Symantec System Recovery 2013 SP2 Released!

Using Windows 7 Ult 32bits, I had no problem creating an ISO-File for a Boot-CD.
Strangely, copying it to a standard RW-CD, it won't boot.
Trying another RW-CD, it won't boot either.
Copying the file to a RW-DVD - success
Using the ISO directly with EasyBCD 2.2 works great.

This program is fast and does what I expect it to do.

 

I think it is not good for personal use.

 

It's intended for both consumer and business markets. the SSR2013R2 desktop edition is for consumers. This software is the successor for the previous Norton Ghost 15, which I think was developed based on the previous legendary Powerquest DriveImage software..

I tested it again on a HDD installation of Windows 8.1 system. It's the fastest and produced the smallest sized image file for the same OS(even when high compression is selected), as compared to Terabyte IFL and Acronis (both used medium compression). I would say it's really impressive. Speed + image size + reliability are all it matters for an imaging app.

I was very disappointed with the last version of SSR2013 (the SP1/SP2 versions) because they were slow and the image size was large on two of my computers. With the R2 version I think it's a good for personal use.

 

oliverjia,

I installed SSR 2013 R2 into a test Win7 partition on a SSD and imaged to a HD.

Imaging time for SSR was 138 seconds using Standard compression (my favourite) for an image size of 7.7 GB.

Imaging time for IFW was 61 seconds using Enhanced Speed - A compression (my favourite) for an image size of 7.3 GB.

Of interest. When I restored my old (months ago) image of the Win7 partition using the "Write Changed Sectors Only" option, 0.3 GB was written to the SSD.

You are correct. SSR is a descendant of PowerQuest Drive Image 7, one of the first hot imaging apps. Drive Image 2002 (Version 6) was a DOS app and easier to use than Ghost 2003.

 

Thanks for sharing your test results with us! Are you running ssr from within Windows?

It's a bit strange - I used enhanced size A for IFL, High compression for SSR, and high compression for Acronis. All apps were run from Win8.1 x64 PE based (for acronis and ssr) and Linux based (IFL) boot media. My system is a HDD.. The final image size for SSR is 13.0GB, acronis 13.2 GB and IFL 13.4GB. Time lasted: SSR: 3'50'', Acronis 4'10'' and IFL 4"30''. My OS is Windows 8.1 x64 on a HDD drive (WD 500GB blue).

There might be a difference if we run the app from Windows/from boot media..

 

I guess it's our different hardware/OS/Settings. I ran both imaging apps in Windows and you ran yours outside Windows. We used different compression settings. For a HD, I think your imaging times are excellent.

I never use Enhanced Size - A compression. Only Enhanced Speed - A compression.

 

With compression you have to balance image size with imaging time. High compression can make negligible difference to image size at the expense of a long imaging time. Some examples...

Compression..........Time..GiB

Nil_______________ 3:35 22.1
Enhanced Size -A__ 5:08 11.4
Enhanced Size -C_ 15:48 11.0
Enhanced Speed -A_ 2:11 13.6

 

Good point Brian.

I have two HDDs in my computer, the OS is on WD500GB blue, and the images were saved to the second HDD (a Samsung Spinpoint F3 1TB).
Since the time it takes is within 5 min so I can bear with it. My system is a 2nd gen i5-2500K with 8GB DDR3 RAM. Appears this setup is still pretty powerful.

 

oliverjia,

I've discovered why I couldn't install SSR 2013 R2 to multiple Win8.1 systems. SSR won't install if BIBM is installed. BIBM was uninstalled, SSR was installed and then BIBM was re-installed. I have a test partition now.

Strange, because SSR 2013 SP2 installed with BIBM present.

SSR will install in a Win7 system with BIBM installed.