Disk is Full/Delete Acronis from Registry

Discussion in 'Acronis True Image Product Line' started by morrmar1, Nov 23, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. morrmar1

    morrmar1 Guest

    I'm pretty hot right now, so I apologize in advance if this post is negative. I am/was using the latest release of True Image (774). After reading many reviews of Ghost, Backitup Now, etc. I decided True Image would best suit my needs.

    Installed fine, burnt a boot DVD disk with no problems and went to do the image. Got an error message that the Disk is Full/ Poor Media, which was odd as I was using brand new DVD's.

    Came here and found this thread:

    https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?p=264750#post264750

    which indicates that this program can only use _RW_ disks and _only_ if it's UDF formatted with DirectCD. Since I use Nero, that kinda left me out. Undaunted, I formatted a rewritable UDF disk with Nero anyway.

    Then I found this thread:

    https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=48186

    which indicates that I have to use a 635 mb image size and use WinIso to make an ISO disk. Well, at this point I decided that this program was, in fact, _not_ what I was looking for. I didn't want to have to jump through a bunch of hoops, install a bunch of specific programs other than the ones _I_ want to use, just to make a hd image.

    So, I uninstalled the program, rebooted, and as I usually do, went through the registry to delete all the references to the uninstalled program. Searching for Acronis and True Image, I found about 10 or so references and deleted them. _But_, there is one instance in the Hkey/Local Machine/Software section with the name of Acronis that I can _not_ delete. I'm the admin of this system, I changed the Permissions to Full Control and I _still_ cannot delete the reference. How do I delete this key, as I want no reference to Acronis in the registry.

    As a side note, why is it so difficult to design a disk imaging proggie where I can:

    1. Make a bootable DVD disk, _not_ rewritable but a standard - or + DVD, not CD, disk.
    2. Put a recoverable_complete_ image of my hd _not_ parsed out in any sections but a complete, full image, on that boot disk.
    3. Be able to insert that disk, re-boot my computer, have a menu come up giving me the option to format my hard drive.
    4. Put the image on that newly formatted hard drive.
    5. Not require _any_ other programs such as Nero, DirectCD, WinIso.
    5. Not require the use of the .NET framework (that's what ruled out Norton's Ghost).

    Surely, that's not asking too much.
     
  2. Menorcaman

    Menorcaman Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2004
    Posts:
    4,661
    Location:
    Menorca (Balearic Islands) Spain
    Hello morrmar1

    Not only UDF formatted with DirectCD but in fact any compatible packet writing software. As you use Ahead Nero Burning ROM you should also have Ahead InCD installed and running in your task bar. Use this to UDF format a DVD RW and then create an image direct from within True Image. If your image size is greater than the capacity of a single DVD then TI will prompt you for another disk. Just make sure you have extra UDF formatted DVDs ready!! See my post <here> for further info on DVD imaging.

    I assume you meant TrueImage rather than True Image. As for that Acronis key, it could be that TrueImageMonitor.exe, Schedhlp.exe or Acronis Scheduler2 is/are still running. End the first two via Windows Task Manager "Processes" and stop the third one by right clicking "My Computer", select "Manage" > "Services and Applications" > "Services", right click on "Acronis Scheduler2" and select "Stop".

    If that doesn't get rid of TI 8, and assuming you're using Windows XP, check out <this post> by beenthereb4.

    If it were that simple you can bet your bottom dollar every software house would be doing it by now. Nevertheless, some of the features you mention have been earmarked by Acronis for inclusion in future versions. Just don't ask when!!

    Regards
     
  3. morrmar1

    morrmar1 Guest

    That's the thing that probably frustated me the most, I did format a RW with Nero and I still got the same error. As I look back now, with the benefit of being away from the computer for a day, the problem was probably because I formatted the disk, and then stopped the InCD service because I absolutely hate how it intertwines with the OS. As a rule, I have absolutely nothing in my Startup group and run a minimal of services as well.

    Requiring a user to have _another_ companies burning s/w installed and running at startup just so your s/w will function correctly is simply poor s/w planning and development. It's like developing Instant Messaging s/w but requiring a user to have Oracle 8.0 installed before it will funtion correctly. It just doesn't make any sense from not only a technical perspective but from a marketing perspective as well.

    The inablilty to delete the Acronis reference in the Registry isn't related to having those services running as they aren't running. I guess I'm just going to have to learn to live with that reference until the next format and re-install since the Acronis reps didn't see fit to respond to my original post.

    I've decided to go with Ghost 2003/8.0 as it comes as close to my requirements of any imaging program I've been able to locate and that version doesn't require the .NET trash to be installed.

