my search for best disk imaging software

I just finished testing this on my work computer.

DS = 22:54 mins for 38.9 gig image

O&O = 18 mins for a 39.1 gig image

This computer has a early generation 75 gig 10k rpm raptor for C drive and was backed up to another drive in same system.

I do not know why the dell image was bigger for DS. I may retest that to see if I can find out why.

 

The reason for dismisal of DS was for variety of reasons and I just stated one. When I was making the boot disk, Antivir flagged "mapnetworkdrive.exe" which is used to make the vistaPe boot disk, as a trojan. I therefore have had to contact antivir to find out if this is a false positive or real malware. I have not heard back yet.

When new versions of Ds or OS's become available, I will most likely have to create another vistaPE boot disk if I want to use the latest features. With O&O and Paragon, they provide the ISO link and I simply download/burn it.

Another reason Ds uses windows built in scheduler I believe. Most other imaging programs have their own scheduler.

DS does not do incrementals.

DS costs $39 euros and for a yank, that is more than the $25.17 I paid for O&O.

 

There is no such thing as the perfect software, so it comes down to determining what's most important to you.

As a DS user, I appreciate its small footprint, speed of operation, and portability - which btw means that you really don't have to build a PE startup disk! I use the free UBCD4Win and have placed a copy of snapshot.exe on my USB storage drive (so that I can execute DS from there after booting up with UBCD4Win).

On the other hand, my family prefers ATI because they find its GUI to be the most user-friendly and they really like that it allows them to initiate a restore from within Windows (where ATI automatically reboots itself into Linux to actually perform the restore).

Btw hawkeen, with all of your computers do make sure that the startup disk (of whichever program you find most to your liking) can recognize all of your HDDs!

 

I actually considered O&O about 4 months ago. I installed it and made an image. The interface seemed simple and easy to understand. However, I was also frustrated at the fact that you cannot try it until you buy it. The price at the time was ~$20 but I did not purchase it for the main reason that I could not fully try it first. Also, I could not find much feedback from users of O&O.

I decided to go with Image for Windows(IFW)/Image for DOS(IFD) mainly for the following reasons:

1. Simple Interface
2. Reliable (based on feedback from others at Wilders)
3. Makes a "Bootable" Restore DVD.
4. Home license allows for use on two PC's

To test IFW/IFD (on one PC only) I made and restored the system partition the following two ways:

1. Using the "Bootable" DVD
2. Restoring from another internal SATA hard drive using Image for DOS

Both of the test restores went well.

 

Unfortunately it doesn't work with Linux file systems, AFAIR, as opposed to, e.g., Acronis. So for a dual-boot system it's not adequate.

 

Yes, I think I acknowledged as much in my post but you may now understand, with the info that Jo Ann has provided, where I was coming from in that you only really need to make the boot CD once.

Some might see these two as plus points . DS does differentials which I personally prefer. They obviously take a bit longer than incrementals to make but are inherently safer.

Even if O&O were more expensive, if it suits you better then that's the one to go for. I'm not trying to make a case for DS here, I was just trying to clarify any misconceptions about it.

Your tests in comparison with O&O were interesting and just go to show that users really have to test these things on their own systems and why there will never be a 'best imaging application'. It would be interesting to know where that extra 26GB came from though if you do get around to some re-testing .

Graham

 

I have a floppy drive for my netbook computer, but I do NOT have a CD/DVD drive.

I use Image for Windows because it allows the startup disk to be on a floppy rather than a CD.

Do any of these other imaging programs allow the startup disk to be made on a floppy?

 

I just created an image using O&O on this work box. It is a older 10k 74 gig (formatted) raptor that had the image on another drive in same system.

I booted up O&O boot cd, and started restore process. When you make a image or restore an image with O&O it auto validates and lets you the option to skip if you want. Here are the numbers for this restore.

12 mins to validate 39.1 gig image
18 mins to restore 39.1 gig image

Total time 30 mins.

I am writing this on the restored box.

