In support of TI 2009

I am writing this in support of TI 2009 as I really think that Acronis are back at the top of their game with this latest version and build.

I have installed it on all three of my computers which are a three year old Laptop a six year old P4 and a one year old Quadcore – all running Vista.

TI 2009 installs and works flawlessly on all three machines, I can do a series of full backups without consolidation and on a FIFO basis.

I took a gamble on my backup PC last night and installed XP again along with all the settings and software as per factory shipment six years ago. Once finished I then installed TI 2009 and performed a restore of my latest Vista image. Twenty seven minutes later my familiar Vista desktop was up and running every icon back in the right place and all programmes functioning.

This really is a backup solution that one can trust and have total confidence in – well done Acronis.

 

Sounds encouraging .

Do you use an internal or external drive to store your backup images?
Have you used the Secure Zone for your images?
Do you start your backups manually or are they run automatically using the Acronis scheduler?
Do you have to set a limit to the number of images to be stored or does FIFO kick in when space runs out?
Do you validate your images at time of creation or as a seperate exercise to avoid multiple validations?

Apologies for all the questions but I may be interested in upgrading to V2009 when I move to new hardware, but it essential for me that imaging can be run automatically to a seperate internal drive with no user input necessary. Currently Versions 8,9 and 10 do this to perfection.

Incidentally I do not understand your reinstall of Xp and TI prior to restoring Vista. I would have thought that a boot with the TI rescue CD and a restore of your latest Vista image would have been sufficent.

Xpilot

 

You probably didn't try to restore a drive where you have more than one hdisk on your machine that are the same size and model -- in which case you can't tell which is which when you try to restore borm the BootCD unless you've previously written down the long ID number somewhere. Even volume labels won't help. If that's the top of their game, Acronis plays one very sad game even when it's on top. Either the programmers never thought to try the program on a PC with two of the same model hdisk or the marketing folks said, fuggettabowit, it's good enough to rush to market.


"I am writing this in support of TI 2009 as I really think that Acronis are back at the top of their game with this latest version and build."

 

Yes, I wondered about that myself.

 

I don't think there's any answer to that question w/ ATI or Ghost. Been there, done that w/ Ghost (a very fine and mature program), but they simply display drive letters, as does ATI. (Can't comment on Ghost #14 [the latest], since I didn't think of evaluating that feature.) Ideally, they mite designate the drives by their position in the chain (ie. primary master. secondary slave, etc), but it isn't nec for 98%+ of all PCs out there, which only have single hdrive.

Submit this as a feature req....:-- MR --:

 

I simply wanted to put obstacles in the way and try to trip it up. I never use rescue CD I restored it straight from the Desktop. If I use DVD media to launch TI then I use WinPE. However, I am finding the latest version so fast and reliable that I just usually launch from Desktop.

One strange thing did occur though which left me puzzled - usually when I do a restore Acronis re-boots once you click the proceed icon and then runs from the Acronis Loader. However, on this occasion the restore simply carried on as if I was just doing a backup - I could still see the XP Desktop all the way through until re-boot. First time that's ever happened. I had to admit I was a bit nervous as the restore was talking place given the lack of Acronis Loader.

 

Both

No - I don't like SZ

Automatically using Acronis scheduler

I set mine to three so when it starts the fourth it automatically deletes the first one in time.

This may sound foolish but I no longer bother validating them - I have found TI 2009 to be so reliable I take the risk. I do minimise this risk somewhat as I back up to two different drives on different days so the chances of both images being corrupt are not that great, plus as I say you have to go off your own individual experience regarding reliability.

 

Both my Desktops have twin internal drives and both are identical - on the oldest machine they are 250 gig Hitachi Deskstars and on the Quad HP 500 gig WD Blue but hey why use BootCD when you can use WinPE.

I'm not one of those people who says "well it doesn't do exactly what I want so I am going to criticise it and not use it" I think to myself "can I tweak it somehow and make it do exactly what I want it to". Hell life isn't Utopia so why expect software to be? I try to make the best of things - that's they way I was brought up.

 

AFAIK, TI only needs to load the Linux recovery environment off the HD when it is restoring the active, typically C, partition since Windows can't be running for this process. If your restore doesn't restore C, then it will just stay in Windows. Sounds like you restored C and perhaps some others. The non-active partitions were restored (leaving you in Windows) and then the active partition was restored (why the PC rebooted).

 

My Vista PC has two Hitachi internal drives and a Seagate external drive. I use my second internal drive and the external drive solely for storing backups. I haven't experienced any problems with ATI v2009 storing or restoring images on either drive.

For a variety of reasons, I won't use Secure Zone.

After each month's Windows updates have been installed, I create a couple manual backups. I have three weekly backups automatically scheduled for storage on the drives mentioned previously. I haven't had any problems using v2009's scheduler although I encourage you to use the latest build (9709).

I only use full backup images and have ATI configured to overwrite existing backups.

Since I've read so many reports of ATI "validated" images failing, I don't bother with the validation feature. The only certain method of knowing an image can be restored is to actually perform a restoration with it. To date, all of my restorations have been successful.

 

Have you had any problems right after doing one of those monthly Windows updates?

 

You are not alone with this opinion but I disagree with ignoring the fact that images don't validate. Rather than read the "image corrupt" message literally read it as "TI can't read the archive file and create all the checksums properly". If this can't be done, then you are playing with fire because it is exactly what has to be done when the image is restored. The fly in the ointment is the fact that people only do a Windows validate and never do a validate with the TI linux-based rescue CD and this is where most of the problems that aren't an actual PC hardware issue exist. Once you confirm the TI Linux environment works on you system then Windows validations are fine. No argument about doing a test restore with each build or a change to the PC hardware but once the environment is shown to work it should keep working.

I do validations all the time. Not because I wonder if TI did a proper job but because I see it as a very quick test of RAM, the disk-subsystem and the area of the disk the archive was written on.

 

The only minor problem I ever experienced with an update Microsoft labeled "important" was one a couple months ago with their NET Framework 3.5 update. After installing that, I couldn't update my existing FD-ISR snapshots without a few errors. Creating entirely new snapshots solved the problem.

The only serious problem I ever experienced with a Microsoft (and HP) update was one MS recommended (and HP deemed "critical") for my PC's Conexant modem driver. Installing that update invariably caused my PC to crash. HP replaced the modem under warranty but the problem continued if I installed the update. Different tech reps at HP Support gave contrary opinions: one said the update was essential, another said to ignore it. I wound up disabling HP's update service to stop being told every week to download a "critical" update which always caused BSODs.

I ensure I keep backup images/FD-ISR snapshots going far enough back in time to hopefully recover from any problems which might be caused by a bad Windows update.

 

I never wrote anything about images not validating. My point was that numerous Wilders members have stated they were unable to restore images which ATI reported were 100% validated. If there's a genuine problem with "validated" images not restoring then it gives me no confidence in the reliability of ATI's validation process.

So long as ATI reliably creates and restores images on my PCs, I'm satisfied. Based on my experiences and reports from other users, I think avoiding Secure Zone (which serves no purpose for me since I store backups on other drives) and sticking to only full images reduces the possibility of problems with ATI.

 

I have done enough restores with TI over the years to know how they work. I don't have my drives partitioned - on single volume. The image was on the slave drive and I was restoring my C drive image to - C drive. That is why I posted that this was a very strange occurrence as the Acronis Loader should have kicked in. However, it didn't kick in at the start of restore or at any point through it and I initiated the reboot after I got the message "restore successfully completed" the PC made no attempt to reboot??