that I also did try Acronis a few times and either I must have done something wrong or at the time (this was years ago) Acronis was not that stable, well basically I lost a couple of OS images and once I managed to get the image done I had errors when trying to restore it, leading to me fetching the Windows install disk.. after I discovered Macrium I could sleep tight again at night. Not a super pro/technical user here and just like to chip in really. I also find it easy to use and even people that have no clue about computers can follow the easy instructions I give them to image and restore their OS at regular times to be on the safe side.
Its inability to image anything other than a bloody fixed harddrive really says it all, which if only the freeware version did that then fair play to them. However they're charging £47.95 for the home addition that doesn't even do the most simplistic thing possible and people say nothing. People said Drive Snapshot was expensive (at £30.27) but at least that (and everything other than Reflect) does exactly what you'd expect for drive imaging software.....Like if Windows can see it then Id expect the drive imaging software to be able to image it.
Gaddster, Macrium and a few other apps were mentioned here.... https://www.wilderssecurity.com/threads/ufds-and-imaging-apps.370382/#post-2428205
