Why should we solve issues with BartPE?

Just a short point. Why should users have to solve certain driver issues by creating BartPE's, on their on, basically? Why can't Acronis just update the necessary drivers, and post a link to a support webpage the new ISO of the recovery disk, and put a direct link for the version in question's disk? (always made for the latest version, of course)...

Some of the users of ATI are just getting a bit of computer knowledge under their belt...some of these Bart issues are way outside their current learning curve. It would be of very little effort by Acronis techs, in my opinion, to add additional drivers, or any necessary changes to the recovery disk of a current version, post it to a sticky and make it very obvious, with an easy direct link for all users...none of this go here, sign in, submit reports, screenshots, etc. Just go there for the updated download...just a link and that's all. Keep it simple!

Seem's that's the major cause of difficulties and solutions to most issues popping up...all because of lacking Linux drivers that always seem to point Acronis to: New version needed! I say no, just new recovery disk issued for the current version...such as download a new Acronis True Image v.3677_r2_recovery disk ISO at (http://www.support.acronis/...blah...en_html). No hoops to jump through to get it fast. Let any who want it just go to the top of this forum board and click one link to the file directly.

Bad idea?? Comments please.

...Allen

 

Hi Allen,

I totall agree. I have had issues with being unable to restore to my new SATA2 drive for a couple of weeks and I feel that Acronis support are creating obstacles to reduce the amount of support traffic they get.

I raised a support request and they got back to me after a day or two, blaming the problem on my (brand new) hardware. I replied, pointing out that the restoration works fine from Windows, and as it happens, from the BartPE plugin too. So much for broken hardware and a half-arsed diagnosis. That was a week ago and they have apparently kicked my request into the bushes. I haven't heard a thing since.

Of course the existence of the BartPE stuff (which I am grateful to have) gets them off the hook and allows them to make supporting their product even less of a priority.

More fool us :-(

F.

 

I more or less agree with you Allen. The big problem with TI is the recovery environment's lack of suitable drivers.

Posting updated iso files is part of the solution but if you want the recovery of a system partion to be operational within Windows you also have to update that part of the code as well. That should be doable though.

However, I don't think it can be posted for free distribution to all users. TI uses the "valid user" login to control TI distribution to people who bought the product.

 

Slipped my mind about the registration issues ...but I still think the ISO updated recovery disk driver' additions, would solve a ton of issues for all users...not just us that know how to add files to an ISO.

...Allen

 

Unfortunately with this software, we users have always been the unofficial beta testers as well as, to solve some of the issues we have to be part geek.

 

Hear, hear!

Four separate times yesterday, I posted to point users having problems recovering, who use Core Duo CPUs and the recent ICH8 Chipset, to contact Acronis Support for an available update to TI Boot Mode. It's just this sort of recurring issue that should be made readily available, both in the diagnosis stage, and in the resolution stage. There must be at least dozens of common issues users experience running ATI on mainstream hardware, and having to search these forums, or begin a new thread and wait for answers that are often already known to many of us, are not efficient ways to resolve common issues. The Knowledge Base needs to be quickly turned into a robust, interactive, searchable and detailed repository of knowledge, on how to use and workaround known issues in ATI and Disk Director.

Furthermore, Acronis, I disagree that hiding known flaws in ATI or DD, by not openly publishing their existence and resolution(s) in a central Knowledge Base, supports the marketability of Acronis products. For example, if, at present, users of TI 9.1 cannot validate archives which are still intact, this should be clearly stated & stickied, if not sent to all registered 9.1 users at once. Not hidden in these forums, threads and posts that only a few will ever find or read. Only when the casual user can easily put these programs to use, and readily find and implement solutions as needed, will these programs reach their full market potential. Only then will I recommend these valuable programs to novice users.

