O&O image 5 incremental times??

i hope im doing something wrong here. why do incrementals take as long as a full image does? ive read through the help and faq's and dont see anything i missed but i may have. one the system im running it on now a full backup takes just over 7 minutes and the incremental took about 20-30seconds LONGER than the first full image did. i simply cant believe incrementals can take that long i have yet to ever use a program like that.

im hoping i missed something somewhere, is this normal with O&O image 5 for the incrementals to take this long?

i emailed them to ask but have not got a response yet in 2 full days.

thank you for any help

 

It seems they don't have a support team. Sent four mails to their support...no response.
They could keep their products

 

lol funny thing is the size of this incremental backup is maybe 300mb if even that big a couple times and yet it takes a whopping 8:20 to make this time little incremental. ridiculous imo. even doing a differential with sp is maybe 4min or so at most. and a incremental with macrium is just over 1minute.

still no responses at all from them either so as said above looks like they dont care a whole lot imo.

 

okay so they responded and said YES this is the way it works!! a incremental actually takes longer than a full image due to the fact it does a new full back up then compares the new and old and then makes the file of the differences giving you a small file but that is in fact the way o&o disk image works. bad way to do it if you ask me. why can so many others make small and FAST incrementals then...

 

Because the others use hashes instead of a byte for byte comparison of the changed blocks.

Byte for byte is far safer than using checksums and produces smaller differentials but is slower... ShadowProtect and IFW use the same technic when creating differentials

Panagiotis

 

im talking about incrementals not differentials though.

 

I just checked and it seems that there must be a bug.
O&O can do both hashes and byte per byte comparisons, but both take the same amount of time and this is very strange. Probably the hash comparison does not get activated even thow is selected by default.

Panagiotis

 

in their email they said this was normal so im not sure.