FirstDefense-ISR Versus Acronis TI

No not a dumb idea and I suspect some users would be doing exactly that.

Just remember that when imaging that you may end up with only the current snapshot; although I'd be better off not commenting specifically on RBRx as I have not used it for years: check with others.

 

If I put the .exe setup for FDISR on a disk, do you think it could be installed on a different computer?

 

My understanding is that you are correct about that but I have read so many different opinions on the subject that I could be wrong. This is one of the things I need to test to be sure of myself. I do however seem to recall (possibly correctly or not) that if you do a sector by sector image using (for example) ATI you do get all the snaps. However even if this is not the case as long as you do not lose the different snaps when imaging you could in theory simply roll over to the different configurations and then do an image of the now current setup. This way you would have images of all of your various setups however you would not be able to restore them all to the same PC.

 

Why can't you?

 

Unless I'm wrong, some softwares record your computer number, and you can't copy to a different box without purchasing an additional license. Hence my question if anyone had tried it with FDISR.

 

FD-ISR doesn't use product activation, so you should be fine installing it on a different machine.

 

AFAIK the Raxco file need no activation but then the SoftwarePursuits file has an activation scheme.I don't know about Peer Software also a reseller at the time.

Big Vendors like Raxco with no activation/copy protection on their stuff hmmmm....how long they can stay in business ?

 

Thanks Sky. for your reply - I am getting the idea - Have been using ATI
for several years and can't save/store the images on the 'same' Drive, well,

not unless via the 'Zone' partition, so it confused me that this FD-ISR only
stores it's snaps. on the 'same' Drive, well,
unless using the now 'extinct' early version which would allow the snap. storage on a different HDD.

I thought/hoped that downloading one of these 3.20.202's from any of many places would be
getting me the early version, but Horizon won't give the rego. key for it.

 

I bet if they did give you a key that the resellers of the stripped down version would be none too pleased.

 

I was not pleased to use fd-isr original,I am not pleased with any other instant recovery solutions , its a nuisance.


1)It takes 40 minutes to take the first snapshot , is that acceptable?Rollback rx takes 1 second , though it gives lots of problems.

The entire backup by drive snapshot takes 2 minutes.
2)
I dont see the export snapshot option is different form image restore and this process takes long too.

I think it takes more than 10 minutes to copy the backed up snapshot to original snapshot .Is that right?

Overall , comparing drive imaging and instant recovery is futile.

 

Yes BG. I guess so - how are you going with the RX, any problems so far ?

Reading the following post from Raakii I am wondering if I might not be better off sticking with the upto now 'touch wood' trouble free ATI.

 

Nuisance? I'd like to have a dollar for every person who wished they could still buy FD-ISR licenses so they might avail themselves of your "nuisance." I shudder at the prospect of owning a PC not equipped with such a "nuisance."

The amount of time it takes to create a new snapshot will vary due to the size of the data, a PC's processing speed, and whether the snapshot is stored on an internal hard drive or an external drive connected by a USB cable (which naturally takes longer). Once regular and archive snapshots are created, it only takes me a few minutes to copy/update them when desired. I haven't noticed any dramatic differences between my snapshot and image creation times.

It's obviously acceptable to me or I wouldn't use (and deeply appreciate) FD-ISR. It's not like your PC can't be used for other purposes while snapshots are being created or updated. I really don't see what your objection is. As for why Rollback Rx snapshots are so fast (and radically different from FD-ISR's), that's a topic for another thread and has been discussed on this forum before.

How long it takes to copy one snapshot onto another will depend on the factors mentioned above as well as the differences between the two snapshots; how much data must be deleted and how much replaced. My copy/update times range from two to ten minutes for the reasons I described. Switching from the active snapshot to a different regular snapshot merely requires a reboot and selecting from a menu; that's pretty quick IMHO.

BTW, if you've used the full version of FD-ISR why are you asking if you're "right" or not? I would think you'd already know this stuff.

I'm not going to touch this one.

 

Sorry .if i could put the first line correctly , i hate to use fd-idr or rollback rx as drive backup program.

the thread here aims to compare acronis TI (drive backup) and fd-isr.

Comparison of fd-isr(as a drive backup) and drive imaging program.--->drive imaging wins hands down , backup is very fast, fd-isr acts like file copy program during first snapshot creation and compression is very poor.

Comparison of fd-idr and instant recovery program --->fd-isr provides the greatest possible options and rollback rx has problems like slowing up the system , running as a process in the background.Switching between different os is best of all is best in fdisr.

If want to use multiple configuration go for fd-isr and next choice would be rollback rx.Please dont consider replacing acronis with fd-isr ,rather u may use it together if need multiple configrations and if u have loads of hdd space.

