ShadowProtect vs FD-ISR Rescue

which is why I think it is dangerous to say that one program "Is" faster than another. I have had terrible restore times from one external USB to another pc. change the external and the problem was solved. Even cables can make a difference.

never tested. I don't make incrementals or dif. I can see that those who keep
OS/programs and data on one drive or partition might need to image more often but I can restore C: at any time without messing up my data. I make full images of data every day and believe that I could live with any loss of data.

 

Peter are you talking about Acronis here or SP ?
I'm only talking about Acronis and in the machine in question I have drive A with
OS and programs and drive B with data --- restore made from B to A much faster if A has only one partition than if several - don't know why but it does involve complete deletion of A and the restore includes MBR

 

Its my experience now on 5 rigs with different configurations vary from mediocre to highend that imagingtimes are cut half as compared with ATI that i used before,so there is some truth in it that SP is at least a fast imaging solution !!

 

What you are saying is true if the variables are large or extreme figures are quoted .Obviously you try to keep the conditions the same-who would test any other way?
If you use apps on the same computer over a period of time,you know when these apps are behaving normally and what the normal figures should be.
These of course are the figures used,not the extreme ones.
I used ATI since version 6,but didnt quote a restore time of 2 hours,which would have been abnormal,nor would I have compared using USB cable which is slower and unreliable for Ti-to direct to another disk

You will have to take my word for it,whether you use incrementals or not,that SP is faster.
We have to take all the speeds into consideration,surely.
Even if data is kept separately,there are all sorts of situations where more frequent backups are useful or necessary.

In any case you still have to back up your data one way or the other.

 

LOL - I can see now why we differ.

(1) I don't have to take your word for anything nor do you have to take my word. I have tested, albeit briefly, both programs on the same system and Acronis is faster at making the images I want and faster at restoring the images I want.
(2) "We have to take all speeds into consideration surely" No we don't. This is my point precisely. There are many bits of Acronis that just don't work - If I don't use those bits then why should I worry ? Same here re incrementals and differentials - If I don't use them I'm not interested.
(3) My point - I don't think talking in absolutes gets us very far. Talk of a program in isolation to decide which is fastest or best is meaningless to me.
Each program works on a hardware configuration with a user who operates in a certain way - that is all that matters - that the user gets the best total arrangement.


working the way that I do, with the number of machines that I operate, and using other programs my own investigations have shown me that there would be cost but no benefit in my buying copies of SP. Others may well find that with their hardware etc that SP is faster for them in the way that they operate - which is fine - but why would I want to buy a program which is actually slower for me ?

 

Longview

To end this as far as I am concerned,as obviously we wont agree,the problem is that you are talking about your own particular situation only, which isnt typical or meaningful,except to you.

I am saying that if both SP and ATI were properly tested, independently and using all functions,including the standard recovery disks,SP would be faster overall.

Of course other factors like reliability could be included,but here we are only talking about overall speed .

You just cant decide to leave out certain functions because you dont use them-thats not accurate at all.

Maybe TI is more suitable for your usage,thats all.

 

Pete-I am quoting conservatively,so as not to appear to exaggerate.

 

As far as Acronis is concerned that's all I have ever claimed.

I'm sorry that I am unable to explain why looking at "the particular situation only" makes more sense than some sort of general comparison. from your point of view my looking at the particular is a mistake. From my point of view it is the only rational way to evaluate any product. why should I care about a product having features I don't use ?

The idea of "overall" is false and meaningless to the end user. What matters to the end user is how well the particular parts work in their particular situation. To evaluate any product on an "Overall Basis" is the way most comparisons are made I agree - but a methodology which adds points for one aspect (speed) with another (reliability) and eventually declares a winner is really not the way to go.

If a user wants continuous updates then SP is the way to go. If continuous updates are not needed then another program may be better.

It is the idea that there is an Objective Winner, a better product in isolation that I'm objecting to - the idea makes no sense to me at all.

Just to bring in FD-ISR Rescue to get this back OT - I think it would be very easy to argue that for some users the new Rescue version will actually be better than the old original

 

In this debate it seems to me that it will end up in something like " i like blonds most because they are BETTER,no no brunettes is the way to go because they are BETTER. Its ridiculous the way it evolved in the YES/NO game,come on man its just software !

 

FDISR Rescue is obvious less than the complete FDISR.
If HDS would have kept the archives in FDISR Rescue and without the multiple snapshots and without the freeze function, I would consider to use FDISR Rescue, but HDS removed too much.

The only advantage of FDISR Rescue is that it can handle reboot-softwares, not many boot-to-restore softwares can handle this : ShadowUser and maybe ShadowDefender in the future.

The main problem with Returnil,... is, that you have to turn OFF the frozen mode to install reboot-softwares :
1. If something goes terrible wrong during reboot, you need IB to restore an image.
2. If nothing goes wrong during reboot and you don't like the software, you need IB also to restore an image.
I can do this with Add/Remove or a specialized uninstaller also, but that is not the same and alot more work too, because I have to search my registry to remove the rest. I ditch new softwares alot more than keeping them.

