My Experience with TI9

Discussion in 'Acronis True Image Product Line' started by tazdevl, Nov 3, 2005.

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

    tazdevl Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2004
    Posts:
    837
    Location:
    AZ, USA
    Based on my experience, TI9 takes longer than TI8 to run a backup and uses more space for the resulting archive. This is a step backward for the application. Who the hell is managing this product? The positioning should be... "it takes longer to backup, uses more space, we added a couple of inconsequential features and overally reliability is gone".

    TI8 - Backup of 55GB of data took 1 hour 15 mins on High Compression, resulting archive was 38GB. Before the backup, I ran PerfectDisk to clean up any defragged files, aggressive space consolidation.

    TI9 - Backup of 52GB of data (deleted some MP3s, same files otherwise) took 2 hours 10 mins on High Compression, resulting archive was 44GB. Before the backup, I ran PerfectDisk to clean up any defragged files, aggressive space consolidation, same report at end of defrag as with the TI8 job.

    So where's the benefit of this program over the previous version? Why should I upgrade?

    I should also mention that I selected the custom option for the backup job so it would verify the image... was rather disappointed that there was no confirmation dialog/popup that the image was successfully verified/was OK. Wouldn't it be nice if the app told me the image was OK since there are a host of threads out there regarding corrupt image files and TI8/TI9?

    Acronis Support, I hope you are writing down the "image verification confirmation dialog/popup at end of backup job" feature request and have an explanation why a NEW VERSION takes longer and cannot compress an image as well as a previous version.

    I'm using a Abit IC7 Max3 mobo with 2 WD Raptors in Raid 0, SATA. Backing up to a WD Caviar 250GB drive via Parallel Port. No new chipsets/hardware to contend with. XP Pro SP2 fully patched.
     
    Last edited: Nov 3, 2005
  2. tazdevl

    tazdevl Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2004
    Posts:
    837
    Location:
    AZ, USA
    Forgot to add, got corrupt files in archive error to boot when I tried to restore. Thankfully I made an image with Ghost too. 9.0 Build 2302, 8.0 Build 937 BTW.
     
    Last edited: Nov 5, 2005
  3. tazdevl

    tazdevl Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2004
    Posts:
    837
    Location:
    AZ, USA
    Bump so folks will know what they're getting into with a formerly good now turned POS app.
     
  4. realworld

    realworld Guest

    tasdev1

    Your changes and defrag to the drive after the T8 backup could easily result in increased size with TI 9. See FAQ for explanation on how it works.

    I have found no probs with TI 9 2032 on my configuration P4, 1 gig, 2 SATA drive 3 IDE drives 1 USB drive.
     
  5. Technic

    Technic Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2005
    Posts:
    428
    Hi!

    I lost ALL my data cause of TI 9.0 (latest). Backup went fine, image was verified. And then, when doing restore: drive is not reckonized (80 GB Seagate).

    You really ****ed up this Acronis. And yes, i can blame you. I am without my data ATM.:eek:
     
  6. crofttk

    crofttk Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2004
    Posts:
    1,976
    Location:
    Eastern PA, USA
    Un-uh. That's only a problem for the size of an incremental or differential backup versus a full backup. Of course, you're right if taz was testing something other than full backups. Do you really think that was the case ?

    He said he backed up the same data minus around 3 GB of mp3s. The way I see it, he cut TI9 a break !;)
     
  7. tazdevl

    tazdevl Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2004
    Posts:
    837
    Location:
    AZ, USA
    You misunderstood. I should have mentioned that I did 2 full backup jobs, 1 for TI 8 and 1 for TI9.

    Defrag occurred before both backup jobs and the post defrag stat report (PerfectDisk) was identical (0 defragged files, aggressive space consolidation). TI backs up based on sectors, if they're identical, other than 3GB less data, the resulting backup should be smaller, not 6GB larger.

    Regardless, I'm not running brand spanking new hardware, I've been using TI for YEARS and ACRONIS has one opportunity to get my business, not multiple, there are alternatives out there. When the RESTORE failed with corrupt files even after I verified the image before attempting the restore, that immediately crushed my perception of the company and the application.

    Run a search and see how many folks are having issues with the app.

    I am not the type of customer that gives a company money in the hopes that they will fix whatever is wrong with the app. If it isn't working properly, it shouldn't have been released. Any company that thinks this paradigm (releasing beta software for customer purchase) is acceptable is digging themselves into a hole they will not be able to get out.
     
    Last edited: Nov 5, 2005
  8. nurquhar

    nurquhar Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2005
    Posts:
    11
    Dear Tazdevl

    Which version did you experiecne the corruption in the restore with ? ie TI8 or TI9. I have had Acronis downgrade my recent TI9 purchase to TI8, 937. Do you believe the TI8 version is relieable and stable ? If not I may need to consider yet another application. Do you think the latest Ghost version may be a good choice ?

    Regards
    Neil
     
  9. tazdevl

    tazdevl Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2004
    Posts:
    837
    Location:
    AZ, USA
    Neil,

    TI9 gave me a problem right off the bat, TI8 Build 937 works fine though I did run into a restore issue (got laptop back from being serviced) when I tried to restore from a few DVDs a few weeks ago. Wasn't the media, Taiyo Yuden 8X and I checked the image before burning to a DVD via Nero, verified the DVDs after burning as well.

    The more I read about the check image function in the forums, the more I wonder if it really does anything.

    I'm giving Ghost 10 some consideration.
     
    Last edited: Nov 6, 2005
  10. Detox

    Detox Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2002
    Posts:
    8,507
    Location:
    Texas, USA
    This is the Acronis support forum, so let's try to stay on-topic. The topic is Tazdevl's experience with TI9. Other imaging products are discussed in the software and services forum.
     
  11. BlueZannetti

    BlueZannetti Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2003
    Posts:
    6,590
    To all:

    Well, Detox beat me to it, but to repeat, let's try to keep the discussion in-forum centered on Acronis' products, alternate products can be quite freely discussed in Software, Hardware and General Services.

    As for TI8 build 937, my own experience is that it is quite stable. I was just upgrading the system drives of two of my machines. Both clones were created quickly with no problems. Have no had occasion to restore from a backup as yet. I have not migrated to version 9 for the obvious reasons, but have used TI7 and TI8 with no issues. I do plan on upgrading to TI9 at some point, but not until I am unambiguously convinced the application is clearly stable.

    Blue
     
  12. tazdevl

    tazdevl Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2004
    Posts:
    837
    Location:
    AZ, USA
    Well I took advantage of the refund policy. Not waiting for them to get basic functionality right (run a backup and have a reliable restore) nor paying to be a beta tester.
     
  13. jcyr

    jcyr Guest

    TI8 latest build is stable! Not for me it isn't. In standalone mode it locks up doing backups to a network drive when running on a dual-core Athlon. TI9 is unusable with problems starting with corrupted backups and with the latest build a USB mouse problem that manifests as a pointer arrow that will go up and down but not sideways!

    Since it is unlikely Acronis will fix the dual-core issue in TI9, they have effectively left me hanging without backups. Never again.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.