    This was a $50 USD lesson I won't soon forget and it has taught me to _never_ rely on PC Mag for s/w recommendations. Usenet is the place to go.
     
  4. jhugh

    jhugh Guest

    I couldn't agree more.

    Are you saying that Ghost WILL write directly to DVD w/o 3rd party software?
     
  5. morrmar1

    morrmar1 Guest

    Only a very few. Here's the list:

    http://tinyurl.com/4vda8

    I don't mind using Nero as long as I don't have to install Roxio products, or .NET for that matter.
     
  6. foghorn

    foghorn Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2004
    Posts:
    86
    Location:
    Leeds, England
    Sorry I missed something. What does Nero have to do with Roxio?
     
  7. GeeeAus

    GeeeAus Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2004
    Posts:
    23
    Quoted:

    "Requiring a user to have _another_ companies burning s/w installed and running at startup just so your s/w will function correctly is simply poor s/w planning and development. It's like developing Instant Messaging s/w but requiring a user to have Oracle 8.0 installed before it will funtion correctly. It just doesn't make any sense from not only a technical perspective but from a marketing perspective as well."

    What do you mean.....?

    Microsoft Office requires a functioning Windows installation. O.K its an OS, but still its a dependency.

    As you pointed out the latest release of ghost requires the .NET framework.

    Encyclopaedia Britannica requires a web browser.

    Canon Negative scanner driver software requires Adaptec / Roxio WINASPI.

    Most Linux applications have library dependencies.

    This is quite a normal everyday occurrence in modern software.

    “It just doesn't make any sense from not only a technical perspective but from a marketing perspective as well."

    It makes a great deal of technical sense to reuse what already exists it saves costs and shortens development times. For marketing it isn’t an issue.

    It isn't always bad software design. Sometimes it's good. I agree that it would be better if Acronis implemented their own DVD writing facilities for TrueImage.

    But consider -- what machine doesn't have some sort of burner these days? And of those, how many don't come bundled with packet writing software.....?

    It was a fair bet by Acronis that for MOST users this limitation wouldn't cause too many difficulties, and would allow them to get people making images SOONER by using 3rd parties burning tools.

    As you said you quit InCD, you shot yourself in the foot.

    If you truly don’t like software that has too many dependencies and want a backup media that is worthy of your data; use hard drives in removable cradles. They’re better in every respect and aren’t inclined to just magically be “empty” one day when you go to read them

    I can’t say my experience with packet writers leaves me feeling confident about my data.

    A flaky technology at its’ best.

    Though I appreciate the low initial cost and simplicity aspects of said technology.

    Your mileage may vary of course.

    Best Regards
    GeeeAus
     
  8. Menorcaman

    Menorcaman Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2004
    Posts:
    4,661
    Location:
    Menorca (Balearic Islands) Spain
    Well put GeeeAus. My sentiments entirely.

    Regards
     
  9. morrmar1

    morrmar1 Guest


    Poor analogies, afaic. If I have XP installed, a browser comes with it so Office and Encyclopedia Britanica will run just fine w/o any other _required_ s/w. Also, I can use my HP scanner and Intel webcam without any 3rd party s/w as well. So you're going to have to come up with additional examples of commonly used _s/w_ that _requires_ the purchase of additional s/w from another vendor for the original product to function correctly if you want to make a valid analogy. The only one I can think of that's commonly used is Adobe pdf files on the web but Adobe give a _free_ copy of a reader so even that is not analogous to this situation. So while the _required_ purchase of additional 3rd party s/w may be an everyday occurence for you, it's certainly not for me or the vast majority of other users as well.

    In fact, no s/w that I've ever purchased _required_ me to purchase another piece of s/w from another company for the product to function correctly.

    In addition, no where on their data sheet requirements does it say anything about Roxio DirectCD or other packet writing s/w being _required_ and running for the use of the product.

    While I would agree with you that it makes a great deal of sense to re-use s/w routines that have already been developed _in-house_, it makes no sense whatsoever to utilize a specific type of s/w that's been developed by _another_, unrelated company and then _require_ the user to purchase additional company specific s/w for the original s/w to function, imo.

    And I do incremental back ups of my data to not only a separate hd and to another hd on my network as well. But I purchased TI because I needed/wanted an imaging program, not a backup program. If my hd's get fried in some way, I want a reliable way to use another method other than hd based recovery to restore my machine..

    The fact that you don't feel confident with your critical data in a packet written format indicates a knowledge of the intracacies involved in having that type of s/w intertwined with the core of your OS. I only with the develepers of TI had the same intelligence.

