3666 - new version. Anyone tried it yet?

I can't really tell for sure about the official download site, as I'm trialing TI Home, but require the "special" version that doesn't require an Internet connection...
What I can tell though, is that (indeed after some failed attempts), Acronis supplied me with a link to download build 3666, that effectively downloaded 3666. Installation did not go 100% smooth, but nothing that couldn't be handled...
I can also say that the new build did solve my DVD problem in the Rescue Environment (see thread:https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=133916)

Regards,

Juul

 

Re: First thoughts on 3666?

Yes, the Task editor doesn't work anymore in 3666. :-(

 

Glad to hear that things are now good with you.

 

Hello Allen,

I'm about halfway through testing Build 3666's imaging direct to DVD capability using DVD-R, DVD-RW, DVD+R & DVD+RW media, both from within the Windows environment and the Linux rescue environment. So far I've found that there are still a number of problems remaining that I will report on via a separate thread.

Regards

 

Thanks for replying. I'll be waiting for your report before making any kind of upgrade. It is a shame that you indicate that you have already found a "number of problems"...what is going on w/ the Acronis research and development - testing department?? Do they just dump the products out, and cross their fingers? It is amazing that Menorcaman, who is not running a wildly configured machine can find problems that should already have been long since discovered before this issue # was released. Good grief, it is getting to be a comedy of errors...and it is such a great product. It is a downright shame that the Acronis quality control is so inadequate, that they will lead the company to create such an air of negativity toward their product by these incompetent releases.

Amazing to see, sad, but true. Acronis, if you keep this pattern of incomplete releases up, you will self destruct, and destroy a once great product. As the long standing complete confidence in your product is being eroded away, if not being completely destroyed, and by your own incompetent staff of quality control "experts".

...Allen

 

Re: Attn: Menorcaman - your opinion of the new version of TI 3666

The problem is not "testing", it's inadequate testing, and, more importantly, inadequate design/review/quality assurance processes.

Testing is easy if the other stuff is done right.

 

Re: Attn: Menorcaman - your opinion of the new version of TI 3666

I agree. The process has to address the issues properly before the testing phase. Testing ideally is nothing more than a verification that the other process provided the desired result. In reality, "adequate testing" in the PC world given its huge variations of hardware and configuration is somewhat of an oxymoron; it just cannot be done by trying it on every model/configuration.

I still can't believe that 3633 was released with a DVD backup feature that scarcely worked on only one type of DVD, particularly after the whole version 9 initial builds quality control debacle. At first I suspected Acronis was driven by the sales/marketing department into rushing the product release. Now, I am suspecting they are a company that has woefully inadequate resources to properly develop the product.

 

Re: Attn: Menorcaman - your opinion of the new version of TI 3666

Easy it might be but, take it from me, it's bl..dy time consuming!! .

Actually, given the Wikipedia definitions for <Software Testing>, <Validation> and <Formal Verification>, what I'm attempting to do is probably closer to "validation".

Regards

 

I understand there's a good bit of frustration out there right now; but a couple of these posts are going a little far in the speculation and such. Let's please try to avoid that.

 

Re: Attn: Menorcaman - your opinion of the new version of TI 3666

THat's part of the inadequate process issue.

It is not uncommon for SQA folkes to inform (mis)management that a product is not ready to ship, or has design issues, or ..., yet the products ships anyway.

And that's at companies with proper policies in place. The policies are oft ignored or badly implemented.

We can go on and on about SQA and why it works or doesn't.
It may be scarey to say, but MSFT is better than most.

 

anyway, it seems that 3666 is not worth installing.

I usually tell certain others when to download an update.
I won't tell them about 3666.
Shhhh, it's a secret!

 

What I really don't get is that Menorcaman always tests the new TI builds promptly, and Acronis have acknowledged his help on a number of occasions, yet they don't get him to beta test new builds for them. If they did, I'm darned sure they'd put stuff out which is of way higher quality! (Unless of course they just ignored any problems he ran into.)

