Acronis True Image 9.0 vs. FirstDefense-ISR

Between Acronis True Image 9.0 and FirstDefense-ISR, which of the two is easier to use? With either application, are there any specific settings that I have to alter when using PerfectDisk or vice versa? My concern as it pertains to FDISR is that it takes up a lot of HD space. If I decided to purchase FDISR, what would be the best settings to minimize HD space usage and be consistent with adequate backup and recovery considerations? Any comments or opinions would be greatly appreciated regarding this matter.


Peace & Love,

CogitoErgoSum

 

Hmmm, good questions. First, Acronis is an old-fashioned imaging program (and that's good), nothing beats an imaging program if your hard drive should fail (break).

FirstDefense is an instant recovery program, so called as you probably know, because such programs are so fast -- THEY ARE ALSO DEFINITELY EASIER TO USE than imaging programs, but of these type of instant programs, FD is one of the harder to use because it is so flexible and can do so much more than just recover your c:drive.

FD and PerfectDisk are made by the same company and are deliberately made to be perfectly compatible with each other. My guess, I want to repeat GUESS, would be that Acronis would also work just fine with PerfectDisk, I don't see any reason why it would not.

Yes, FD uses gobs of disk space and I don't see any way around that. No software program is perfect, and one of FD's imperfections is the tons of disk space it uses -- it needs that much disk space to perform its magic. The only thing that you can do is limit the number of Snapshots that you make. Each Snapshot will be almost the exact same size of your c:drive, so it is fairly easy to do the math.

 

I used them together for about a full year and had no conflicts. My only caveat (and Pete may show up to reinforce it) is that you should disable FDISR's "pre-booting" feature before you image your system drive, especially if you're imaging the entire physical disk, so that you have no MBR problems if you have to restore.

Yep. I typically store only one secondary snapshot copy (a DAILY copy of the primary snapshot which I operate from) on my system drive -- maybe also a second one of a "virgin" XP install for testing purposes. However, I keep at least 3 snapshots archived to an external USB drive -- 3-DAY, WEEKLY, and MONTHLY. All of this is done automatically with task scheduler. So, there is an example of minimizing system drive usage but having some redundancy too.

 

Thanks Acadia, crofttk and Peter2150 for each of your respective input. Based upon the information that I received on this thread and other threads that I have started at Wilder's regarding backup and recovery options, I am leaning toward purchasing both VCOM Recovery Commander and FDISR to replace "system restore".


Peace & Love,

CogitoErgoSum

 

CES, be careful having those two programs on your system. It sounds to me like VCOM Recovery Commander is another instant recovery program, so it might fight with FD for control of the Master Boot Record.

Acadia

 

VCOM Recovery Commander will co-exist without problem it is in fact a more robust version of Sys restore - pretty good

I use it with True Image and First Defense without problems. It uses either a windows programme or boot disk to return to a check point.

 

you don't really need VCOM Recovery with FDISR but It can be good .... I had it already when I got FD

 

Thanks Acadia for your concern and starfish_001 for your input.


Peace & Love,

CogitoErgoSum