How well does Acronis TI actually work?

I use System Restore rarely - although that said I ran it just half an hour back and it fixed a problem with folders hanging when I tried to open them: using Acronis there would, IMHO, be using a sledgehammer to crack a nut (and would take much, much longer). Still, each to his own!

I am happy to hear that Acronis works so well: I use it to back up a very, very highly personalised setup of MS Flight Simulator 2004; I don't think I could ever set it up again as I have it now from scratch, not after 2 years of tweaking and tinkering with add-ons! Good to know that my backups will almost certainly do what I want of them!

M.

 

Well unlike some I've had some problems with ATI, however they were due to my hardward (laptop, usb chip) and of course my stupidity. For me there was a very steep learning curve, but now that I'm over that, I appreciate the fact that you have 2 software programs in one. Imaging and backup.

As others have described mounting and restoring is a great fall back position if for some reason you can not restore your entire image.

The best thing about ATI is this forum and the people who are patient with newbies like me and walk you thru the difficulties. Often I will ask a question which I subsequently find out has been asked numerous times. Rarely does anyone rag on me.

As is the case with most software.......it ain't just the software its the support and this forum is just that. Acronis is slooooow, so when you gotta problem this is the place. If it were not for this forum I would have quit ATI long ago. That's not to say its not a great product, it was just that I knew so little and for me to have figured it out on my own would have been impossible. But that's a good thing cause out of the frustration and the posters here I've learnt a lot about computers and how it all works, not only backups and imaging.

Thats my 2 cents.

 

I have run TI since version 1.0 and have had great success with it. Occaisionally I have needed to do restores and they work perfectly.

More often than not I use "mount" as I keep all my work data on a distinct partition and have it on a scheduled daily backup. "Mount" makes it very easy to roll back to a given file from (say) last Tuesday.

F.

 

If you have an image that you want to be able to restore, but suspect it to be infected:
Use another Disk, preferably one that you can mount thru USB, and mount the partition there.

You want to mount it to a seperate drive if the image was of an active partition, so you can mount it as the active partion, for that disk without interfering with your running system.

I take an extra precaution, and preset the drive and partitions to not have a drive letter, but mounted in a folder (you need XP, 2000 or NT with an ntfs partition to mount like this).

I also use USB connection for these drives, so that I can make sure my system is up and running, when I start these drives.

When the mounted drive comes on line, I direct my virus scan to scan the drive and clean the viruses, before they have a chance to do or go anywhere.

After I have cleaned the system, and replaced any needed files, I re-image it, and it is ready to go.

I usually keep 3-4 partitions of 2-8 gb available, just for dropping images into, or for building systems, that I then make an image of.

For clients, I usually start with taking their drives out, sticking 'em on my usb connection, then run the virus scan on them, make an image(s) and then return their harddrives to their system. I have had drives handled this way have over 100 virused files removed.

 

May I interject a question here related to TI's worthines?

Ver 9 build 2,337 is my first version and the one I've remained with. I followed closely the progression to the current TI build. I use a BartPE(Reatogo) CD with TI-9 plugin (also have another CD with TI-eight plugin) and so far as I can tell both work flawlessly. My needs are simple. I periodically do a full drive backup image and store on secondary HDD and on DVD. I like the performance of build 2,337 and haven't been persuaded to budge from it. In my context - is there any good reason to move to current build (I could care less about burn-direct-to-DVD feature)? Incidentally - only had one problem with TI (it was TI-8 plugin while in BartPE). Image on Seagate USB HDD could not be read for restoration - NOT corrupt image but rather could not be read. Previously images on same USB external drive were read and restored flawlessly. In this instance, could have been user error (memory faulty now) but restoration from image on DVD was emergency remedy. Close call. Anyway, I like TI-9 build 2,337 speed and I read that current version can run with a lumbering sag.

(WINXP SP2, OS on C:[Sata drive] in 1 x partition)

 

I have always been updating regularily. As a happy user of True Image I felt it was the right thing to do, showing my confidence in the program, if I may say so.

Then build 3677 was released, prematurely in terms of QC, failing the functionality most advertised. Moreover, it started to hang, which no other build ever did on my computer. Beeing a 2-step copying to DVD fan anyway, I reverted to 3567 which works well for me, has the new engine implemented and the MBR included in every image. The read/write Mount option may come useful someday too.

On my machine the 3567 speed is the same as with previous builds.

 

<The best thing about ATI is this forum and the people who are patient with newbies like me and walk you thru the difficulties.>

This user group is indeed great, and Acronis' participation is invaluable and an object lesson for more arrogant, mercenary and unhelpful software developers, who seem to abound. I have just bought and downloaded Abbyy's Scan to Office (a truncated version of FineReader) because it too has a vibrant user group while the Omnipage user group became moribund when no answers could be found to bugs in version 12.

<I use System Restore rarely - although that said I ran it just half an hour back and it fixed a problem with folders hanging when I tried to open them: using Acronis there would, IMHO, be using a sledgehammer to crack a nut (and would take much, much longer). Still, each to his own!>

Windows Restore is great if it works and if it doesn't mess up your other software, but I find it erratic and unreliable and that it has a tendency to mess up other software. And there are times when you must remember to turn it off or it will restore the very problem you are trying to get rid of.

While it is true that if Windows Restore works for you, restoring an Acronis backup will be "a sledgehammer to crack a nut" by comparison, restoring a backup is so easy and, on my system, quick, that it's a pretty small sledgehammer.

Ken

 

I was tickled to read this on another website (http://www.microsoft.com/office/com...us&mid=d4599523-501c-4d89-bec9-7906568c7390):

"Subject: Re: NK2 File 3/1/2006 5:32 PM PST

By: Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook] In: microsoft.public.outlook.general


I would never rely upon system restore to recreate data.
But then I would never rely upon system restore to solve anything.
--
Russ Valentine
[MVP-Outlook]"

Ken

 

I have used imaging software of one sort or another for years. I am a tinkerer, and have utterly trashed my PC software in one way or another about every two months. Without the use of an imaging program I would be constantly in trouble.

My current XPpro setup is also the product of tweaking, and much of the setup dates back to my early days with w98 running on a Compaq AMD K6-2 350 (MHz!) platform. I have carried that environment through w98se to my current XPpro. At the same time I have ported the software from that K6-2 processor to a Duron processor, a Thunderbird processor, an XP2100 processor, and finally an AMD 3800x2 chip, each time with a different motherboard. I say all this to point out that I have more than a little familiarity with backup products and the many pitfalls that go along with migration.

Until recently I relied on using DriveImage to make a master image, used only for emergencies. For daily backups I would use Retrospect, an excellent and bullet-proof backup product. Then I came across TI.

Although no software is perfect, TI seems to be an excellent product with numerous features. After spending some time running both it and Retrospect in tandem (never can be too safe, you know), I am now relying solely on TI.

To those who are curious about TI's reliability in an emergency, I strongly suggest that they buy or borrow an extra hard drive, swap out their C: drive with it, and perform a "bare metal" restore to it, just to prove to themselves that it CAN be done. For those users who have very important files on their computers, I also strongly suggest that a spare copy of an image should be kept in a different location, just in case. It could be in the form of an extra hard drive, or even a couple of DVD's. There is a chance it'll be needed one day.