Alternative to True Image (nervous nellie)

I also deal with hard facts. Acronis True Image never failed until now and it's alot more userfriendly than BING/IFW/IFD.
BING/IFW/IFD is for knowledgeable users who are familiar with backup, partitions and MBR. The average user doesn't know anything about these things. Such users work always with one partition, the famous [C:].
Create a userfriendly backup software for the MAJORITY of the users, not the MINORITY of users.
Although ATI could be improved, it's still the most userfriendly one and if your system likes ATI, it is as reliable as any other backup software.
BING/IFW/IFD has only a chance to be used in forums like Wilders full of knowledgeable users, not in the real world full of average users.

 

TI is definitely a potentially better package than Ghost 10, but I am not satisfied with TI's performance relative to Ghost.

Since I do not use windows xp, I cannot copare with Norton Save and Restore.

I've also been looking at two other, not so widely used, image backup programs. Absolutely awful GUIs and obviously designed for the more technical folkes. At this time, I will not mention which they are.

 

And there are advantages in using IFW over BING which, obviously, you have failed to cover in your previous posts.

The world is RULED by fuzzy logic, my friend. Get over it.

Why do you think quantum physics advanced us beyond the constraints of Newtonian physics?

 

Heck, Newton was that smart!
He was dumb enough to sit under the leaves of a tree and have an apple hit him on the head!
Ouch, that must have hurt!

 

"And there are advantages in using IFW over BING which, obviously, you have failed to cover in your previous posts".

Why keep them privy? I have my list. Post them here so others can share your knowledge.

 

Not at your behest I shan't.

I will do you the favor of reminding you , however, that I and many others have posted extensively herein why we make the choices we do and what we feel the pros and cons of each software, including all of Terabyte Unlimited's software, are and that the search engine can be your "special friend".

I'm beginning to get the feeling you just want attention and I've given you about all you're gonna get from me until you freshen and diversify your repertiore.

 

People go for what they are happiest in using, and if it works for them on their machine, so be it. You're happy with BING; others are happy with IFW, and some even prefer ATI.

 

To those this concerns,

Let's see...."Alternative to True Image" seems to be the title of the thread....so I would like to ask that we suspense with the un-necessary wayyyy off topic rhetoric. Please simply discuss software issues and what not instead of the same constant bickering that's showing up lately in numerous threads by some of the same individuals.

Thanks,
Bubba

Oh yeah....a few posts were removed....have a nice day.

 

Sounds great, Bubba. Thanks.

 

I did try and move it on
but the wayyyy off topic rhetoric did make me smile guys
Bubba

 

Gotcha, Pete. By the way -- are you a Bing Crosby fan?

Meanwhile, back at the thread -- I tried Image for DOS (IFD) today -- on an XP computer. I didn't know XP systems even had DOS packaged with them.

Anyhow, IFD is so simple a caveman can do it. It works completely outside of Windows & the entire program fits on a floppy with room to spare. Amazing!!! I bought a license because it's cheaper than dirt & comes with Image for Linux. {I am getting deeper & deeper into Linux. Linux is so dadgummed much fun!}

 

Heh:

Congratulations and welcome to the club.

Me caveman too, me happy for you

It has been a revelation to me using these utilities for increasing my previously zero understanding of insight into disc and partition management.

Regards.

 

Correct you are and excellent choice. But, yes, you may want to keep some roast duck and mango salsa on hand.

P.S. Sorry, that attempt at humor would be impenetrable to those except U.S. couch potatoes, not sure the commercial I allude to makes it to the islands.

 

Unlike IFW, IFD doesn't run in windows. It operates on the same principle as BING. There are two small drawbacks...1.need to use the bootdisc 2.cannot automate the image backup process.

There is no need to install anything on your HDD if you use IFD. If your system can process the data on your IFD boot disc, then you're set to go. This also applies to Vista. Per my previous post, BING and IFD are OS INDEPENDENT proggies (doesn't run in DOS either). Therefore, they are not affected by the programs that you have (or will have) in your HDD. Some say that my case about imaging outside of windows is flawed because "IFW and ATI if used sensibly just work, and work and work".

In the end, only YOU can determine what's right for you based on the available facts.

KISS. BING (#1), IFD (#2), or Drive Snapshot (#3) can fit on a single 3.5" floppy. That's effecient software coding.

 

I always do a validation, sometimes called verification with ATI.
I validate AFTER the image (.tib-file) is created and I validate again BEFORE the image is restored. Nothing but the best for my backup and I don't mind the time the validation takes. I can't reinstall my computer manually so fast as ATI does.
I also have more than one .tib-file of course in case one fails to restore.

 

Hi Peter, so in ur opinion IFW is better than ATI. According to ur experience how u comapre the two in terms of

1- Speed of imaging
2- Speed of recovering the image
3- User friendliness

Also can u use IFW with FDISR in the same way as ATI or there are issues?

Thanks.

 

It definitely takes a lickin' and keeps on tickin'.

 

Since you remember that Timex commercial, you must be as old as me!... LOL.

 

Hehe... you're probably right. Let's just say I was only a twinkle in my daddy's eye when Nikita Kruschev banged his shoe on the table at the U.N., but I do actually remember the day JFK died.

 

Thanks. Will see if any other user can tell something about this.

 

Hello guys,
I tested today the Backup + Validation "Acronis True Image under Windows" versus "Terabyte Image for Windows + Phylock".
The timings aren't based on estimate times on the screens, I clocked them with a digital watch.
According Windows Explorer my system partition = 10,2 GB.

ATI did it in 7m30s, backup and validation.
IFW did it in 7m30s, backup and validation (byte-by-byte unmarked).

So there is NO difference in speed, take my word for it.
I didn't do a restoration, because I don't think it will make difference in speed either.

I still stick to my previous statement "IFW isn't as userfriendly as ATI."

Some users claim that the backup of ShadowProtect is faster, but I didn't see any timings.
So I don't believe it until I see these timings.

Concerning reliability :
ATI never failed on me, so there is no reason for me to switch to IFW.
I'm not against IFW, but I'm not impressed by it either and I prefer facts above personal preferences.