ShadowProtect vs FD-ISR Rescue

Nope, it absolutley has to be brunette, blondes ok to trial and for play, but a brunette for keepers

Sorry folks, couldn't resist.

 

Well, let them at least develop an ISR-software, that has multiiple archives without multiple snapshots.

 

Agree fully. This is why I said that is was possible to argue that the new cut down FD-ISR was "better" then the old. There are many who would find the old too confusing and be quite happy with 1 primary snapshot and one secondary and nothing else - no other confusing archives, options etc. If this is the case and the new emasculated product sells then the Software company will also be happy. It matters not a jot what any of us think or how we would improve the product - the market will decide. Again I can only repeat - it is foolish to talk about one product being better than another in isolation. Products are used by individuals and individuals will decide acoding to their individual needs. If enough individuals buy the product then it is a success - otherwise......

I should add that I am unable to decide on the Blonds v Brunettes issue. As the old toast goes " to our wives and sweat hearts. May they never meet"

 

Agree totally there is little point in asking the question unless it is accompanied by a detailed explanation of what you want it for, and what you expect it to do, without this any responder is substituting what he would use it for and this can be very misleading.

 

So, since
a) I own and semi-regularly use Ghost 2003 (as I have mentioned several times) and
b) I am primary looking for a solution that will allow me to install and test software (even reboot-requiring sw) and then 100% completely dependably remove it from my system if I desire and
c) I like the ability to selectively include or exclude specified folders from the image so I can test sw for days/weeks and still keep changes to data folders if I decide to remove the new sw

it seems like the recommendation of the people here would be FD-ISR Rescue?

or is someone recommending that I ditch Ghost and buy SP, or use both?

or am I wrong about your advice?

For my info, I know that probably RollbackRX is one of the two, but what would the other one be?

 

BackOnTrack 3 Suite
http://www.roxio.com/enu/products/backontrack/suite/overview.html
A combination of ISR, File Backup and Image Backup.
But I have to warn you, that this software has been tested by members of Wilders and they weren't satisfied. So use it at your own risk and test it very well, before you buy it.

 

I find this interesting.

My C: drive size is about 9GB, which is made up of the two FD-ISR snapshots. Would you guys say 57 minutes is too long for a full backup of this drive? (Not using SP, by the way.)

 

yes it seems to long to me. My drive with a bit more stuff on it took about 12 min with ATI. EDIT:Sorry Tony just read your post again and see it says full drive backup. I can't comment since I didnt backup the full drive.

Thanks,

Chris

 

That is way too long. I have 13GB and a full restore with ShadowProtect takes less than 4 minutes after booting. I am using Raptors in a striped array and an external USB harddisk.

When I used ATI, it took about 20 minutes.

 

Just done a test with SP. It took 27 minutes to do a full backup.

 

I use SPD2 : backup of 11.7gb in 4m29s.

 

I've come to that conclusion also considering this machine has 256MB RAM and the CPU runs at 1.72 GHz.

 

Definitely Tony,my figures are similar to Erik Albert's and Peter's also-SP should be very fast.

The memory especially could be letting you down,a good choice would be minimum 1000gb

 

I got this mixed up. The full backup with SP took less than 4 minutes within Windows and the Restore from the CD took 7 minutes 51 seconds.

Silver

 

That is VERY fast. I am using a new laptop - C2 Duo 2.4 ghz with 2 GB ram.
Internal drive is 7200 RPM and external USB drive is 7200 rpm as well. My C drive is about 46 GB and SP 3.1 takes 24 minutes. This is much faster than I experienced with ATI but nowhere near your results. What is your PC like?

 

Actually, if you look at the speeds and amount of data involved (480 Mbps for USB2.0 and your 46 GB of data), simply streaming that data at the theoretical maximum rate would take ~ 13.5 minutes. Add some overhead and that easily could reach 24 minutes.

Blue

 

what is your pc like ? this is the right question to ask and why unless systems, software, drives are all the same that comparisons can be deceptive.

using a core 2 duo 6300 2 gig Ram and 2 sata 2 hard drives (non RAID) I have just made a full image of 26.4 gig C: in 8 minutes 35 seconds using Acronis 10.
For whatever reason Acronis is actually faster for me than Shadow Protect. All that any of us can do is try the different solutions and then go with the one that is best on our systems. Adding more memory, using RAID, a better CPU will all help to a degree. My best tip for fast imaging is to keep C: a lean as possible. I only loaded my c: with junk just to see how it would cope.
Normally this particular pc would have C: of less than 3 gig making sub one minute Full imaging the norm.

 

No comparison.

ShadowProtect is an authentic backup imaging program whereas FD-ISR is an ISR.

However, i found FD-ISR invaluable and very complimentary in comparison.

FD-ISR archives have served exactly the same purpose as my imaging programs with the sole exception that my imaging apps fully restored the MBR whereas with FD-ISR, the time constraint involved wiping/formatting then reinstalling FD-ISR, then running Copy/Update from my saved archive storage drive back again to 100% fully bootable/working snapshots with everything perfectly intact.

They are different with different purposes, but they also have close similarities. The only difference is your image overwrites or re-stamps your system, MBR and all.