Image For Windows Reviews:

Discussion in 'backup, imaging & disk mgmt' started by apathy, Mar 4, 2008.

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

    apathy Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2004
    Posts:
    461
    Location:
    9th Circle of Hell(Florida)
    Hello,

    After doing plenty of research and testing different backup solutions I chose to buy BING/IFW/IFD/IFL. I like the speed in which it backs up and the byte-for-byte verification. Has anyone used any of these Terabyte products and how do I backup my MBR along with my partition. I also use Eaz-fix and they work just fine together.

    Much kudos to everyone who contributes to this forum.
     
  2. Brian K

    Brian K Imaging Specialist

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2005
    Posts:
    8,652
    Location:
    NSW, Australia
  3. Longboard

    Longboard Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2004
    Posts:
    3,187
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    @apathy
    Echo that.
    LLOOLL :eek: :D
    Do a search: some great threads here: have dissected these tools for all occasions.
    Although that is true : may require some tweaking.
    Regards
     
  4. HAN

    HAN Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    Posts:
    2,080
    Location:
    USA
    I like Terabyte's stuff too. Over time, I have bought BING, IFW and IFD. At this point, I have migrated to another imaging app that I use most of the time, but I still use IFD too... :)
     
  5. bktII

    bktII Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2006
    Posts:
    224
    I am another very satisfied Terabyte Unlimited (TU) user:

    BING/IFW/IFD/IFL

    I use BING for partitioning, as a boot manager and for image creation/restore; IFW in Win XP for image creation/restore; and IFL in Debian for image creation/restore (looks/works just like IFD in a terminal window). Have used IFD as well.

    All of the software has worked flawlessly. Images created with one TU product have always restored with another TU product.

    Have also restored files/folders from images with TBIview without issue.
     
  6. mata7

    mata7 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2005
    Posts:
    635
    Location:
    Mississauga, Canada
    i use IFW and i love it, also the support is +10
     
  7. tepe2

    tepe2 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2006
    Posts:
    539
    Another happy user here :) I use BING only. Byte-for-byte verification - I dont use it anymore, a waste of time because BING has never failed to backup my OS partition.
     
  8. n8chavez

    n8chavez Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2003
    Posts:
    2,305
    Location:
    Location Unknown
    I am looking at IFW too, for the most part because it create bootable discs when you create the image. I guess the main drawback for me though if the lack of 'good' compression. I currently use TI8 and that has very good compression. With IFW I will not be able to create images that can fit on a CD, as they are about 150 meg larger than if the image were to have been created with TI.

    I would love to here dome opinions on this because I'm torn between the two.
     
  9. Brian K

    Brian K Imaging Specialist

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2005
    Posts:
    8,652
    Location:
    NSW, Australia
    n8chavez,

    IFW will tell you when to swap discs if a second one is needed. There is no issue about an image being too large.

     
  10. HAN

    HAN Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    Posts:
    2,080
    Location:
    USA
    n8chavez: I'm with Brian on this. As the number of programs/data grows on your hard drive, you will eventually need to span disks on TI too. So, if I'm understanding you correctly, IFW may be doing this a bit earlier. But IMO, you would eventually be there anyway...

    (One question... if compression is more important than speed, have you tested increasing the compression option in IFW to the max?)
     
  11. gud4u

    gud4u Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2004
    Posts:
    206
    I used the IFW/IFD combo for some time.

    I successfully recovered backed up images of my OS partition 6 times during that period, using both IFW and IFD apps.

    Image verification is very good. When an image failed verification twice, I found that the drive had developed a faulty read/write area (verified by testing with WD DLGDIAG). After HD repair by DLGDIAG, never another failed verification.

    I switched to Acronis TI10 some time ago, based on a combination of user-suggestions and the slick GUI of Acronis TI10. Acronis TI10 has proved just as reliable.

    The IFW/IFD combo is a good combination of value and reliability.
     
