Acronis True Image would be the best backup software in the world if...

Acronis True Image Echo Workstation would be the best backup software in the world if:

1) Shorten the length of time it takes to analyze partitions before you can use the app initially. Takes way too long.

2) Scheduled Tasks List: Last Run Time and Last Result for "Manually Later" created tasks all dissapear after you restart the computer. This information is very useful to have and should stay there even after a reboot regardless of the type of task scheduled.

3) After doing a complete restore, Full Partition Image Manually Later scheduled task gets all out of whack. When you try to run it (after doing a complete restore), you get a slew of error messages:

E00640065: Cannot resolve the source path.
Cannot resolve the path to the source. You should edit this task.

E00640066: The task script is corrupt.
The script contains incorrect or incom script otherwise click Cancel.

Cannot find a partition with the path
\local\hd-sign(1EC0963B)
no source is selected

The only way to fix this task is to click "Edit" and go through the whole process without changing anything. After that, it works just as before.

4) Shorten the time it takes to backup and restore. In my system, about 100 GB consisting of the OS. programs and other miscellaneous data, a Full Partition Image backup takes around 45 minutes and a Full Partition Image restore takes around 1 hour and 45 minutes. It would be great if both backup and restore took 45 minutes, or less.

For the time being I can live with these annoyances because after dozens of restores, not one failed me. Acronis TruImage restores my system to an earlier, working configuration no matter how badly I screwed things up. And that is what's most important to me.

 

Also, DUMP useless things like secure zone and tryout and decide. I mean has anyone EVER used that crap? We just want a reliable and robust and reliable backup/imaging software. And better email reporting also. And oh yeah, BUILD UNIVERSAL RESTORE INTO ACRONIS 2009, please. Dave

 

I agree that Acronis seems to have gotten into the "throw a lot of other stuff in the pot" lately. The imaging is what made them; they should stick with it and forego the "junk" add-ons IMO. This is getting too much like the kind of add-0n bloat led me to eventually abandon programs like Nero and Roxio. Adding sub-par photo-editing, slideshow, and other add-ons that were outside their area of expertise hurt their products overall. I have other utilities that I have used for a while to perform other file and disk maintenance.

As for the partition analyzing, I don't mind ATI doing so for the drives I specify that will ever be sources or destinations, but the analyzing of ALL drives has caused problems for me in the past. Heck, it still causes problems occasionally! I am talking about ATI analyzing USB flash drives that I have connected for completely unrelated purposes. Little tiny thumb drives that will not be backed up nor backed up to. I have had times when Acronis aborted backup jobs because it saw errors on those drives. I would rather it either did not bother with drives not specified as source or destinataion drives, or allow users to intentionally exclude certain drives.

Jim

 

Since you ask if any one uses a secure zone and try and decide.
The secure zone is not a recent add on but try and decide is.
I have used the secure zone since I started with Version 8 some years ago. In all Versions prior to V2009 it has worked perfectly for backups and restores.
It has had many advantages particularly when used on a secondary internal hard drive.
Some of them are:-
1.Automatic naming of backup images with time and date.
2.Completely automatic scheduled backups that run like night follows day.
3.Maximum use is made of the whole backup drive. There is no space or time wasted with the absurd consolidation process. When the drive is full FIFO management takes over provided the user has made at least two full images.
4. By definition a hidden secure zone is a more secure place to store backups than an un-hidden one.
5. There are actually some users who do not have a second drive, either external or internal, for them a secure zone is an excellent place to store backup images. This will save them from all kinds of software screw ups and what could be terminal infections.
6. Thank goodness the Startup Recovery Manager does not have to be installed. It is an option and can be avoided.

Version 2009 has changed the way the secure zone works and try and decide can now survive a re-boot if required.
These changes have made the SZ far less usable than before. There are some work arounds to enable FIFO management again but this is no longer available out of the box.

Try and Decide is a complete waste from my point of view.
When I want to try out something I just install it right on to my production system. If I don't like it removal could not be easier. A restore of a previous image restores the status quo leaving no traces at all of the unwanted changes.

Xpilot

 

Hello all,

Thank you for using Acronis True Image

Commendatore,

What is the build number of your program? How long does the analyzing take? What is your OS?

Have you restored the image to the same hardware? Have you changed the hard drive? There is an option in Default restoration options, additional settings -> Change SID after restoration is finished. I suppose this option can be useful in this case.

We are working on increasing the software performance, the next after Echo version should work faster, the engine has been improved greatly.

Cape Dave, I will create a special task on your request.

Thank you.

--
Oleg Lee

 

I agree with this 100%, Secure zone and Try and Decide as just gimmicks. I have tried both and I can happily live without them. There are much better ways to operate backups and test things out.

 

I simply ignore the functions I don't use. I don't see what's so difficult about that! The software is not really bloated at all when you just click the buttons you need to do the task at hand.

Granted the backup and restore could probably be a lot faster in my opinion but some of that has to do with NTFS I am sure. Back in the W95/W98 days, the backups and restores were very quick on what are arguably slower drives using FAT32. When I switched to NTFS, that's when things really slowed down. So I am not too annoyed but it could definitely be a bit quicker.

Everyone's mileage definitely will vary depending on components and configuration.

 

resolve once and for all the issue of a ATI backup failing and yielding a generic error message about "A possible reason might be poor media quality"
when in fact the cause of the error almost never is the actual media.

A search of this forum shows this issue has existed years and years now.
The proposed solutions are almost always vague and almost always a guessing game trying to find some combination that happens to "work" (and even then those params might not work every time)
suggestions from support have included:
- try setting compression up/down
- try setting network speed up/down
- try setting HDD write speed up/down
- try setting priority up/down
- try downloading the latest driver
- try asking for a special build.

Time and time again there are forum postings where the gist of the message is my network/device is fine. I can copy a multi gig ".tib" file from my local drive to a my external/remote device but I can not get ATI to build the ".tib" file directly onto that device.

In short If xp/vista can write a 30 gig file onto a device
regardless of that device being usb/firewire/wire-lan/wireless lan
then ATI should be able to build that 30gig file onto that device.
If xp can copy a built file from here to there, then ATI should be able to build that same file from here to there.