    FWIW, I went with Ghost 2003, made a boot disk and left it open, imaged my primary hd to another hd, then took the boot disk and burned the image files on it and successfully recovered that image back to my primary hd, without incident. No packet writing s/w required to be run on startup, no .NET framework either. So I'm a happy camper now.
     
  10. foghorn

    foghorn Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2004
    Posts:
    86
    Location:
    Leeds, England
    For me the crucial difference between the two points of view here on the use of third party dependencies, comes down to whether it costs me anything extra.

    I am quite happy to use dependencies not supplied by the main product supplier, provided they are free and easily available.

    I believe GeeeAus's attempt at sophistry missed the mark, because all the examples he gave involved software which was either free from a third party, or bundled free with another product. These were not examples of software dependencies which incurred unreasonable and extra cost to the purchaser of a product.
     
  11. Menorcaman

    Menorcaman Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2004
    Posts:
    4,661
    Location:
    Menorca (Balearic Islands) Spain
    menorcaman

    Personally I don't have a problem with Acronis not trying to make a better mousetrap in order to facilitate burning a TI image direct to DVD (we're all in favour of less bloatware aren't we?). Surely 99.99 percent of people owning a DVD/CD burner will aready have some form of DVD/CD burning software? To my mind it's no different to other applications I could name that utilize a scanner's TWAIN driver/capture software for their functionality.

    Regards
     
  12. TheQuest

    TheQuest Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2003
    Posts:
    2,301
    Location:
    Kent. UK by the sea
  13. GeeeAus

    GeeeAus Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2004
    Posts:
    23
    Hi there Foghorn

    I'm sorry that my post was so badly phrased as to lead you to consider it an "attempt at sophistry".

    This word implies that I have tried to cleverly but falsely represent information.

    That is not was not my intention. You’re of course welcome to disagree with me. However I think that my meaning has been somewhat misinterpreted.

    Let me explain ☺

    In your reply you say: "These were not examples of software dependencies which incurred unreasonable and extra cost to the purchaser of a product."

    Exactly right, this was done deliberately; as it was my belief the original poster felt that Acrnois not including direct DVD recording facilities in TI means additional costs to the end user.

    This is reflected in my saying:

    "But consider -- what machine doesn't have some sort of burner these days? And of those, how many don't come bundled with packet writing software.....?"

    Our statements don’t really appear to conflict wouldn't you say?

    The point I failed to make clear in my post was that the inclusion of packet writing software with OEM / Retail burrens these days means Acronis was in my limited view -- justified -- in releasing TI without direct DVD writing functions.

    For most users this incurs no additional cost. So it would seem that you probably support Acrnois decision to ship TI without DVD packet writing capabilities.

    I draw that from when you said:

    “I am quite happy to use dependencies not supplied by the main product supplier, provided they are free and easily available.”

    If I’ve misinterpreted you by what I understand from these statements, please excuse me.

    In regards to my writing habits…….

    I'll be more careful in future to make my point clear.

    Today I've learned something.......

    If you wouldn't mind revising your choice of the word "sophistry", I'd appreciate it. Disagree by all means, that is your right of course. But this word I found hurtful.

    Regards

    GeeeAus
    .au
     
  14. foghorn

    foghorn Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2004
    Posts:
    86
    Location:
    Leeds, England
    Apologies GeeeAus. Perhaps I misunderstood your point, so please ignore the use of this word. It was not intended to be interpreted as malicious.
     
  15. morrmar1

    morrmar1 Guest

    FWIW, and this will be my last post in here, Ghost 8.0/2003 does not require any additional s/w and, most especially, packet-writing s/w to burn directly to DVD+/-R. And silly me, I forgot to read the _entire_ FAQ to see the additional s/w requirements, instead of the just the System _Requriements_. How irresponsible of me.


    Anyway, with Ghost 8.0 I installed the program, made backup diskettes, burned a backup/image DVD, booted my system with it and successfully restored the image. _20_ minutes from initial install to restoring my system with the s/w. That quite obviously wasn't the case with True Image, otherwise I wouldn't be in here in the first place.

    In fact, the only thing it doesn't do from my original post is it requires the insertion of _one_ diskette after booting with the DVD before restoring the image.

    Now if I could just figure out a way to remove the Acronis entry in my Registry file my experience with this s/w would be complete. I guess PC Mag didn't visit this forum before making True Image an Editor's Choice.

    For me, True Image was a True Disaster.

    Of course, ymmv.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.