 

Imagine for a minute that you have FDISR with 2 identical snapshots on your C drive. You are using snapshot number one, and you do something that causes your system to throw up error messages and BSOD's, and you have no idea why. You could spend hours tracking the problem down, or you could possibly re-install your OS etc. or you could just reboot to snapshot number two, and copy snapshot two to one, and forget the problem ever happened. Now how big of a nuisance was it to create that snapshot?

 

or you could just restore your image of C: with Acronis, Shadow Protect or any one of a number of imaging programs.

 

This may have been covered in another post, but is possible to export a snapshot in either its full size, or compressed, to a file for off-site backup purposes. Detailed instructions can be found in the TOOLS - EXPORT SNAPSHOT menu.

RobbZee

 

I would do wat Long View says than run two identical systems , bcos i dont need multiple confg as of now.However both these ways are much etter than os reinstall.

 

First let me apologize for diverting from the thread topic which has nothing to do with RollBack, that beings said,,,,,,,

So far trouble free and smooth as silk. There are a few things to do with RollBack installed that were provided by forum members while I was deciding if the program was for me. I suspect this list will help me avoid problems (at least I hope so). The fact that I have RollBack installed has not stopped me from using TI by the way. RollBack support suggests uninstall RB before doing this but if you don;t mind fixing the MBR IF you need to do a restore then its not a problem just doing the backup. My expectation is that I will rarely have to restore a TI image in the future since I can simply revert the PC using RB. Only in the event of a hard drive failure would TI be nec. Also the current (possibly no longer current as I read that a new version was being launched on Feb 15 - don't know if it happened yet) version has imaging of the current state to external media and you do not need to uninstall RB when using it. Evidently this feature is no longer part of the new version but you can buy Drive Cloner Rx which has been spun off from the older RB. This means that TI would only be required in the event that both rolling back and restoring the RB generated image failed. I suspect that that the likelihood of that happing is reasonably low.

Here is the info that has been provided to me regarding backing up with TI with RB installed and the list of do and do not dos.

1: My question:

Ans (sorry I did not record the name of the person who provided this info):

The do and do not do with RB installed list (again I did not record who provided this list) and I have not followed #6.

As noted above I am very pleased with RB so far. Its easy to use and snapshots and restores are quick and painless. Much much faster than with TI. Snaps take less than 5 seconds and restores under 5 min (I have not timed it but its quick).

My suggestion is to do a full image (possibly sector by sector with ATI) and then give RB a try. If you have a problem just restore from the TI image but if you follow the above the odds are (I believe) good that you will be getting a licence sooner rather than later.

I hope this helps and and again I apologize for the digression.

 

Yes, you of course could, but how long would that take? From the sound of it with FD-ISR and def with RollBack, all it takes is the time to reboot to a particular snapshot. In my limited experience thats under 5 min while with TI images we are looking at (generally) much more that that.

I agree using either FD-ISR or RollBack along with an imaging program such as TI just makes good sense. Its not an either or situation.

 

How long would it take ? depends upon a number of factors - which imaging program and how large C: As I don't use FD-ISR my C: is much smaller than it would be if I used FD-ISR. with C: < 5 gb it would take me 5 mins max to restore. If I had 5 snapshots then C: might be 20 gb plus and imaging and restoring would take much longer.

 

But Long View i too dont use fd-isr(since i find imaging perfect for my needs) but i think u can exclude fd-isr file during backup.I dont need ISR softwares(fd-isr or rollback rx) , i have backup around 1 gb with almost all programs made portable or installed elsewhere.It takes 1 minute to restore the image.I use simple virtualizers for testing softwares on demand .

 

So basically you are saying that in your case what you are doing works well for you. Thats great but there are different folks out there with different needs, requirements, or preferences. What I am doing works for me and suits my preferences. So whose approach is correct yours, or mine? Why both of them of course.

 

Thanks a lot for the above BG - It will be a help should I decide to add RX -
I am still kicking around yours and the other guys tooing and froing info. re. the advantages of double cover and speed of restore etc.

 

I must admit that the negative comments had me spooked. Almost gave it a pass because of them. Then I thought to myself,,,,heck, if I had read the negative comments about True Image that you see flying around this forum I would never of had the 4 or 5 years of trouble free use that I have enjoyed with it. The bottom line is take the info both negative and positive into consideration and decide if the features of whatever program you are considering will be something you think will be of value. If they look good give the program a try. If you protect yourself before you do (do an image of the drive and understand how to deal with or prevent the indicated problems) then you really can try the software without concern of having an unrecoverable from problem. My 2 cents worth (Canadian $) I already would not want to be without RB.