For something which is supposed to be there for you when disaster strikes, ATI is alarmingly fragile. I have used it successfully several times, but I have also had failures with it. It just doesn't give that nice warm feeling of security which you hope to have when you buy something like this. (FWIW, I found Ghost 9 to be almost unusable, which is why I switched to ATI. Not quite sure when backup and restore turned into rocket science!)

Graham.

 

A number of years ago, a software backup company, now merged into a well known company, asked me to do a test as I had a particular hardware configuration they did not have.

I said, sure, why not?

Well, they then sent me a ludicrous Beta tester's agreement.
It contained all sorts of restrictions to which I was not willing to agree.

Some companies have been known to understand SQA and even pay Beta testers.

Most do not undesrtand SQA and also foolishly rely on volunteers to test. Such lack of corrdinated SQA and testin is a major factor in the crap released by a number of software companies.

Implementing proper procedures and paying appropriate INDEPENDENT reviewers and testers is the right way to go.

 

I thik the problem is largely due to there being so many different kinds of rockets, all with diff motors, guidance systems, fuel types, etc. It's more like planning a launch and not know which of thousands of diff rockets will be on the launch pad.

IBM's original idea was to avoid that kind of situation by controlling the product and all the standards, or so it's been said. But in the rush to get to the mini-computer market, it cobbled together a set of off-the-shelf parts and made the IBM PC. IBM was then surprised when, as it held back on release of an improved machine, Compaq released one and the market IBM sought to control swung open like the doors at a Kmart sale.

Get a new mobo and a new graphics card and see how many driver versions you go through before the two play nice together. . .and so it goes. In this reagard the PC industry never seems to mature.

It's just not as if parts is parts. OTOH, if it was, it might be like the old days when IBM told you what you wanted and how to use it and if you didn't like it, you could memory dump it.

 

I have now tried TI 9 (3666) on 4 different machines using 3 different brands of DVD using BenQ, Plextor and Liteon and been unable to get it NOT to work. Much better than the last few builds. My guess is that for the vast majority there will be less problems than for previous builds.

Obviously those with problems really do have problems - but to conclude that they are in the majority or that the product is bad seems a little negative and unreasonable.

These problems do need addressing and correcting. Based upon my past experience with Acronis they will provide solutions.

 

I agree. The alternatives are, in general, worse. 3666 undoubtedly fixed problems that were in previous versions, I think it made the DVD stuff better.

This task editor problem sounds like an error-checking miscode of some sort.

If you try to edit, you are told "the path to source cannot be resolved" [Oops, that means a routine is telling ATI it can't find the C: drive] and also "You should edit this task." That irony alone is almost worth the error. ;-)

 

It's a shame that it seems like every time something gets "fixed", another thing gets "broken".

 

The real shame is that I can't get the task editor to fail and yet it is a feature which I never use. Somebody up there must have a real warped sense of humor - introducing bugs on a selective basis

 

YOu can create task to make a full HD image backup and then edit it after saving it? Or you can edit a file and folder task after creating it?

Makes a diff.

 

I tried it this past weekend and was updating from Build 3633. When I installed it twice I got an error message that it could not find the proper Serial Number. I had to uninstall Build 3666 and re installed Build 3633 and it works OK. Wrote Acronis' Tech Support on Sunday and still don't have an answer and I even sent them a Screen Shot of the error message. They are usually pretty quick on responding which tells me that a lot of people must be having problems with Build 3666.
Acronis sent me the following e-mail this morning.
"uninstall the current version of Acronis True Image 9.0 Home;
run "regedit" command;
find HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Acronis; right-click on Acronis and choose Permissions option; set the Full Control permissions; install the latest build of Acronis True Image 9.0 Home".
I did all that and the same problem re occurred. Tech Support was of no help.

 

I use build 3633 at this moment and I'm going to skip build 3666 after reading this thread.
The date 6.6.6 was a warning and this build has also the mark of the devil (= bad guy in the bible, not on the internet).

 

I am useing ver. 3666 and it is working great. I couldn't expect it to work any better than it is now. And I guarantee this version has nothing to do with the bible.

bigc