Trueimagemonitor.exe and timountermonitor.exe??

This is useful. I think this helps me solve a problem I've had in the past where (boot partition) images have the wrong boot.ini (and therefore need editing) entries when restored to a different partition number.

 

Hi Graham,

I would tend to agree. However, it seems Acronis merely responded to numerous user requests in the infamous True Image WISH-LIST thread .

Perhaps Acronis should start a Wish-List thread for things we DON'T want included in True Image!! .

Regards

 

I also could not believe that the facility to alter images has been added. It is just another cliff for the unsuspecting to fall off. The same goes for separate backup of MBR!
And the worst of all is the facility to CLONE drives. Everthing worthwhile that cloning does can be done with imaging and this then becomes the perfect practice for what to do when a hard drive fails for real.
My vote would go for a True Image Lite. A version stripped of all the unnecessary fripperies !

Xpilot

 

I agree with your perspective, a backup should reflect the state of the system when it was made and not modified. However, there are a couple of factors:

1. Some people who deal with multiple systems want to be able to make a base backup and then modifiy it such as with upgrades or PC specific data without having to make a complete backup each time.

2. Most importantly, the modify isn't as invasive as it appears at first glance. The original backup is unchanged and any changes are captured in an incremental backup.

 

Good points cogently put but I still believe that the ability to change images by whatever means has no place in the HOME version of True Image.

Xpilot

 

I would go for that too. Image, Restore and Verify. I used Drive Image for years before TI and I have never used the clone feature in either product.

Lots of ways of doing Files and Folder backup without TI.

 

By the same token -- but looking at something completely different -- the Universal Restore Feature (if it really works), would be a fantastic addition, IMHO. But it is only available as a plug-in for the Workstation version. (which is pretty much in the opposite direction of "Lite", yet it could save a LOT of hassles when upgrading a mobo/cpu/HDD to a system that normally would be too much to handle without a re-install of the OS or else a lot of re-configuring.) To me, that's the sort of forward thinking that improves a product in a real-world sense. (Again, if it works the way it purports to work.)

 

I am sure a lot of people would like UR and like the people who wanted R/W access to images it shows a lot of different requirements based on how people see themselves using the product.

I am not trying to make a buck fiddling with PCs and if the whole thing went dead in the water for a week it wouldn't be the end of the world. Email is the only thing that might even come close to an issue in that timeframe but I have a second PC for that anyway.

I consider a new MB/system to be a chance to clean out the crap and start fresh. If it takes a couple of days so what. I also find it a great refresher course on XP and application setup. The real winner point though, is if I have a problem I don't have to scratch my anatomy and wonder if it is because I imported a bunch of old crap.

 

And your point is?

 

Point is that TI is getting bigger and more convoluted because of features somebody wants. Note that it is somebody not everybody. After a post indicationg I'd be happy with the basic "lite" version, I gave my rationale why I couldn't care less if UR was dumped into TI just in case somebody thinks there is not a good reason for being without UR.

 

I would take the simplification even further than your "image,restore and verify" I would leave out and in actual working do leave out the Verify stage. At this point Menorcaman and several others are probably having a fit and someone will have to call an ambulance! However I will continue and try to explain my logic.
I only restore to a spare drive so anything still useable on the old drive is not over written and if necessary can be recovered later.
Verification does not correct anything. So in my world of non-verification if a restore fails I would pick another image. If one runs a verification and it fails surely the next step would be to try another image.
The premise behind this is that on my hardware Acronis True Image is capable of producing viable corruption free images time after time without fail. I have only had a problem in this respect with one of the first builds of version 9 where this reported bad images because the checksum calculation performed from the recovery CD was faulty but the images were fine.

Xpilot

 

Hi Xpilot,

Well, not quite a fit although I did suck my breath in a little .

Personally, I always verify before a restore because finding out that the important image I needed had become corrupted after the partition(s) had been deleted really would cause me to have a fit .

Regards

 

I agree with you sentiments entirely but I avoid that possibility by only restoring to a spare disk which can be over writtten with impunity or could be a new one fresh out of its box.

Xpilot

 

Hello,

I want to come back to the original question about usefullness of automatically started "timountermonitor.exe" and "trueimagemonitor.exe":

Why does this processeses are started for *each* user? We are running a terminal server and each user (up to 25 at once) have a running copy of "timountermonitor.exe" and "trueimagemonitor.exe"! None of my "ordinary" users needs access to Acronis! Well, the adminstrator or backup operator may find it usefull.

Peter

 

Hello Peter,

Thank you for choosing Acronis Disk Backup Software.

Please take a look at this previous post.

If you have any further questions concerning Acronis software, please feel free to submit a request for technical support or post any of them on this forum. We will certainly try to help you in resolving any issues.

Thank you.
--
Tatyana Tsyngaeva

 

Now here's person that's not talking thorugh his hat.

When you make edits too9ne or more files in a mounted image, the edits session changes aere saved in an incremntal file, not the original build file. And if you mount the image again you can see that you have a choice of mounting the original file or include the later edit session.

I tend to think that if a user isn't qualifed to discern between different images, then they should be using ATI all. So if this feature were tob e turned off for a user, then I think all features of ATI should be turned off for the user.

So I appreciate the ability to mount images in either read-only or read-write mode. And also appreciate that one must can password protect the images to prevent them form being opened by the untrained, unskilled, or merely careless. ;-)

 

Apparently a Microsoft chappie worrying about software piracy! Cloning Drives is a brilliant way of taking a point in time backup or populating a new drive (even hardware Raid). I put mine to a caddy then remove it from the system. Old computer lags like me don't trust software (Anybody's!). Hell just plug the drive back in away you go. Each to their own!

 

So in other words,

are a vital processes or any of these could be disabled fro automatic startup if i use only manual backup?

 

Be aware that TI treats all image creation tasks as "scheduled", whether they are initiated manually or via the Task Scheduler. Therefore, if you disable Schedhlp.exe and Schedul2.exe you won't be able to create any backups, be they manual or scheduled.

Regards

 

in that case, wasnt it simplier to make all this in one process?....

 

Well I certainly wouldn't try modifying a TI backup. There's enough left up to chance as it is - I don't need to add to the mix. Ok, I'm being too hard. TI works flawlessly for millions apparently. But even I have had a "verified" image come up "corrupted" at the most curcial moment. So I have to agree: I would never modify a backup image. I'd be afraid that it would corrupt.

 

I just discovered timountermonitor.exe for the first time. I discovered it after I found another application opening whenever I opened my browser. When it happened this time, it did so when I opened my address book at my webmail account. What's up with that? So, I went looking. That's how I came to this topic here. Once I had ascertained that it was no other process but that one in particular, I terminated it.

Granted that I have Acronis True Image 9.1 Workstation, but I expected to use it only as an on-demand backup utility. I do not need anything running in the background just in case I might need it. I truly dislike such programs. Now removing it from my startup list. If I need it, I will activate the entire program. I don't need extras. My choice, which is precisely the point I'm making.

Regularly dealing with malware and rootkits has made me especially fastidious about what runs on my box and why.