Alternative to True Image (nervous nellie)

I have now used the evaluation version for almost a month. I have done 5 or 6 restores in all and everything was straight forward and easy, nothing even remotely reminded of trouble I like this software. I like everything that is robust and reliable and fast

Sorry if I´m a bit thick in my head, but let me see if I understand you correctly. In the pic below, all are manually taken incremental images based on the initial image .b001.
So what you are saying is that I can delete i001 and .i002 and leave .i003 and .i004 since the .i004 is based on .i003? And when I make the next incremental (.i005) I can delete .i003?
I made the first incremental .i001. Then I based the second (.i002) on .i001 and the third on .i002 and so on.

 

No. If you based the incremental on the previous one, and so forth, by deleting no.1 all others are useless. That's what he means by dependancies. 2 is dependant on 1, 3 on 2, 4 on 3... deleting 1 makes 2-4 useless.
This is if you manually increment on the previous incremental. If you manually increment on one full image, then the only dependancy is the full image, ie, if you delete this, the incrementals based on this are useless. Then the incrementals are independant of each other, only dependant on the full.

I hope i wasn't confusing.

 

No you are not confusing. Its just me confusing things
I think I got it now. Thanks for your explanation.

 

Even though you got it, i edited some, just to clear everything for everyone.
I hope what i said is not false, but i don't see how it could be.

So you like it? Did you try others, and if so, how do you compare? Easier and then more reliable?

TIA

 

Reliability is what I am looking for. I dont want to have any problems at all with my imaging software. It should just do its job without bothering me.

Through the years (well the last two at least) I have tried Ghost, Nero Backitup and Acronis TI. ATI gave me BSOD when installing so I have not really done any images with it, but I have read enough stories about it to scare me off trying it again. (I guess that is one downside having support pages here )

Lately I have used Image for Windows, another extremely robust and reliable imaging software.
Nothing wrong with it really.
Compared to IFW I am impressed by the speed Shadow Protect has when doing a image, 24 minutes for my 24 GB of data on my C drive. SP has a nice interface that appeals to me. I like the incremental idea too. I have not yet tried all the ins and outs of SP, but this basic imaging that I have done so far has met my expectations fully.
I could be happy with IFW really, but I am always looking for something else coz I am a geek

 

A nice one.
LOL
Admitting there is a problem is the first step towards getting help

 

Did you guys try DriveImage XML? Even it is free its very reliable from my testing. If you want to restore the backup image from outside windows use with BartPE or UBCD4Win. And it very good alternative for paid image backup program.
http://www.runtime.org/dixml.htm

 

This thread is so long that, yes, it was mentioned and some tested.
One of the good freebies.

 

Thanks peter, I mean can u make a dVD where u have to just insert it in DVD room and it will automatically restore saved image to a partition, say C partition, as choosed by settings during image making. It is something called One Click restore in ATI( though I have nt used it but I read about it). This feature is useful for someone who don,t know at all about these things like some older people, it,s just like a botable revovery CD for PC.

 

Nope, sorry.

 

Also, external HD are even simpler to use. Plug and Play, with more space. I would think CD and DVD's are in the path to extintion, if it weren't for the fact that there are always uses for things that appear obsolete. Coal is an example.

 

Coal may not become extinct until we can find a better substute to put in Xmas stockings of malware writers, etc.

 

I agree but I just wanted to know so I asked.

 

Thanks for reply.

 

This is off topic but I'm hoping to get a faster response than I would through the regular forum. If I'm using Shadowprotect desktop to restore an image to a new hard drive (my boot drive failed) do I have to format the new hard drive prior to doing the restore or is format not required with "bare metal recovery"?
Again, I apologize for off topic post but this is an emergency for me.
Bill

 

Please ignore my previous post\question. I found the answer in earlier posts on this forum.

 

That's actually a pretty good question, and it highlights one of the primary differences between image-based backup vs file-based backup.

Formatting a volume is, generally speaking, the process of writing file system structures (tables, etc) to the media and perhaps also doing some integrity testing on the media.

Image-based backup apps (like ShadowProtect, Ghost, True Image, etc) store all used sectors on a volume. Used sectors *include* the file system structures as well as all of your file data. Because the image file contains all of the file system structure, restoring the image file causes the saved file system structure (as well as the file data) to be written to disk and so there is no need to write a file system structure (to format the disk) prior to restoring the image file.

File-based backup apps (such as NTBackup, Retrospect, etc) generally do not store the file system structures. Instead, they store data for individual files. When restoring files using a file-based backup app, you generally do need to have a formatted volume to which you will restore the files.

 

I just to wanted to report I installed a new hard drive and restored a 48gb backup image to it in 41 mins. This was my system\boot disc with winxp pro plus many other programs and files.
From time of taking cover off to start installing new drive until up and running with no problems at all, just under 90 mins. Awesome!! This probably would have taken me a week before, by the time I got everything re-installed and configure back the way I want.Very happy, especially my first time.
One question I do have, is there any way to do a manually started scheduled backup job (using execute>incremental) so that it is done in the normal time (minutes)? I tried to do one prior to replacing my drive and it took just as long as a full backup, although the resulting backup file size was obviously only an incremental. I was under the impression that it was possible to manually take a quick incremental backup on demand, for example prior to installing a new program, etc., and then being able to restore back to this last backup if needed.

 

In the current release of ShadowProtect, only the backup jobs have the fast incrementals. To accomplish what you want, make a monthly job with the only selected day being the current day, and the start time something like 4 minutes beyond the current time, and then deselect all of the incremental days. That way when the job kicks off in 4 minutes it will make a new base, but the job will never *automatically* generate another incremental. You can then click on the job any time you want to do a fast manual incremental and select Execute Incremental on the toolbar.

The 3.0 (not out yet) GUI has been reworked to eliminate the points of confusion around this topic (it's much simpler - very straight forward).

 

edit: grnxnm was here

 

Hi grnxnm,
Thanks for the reply. I'll give that a try and see how it works.