 

Original poster here. After reading the posts here and other further reading elsewhere, I have come to a couple of tentative conclusions:

1)ShadowProtect is more similar to Ghost 2003 (which I own and utilize semi-periodically) than it is to FD-ISR Rescue, but ShadowProtect has more options and can image-up from Windows (and might be 2x or 3x faster).

2)ShadowUser is more like FD-ISR Rescue, but FD-ISR Rescue is $30 cheaper and has the venerable FD-ISR Wkstn's guts.

I think I'm leaning toward buying FD-ISR Rescue. Also I think with FD-ISR Rescue I can exempt my data folders from being part of FD-ISR Rescue's backup up and restore. So I could try a software for days or weeks and then if I want to I can restore to the pre-software-install image and, at the same time, also keep the changes that were made to my data files during those days/weeks. Of course, I guess this could also be accomplished by restructuring things so that my data files are on another partition.

What do you guys think?

 

I think if it seems it would work for you than you have made the right choice. Please use most of the trial period before purchase. This way you are absolutely sure it works on your system, and it works the way you want it to. It would be nice as well if you could let us know in the future how it worked out for you.

Thanks,

Chris

 

You know all too well Eric that i agree this HDS version of what used to be FD-ISR is now but only a very vague shadow of it's former self. I don't care if HDS ends up throwing their new acquisition and it's code straight into the dumper now, because that probably will be doing users a better favor then what they've done to what was a former, very unique WORLD-CLASS windows system recovery invention.

All that matters anymore now is that thanks to many of the membership here and along with their many intellectual discussions and feedback shared in exchanges, that my RAXCO copy of the original FD-ISR will stand the test of time.

Like Pete once said, or was it Eric, this program is paid for itself many times over and whats even more legendary IMO, it still continues to PROVE worthy to this very day and times to come.

 

OMG...more HDS bashing and more talk about a product that no longer is available for purchase. I'll see my way out of this thread now.

Thanks,

Chris

 

Thats right chris. You could use a cup of coffee to swallow what you consider so-called bashing.

Always relying on so selective choice of words bordering on yet again on some inflamatory suggestion is right in keeping with your absolute joy over the demise of a product that some just can't seem to swallow even after it has proven it's capacity easily surpassed past obsolete historical 20 century intelligence and logic in one swift swoop.

 

Hi, are these statements true?

1)ShadowProtect is more similar to Ghost 2003 than it is to FD-ISR Rescue, but ShadowProtect has more options and can image-up from Windows (and might be 2x or 3x faster).

2)ShadowUser has the same purpose as FD-ISR Rescue, but FD-ISR Rescue is $30 cheaper and has the venerable FD-ISR Wkstn's guts.

Thanks.

 

(1) Yes,approx .lets not get into another pointless speed argument!!

(2)ShadowUser creates a virtual layer ,whereas Rescue takes an actual image-nothing virtual about it.Probably an app. like free Returnil woud have similar functions to SU.

Can I suggest the following -Try Shadow Protect and try Rescue-you actually could buy both,as Rescue isnt meant to carry out the functions of SP and they could complement each other nicely.

If you can only buy one-then SP is the way to go.

edit-the way its going around in meaningless circles-you really should decide yourself! Now is the time for two trials!

 

The reason these discussions go round in circles is because people will keep saying "XYZ is the way to go" without sufficient knowledge of what the end user really wants.

I agree with you completely that "you really should decide yourself..... time for 2 trials" which partly explains the inappropriateness of the "XYZ is the way to go" approach.

 

HE HE see my previous post !!

 

Hairy Coo is right. If you can buy only one : you buy Image Backup/Restore first, because that is a MUST HAVE. ShadowProtect or Ghost is good as long it works on YOUR computer. I would start with one of them before you begin with ISR.
Test the backup and above all the restore and compare the times.

ShadowUser is worth to try, I think it has a bit old-fashioned GUI.

 

There are always users, who want a simple boot-to-restore solution and there are always users, who want MORE than a simple boot-to-restore solution, these users want a total ISR-solution without much usage of Image Backup/Restore.
It's up to the developers to satisfy both groups of users and not just one group.

It worries me a bit that the simple boot-to-restore solutions (I count 7) seem to become the STANDARD for ISR-softwares, while multiple snapshot ISR-softwares (I count 2) are rather an exception. (FDISR is dead and doesn't count anymore)

 

I would doubt the average user has a great deal of use, or even need, for multiple snapshot software and as such the number you quote would reflect need. In fact, I'd say it is actually on the high side from a multiple snapshot perspective. It is quite understandable that the software developer will cater to the majority rather than the minority, that's just good business sense, much as I find this a disappointment since on this one I am in the minority