  12. n8chavez

    n8chavez Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2003
    Posts:
    2,305
    Location:
    Location Unknown
    I would say that compression is more important than speed, but it is important. That being said, I've been able to get both with TI; I can make an umage of my active partition which is 1.41 gb in 4 minutes, the resulting image is around 550 meg. The same image created with IFW would be around 680 meg (created in three minutes). I haven't had the need to span multiple disks since I started imaging, once I cleaned out all the crap that Windows doesn't use.

    Is there a max compression setting? I was under the impresion that it was either 'standard' or 'none'.
     
  13. Long View

    Long View Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2004
    Posts:
    2,295
    Location:
    Cromwell Country
    Following all the rave reviews I gave IFD a try and stopped after a few minutes.
    It was so slow in comparison to Acronis 10 and SP 3.1 Is IFW any faster than IFD ? would only be of use if at least as fast as Acronis 10 or SP 3.1
     
  14. Brian K

    Brian K Imaging Specialist

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2005
    Posts:
    8,652
    Location:
    NSW, Australia
  15. HAN

    HAN Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    Posts:
    2,080
    Location:
    USA
    Sorry, I thought there were 3 settings. Not sure why I thought that but there are only 2... :(
     
  16. Long View

    Long View Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2004
    Posts:
    2,295
    Location:
    Cromwell Country
  17. Brian K

    Brian K Imaging Specialist

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2005
    Posts:
    8,652
    Location:
    NSW, Australia
    Long View,

    Can't help you there as the largest image I've created is 5 GB. Be careful with quoted speeds and times. Sometimes people don't add the Verify/Validate time.

    I'm not concerned with speed because my images are created on a schedule. Unless I look, I wouldn't know whether they took x or 10x minutes. Restore speed is more important to me and that is rarely discussed.

    More times.

    https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=187031&page=2&highlight=ShadowProtect#47


    PS: I forgot about my Games partition image. It's 10 GB and as nothing changes, I create it every 6 months or so
     
    Last edited: Mar 7, 2008
  18. Defenestration

    Defenestration Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2004
    Posts:
    1,086
    I don't think you will find any imaging app that is quicker than SP in both backup and restore.

    Re. IFW/IFD/IFL and Acronis, a fairer comparison of the boot environments would probably be IFL vs Acronis, as Acronis uses linux for it's boot environment.

    IFW is usually quickest out of the three terabyte products.
     
  19. tepe2

    tepe2 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2006
    Posts:
    539
    BING is not the fastest, but I dont care:

    Backup 7,55 GB to external hdd (My CPU is AMD Athlon 64 3200+)

    Create image -----7 min 24 sec
    Validate image ----5 min 30 sec (I dont find this necessary, did so for testing)
    Total ------------12 min 54 sec

    Restoring is much faster.
     
  20. markymoo

    markymoo Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2007
    Posts:
    1,212
    Location:
    England
    arghhh you said IFW/IFD/IFL and Acronis in the same sentance.
     
  21. Huupi

    Huupi Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2006
    Posts:
    2,024
    At real image time SP is by far the fastest.

    But loading boot environment in case of restore the system part. SP is the slowest by far,ATI and sure IFD load much faster.

    So the differences between them is not that big.

    They all shine in reliability !
     
  22. Long View

    Long View Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2004
    Posts:
    2,295
    Location:
    Cromwell Country
    Huupi - not sure what you mean here "But loading boot envirenment....... slowest " ?

    I have several machines where making a system image Acronis 10 takes 45 sec
    and SP 40. Then I bought SP and made a CD. This CD can restore on an old machine in half the time that Acronis would take 3 mins plus compared with 7. then again using another drive the time is much greater. I think that all these imaging programs are extremely hardware dependent. On the wrong machine ( dell ? ) Acronis can be very slow. when I did try IFD I gave up - it was going to take 30 mins or more on one of my machines - just too slow for me. so I never did get to see a restore.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.