If BartPE Boot Discs are needed on many systems to run TI, then partner with someone like Reatogo and Mustang, and get the job done. Even if Acronis can't do this in-house, they could sanction and support, then link to, a functional, current alternative to the Linux Boot Mode of ATI and DD, which clearly lags behind Windows in driver implementation for modern chipsets and SATA 2 implementation. If the BartPE process requires an advanced understanding of PCs to create, then it won't be useful to the very market you are targeting. Make it easy, simple, and reliable. Or most will give up, at the first incompatibility.

Keep up, or get left behind. Vista is looming, with onboard Imaging and File backup, and, I for one, hope that Acronis stays competitive, and clears these hurdles before it's too late. There is a need and a demand for dedicated, professional, well-supported and user-friendly utilities to run under Windows. So beat Microsoft in this arena, while you have the head start, and a dedicated user base. If you want suggestions on how to do this, just send out surveys to a few hundred active posters in these forums, who strike me on the whole as some of the brightest around.

Regards

 

You know what Microsoft says about BartPE? Improper licensing at least (even if you have a Windows license that is "offline" while you are working with it).
I think there is no way for Acronis to officially support that more than providing their set of plug-ins.

And the problem of lacking drivers in the linux boot-media is simply that the original vendors have not published drivers, so blame them. I am happy enough that the linux community (including volunteer/spare time developers) got that much together.

 

You are missing the point. Kind of like using a Paint Shop Pro plugin to use Adobe Photoshop because of a lack of some 'tool'. Bet that wouldn't happen. Some of these users can't burn a manual ISO without the wizard in Nero, and you want them to be about to add to an already made ISO of BartPE drivers...come on!

Allen

 

Couldn't agree more.

 

Also BartPe doesn't support win 98se. ( the forgotten few).

 

I totally agree about the inadequate support of the Acronis Support for a product that they go out of their way to advertise doing A, B, C, D .....

I don't think that it is the fault of the original vendors having not published drivers. If that was the case, then nobody would be able to use Linux from bootable media on a CD/DVD,or create a bootable Linux partition on a PC that recognizes all your hardware.

If Linux OS can recognize my hardware, why can't Acronis version of Linux? I think Acronis Support personnel either need to get a better handle on Linux technology. It seems there is some lacking in understanding Linux drivers and/or no desire to employ a fully working implementation for TI.

If Linux can recognize USB mouse drivers, why can't TI and Disk Director? I can't believe that the implementation of a Logitech USB driver is out of the mainstream.

If marketing TI with features that don't work due to implementation, then Acronis should market a stripped down version of TI that does not encompass these features.

I hope Acronis is paying BartPE developers for using them to solve THEIR problems!

 

I went ahead and pulled some posts about "hoping Acronis goes out of business" etc... I think it's pretty clear why there is no room for that in the Acronis support forum.

 

I agree, I too am glad I had my arm twisted.

F.

 

hmmm,

I understand that BartPE has a place and it's good that Mustang and others have deveoted so much effort to making a product many people enjoy. I'm not so happy about BartPE. I tried it just to see how it worked and couldn't get it work on some of my machines -- although ATI boot disk works on all of them. So I ended up staying with the ATI boot disk. The more the boot disk creation process can be automated, the better, as far as I'm concerned. I know some folks want the flexibility to add this that or the other thing. But all I want is a boot recovery disk -- with as little fuss or bother as possible. Bart is the opposite of simple.

 

Well, I don't think BartPE is all that complicated, considering the TI Rescue CD has never worked in full mode on my desktop machine. Safe mode is useless because I use a USB external drive. I depend on BartPE to be able to restore and also use it to backup files that might not have been included in the last image I created. Acronis supplies a plugin for BartPE. For me it works and I don't have to keep trying to get Acronis to add Linux drivers every time the hardware changes. Its not perfect but neither is the Acronis Rescue CD solution.

 

I would agree, that on balance, producing a BartPE disk is really not a big deal.

F.

 

This is all fine about BartPE. But who's making the assumption here that everyone is Windows XP? What about Windows 2000 systems that can't use Full Mode and/or mouse support?

Not to mention you are paying for a product that is somewhat greatly non-operational (this goes for Disk Director as well).