 

Could Paragon's Drive Backup 9.0 Express Free be an alternative?
Paragon DBE

 

If you have a license for acronis ti, Ghost, Paraagon or a few others you can get a cross upgrade for $16.76 right now. The page says $19.95 but iof you follow the link it's less. Must be the conversion rate has changed.

I use terabyte's image products and if I were to switch it'd be for Drive Snapshot. Shadowprotect is nice but it lacks support for linux.

edit forgot to add the link.
http://www.oo-software.com/home/en/products/oodiskimage/upgrade/index.html

 

Free is good. However, I was under the impression that one of the OP's criteria for selection of the "best imaging software" was the inclusion of a WinPE 2.0 CD or at least a link to download an ISO and burn one. Some of the products discussed here have neither, including all of those offered free of charge, leaving it to users to build their own (which, depending upon the user, ranges from a mere inconvenience to a major undertaking).

 

Yep, that is why ghost was always so nice. You started with a floppy, made the image and chose to burn to cd. Then it asked if you wanted to put boot up files on cd and make it bootable. It was slower, but it was easy to do for pretty much anyone who understood what a drive and partition were.

Sul.

 

You should of tried paragon drive backup 9 its free.

 

From Paragon's site:

 

Thank you. I understood that. I grabbed a portion of a comparison of the products from Paragon's site and attached it below (Express is on the left, Personal in the center, and Pro is on the far right). Note the WinPE recovery environment is included *only* with the Pro version.

 

I never understood the difference between differentials and incrementals and now to hear they are safer I guess its time I understood the difference. Could I trouble you (or someone) to clarify please?

 

bgoodman4,

From the Image for Windows manual....

 

Thank you Brian, now its clear and not only that but it makes a lot of sense. I gather from the above that there is little reason to keep too many of the differential backups. For example now I am keeping full weekly backups followed by 6 days if incrementals. I do this until the drive is almost full and then I clear the oldest weeks images making room for the current weeks backups. With a differential setup I can keep the full weekly backup and the last differential for each week and clear the other differentials. This will enable me to free up a lot of disk space and allow me to keep a much longer period of restore points.

I like this idea a lot and I also really like the fact that the regime is safer.

 

Differentials are more reliable than incrementals because the latter is only as good as 'the weakest link in the chain (of incrementals)' If just one of those incrementals is corrupted, your chance of recovery is not good.

While I'm not big on defragging, it should be noted that the space-saving advantage of differentials and/or incrementals is often lost as soon as you defrag the source volume.

But getting back on topic, Jo Ann's advice about making sure that the imaging program's startup (recovery) disk can see all drives that you expect to backup and backup to is (imho) one of the most important factors to consider in selecting a disk-imaging program. Size and speed of the backup image become trivial issues if you can't restore your system drive!

 

@ Brian,

Are the following understandings about Image For Windows (IFW) correct

1. Installing IFW does not install Phylock. One must install Phylock separately.

2. Phylock must be installed in order to use IFW to backup the system volume from within Windows.

3. IFW's restoring (startup) disk is actually Image For DOS.

Thanks,
Aaron

 

Aaron,

Yes, they are separate programs. I'm not sure about the trial IFW download but the registered IFW download contains a Phylock installer.

Yes. I gather you can get around this requirement but it is not advisable to image a system partition that hasn't been locked.

Yes, and you can use an IFD or an IFL CD/USB flash drive to restore an IFW, IFD or IFL image. Each app can restore images made by the other two apps.

There are several other ways to restore an IFW image, my favourite being the bootfile method which doesn't require a boot disc.

 

I've read, and I believe, that defragging your HD every 6 months is enough. While benchmarks may tell you otherwise, in practice you won't notice any difference in a modern HDs performance. Defragging is a disaster when creating differential and incremental backups.

 

Hmm, please elaborate on this method.

Thanks,
Aaron

 

I do hundreds more restores for software issues than for HD failures. So these restores can be initiated from Windows and don't need a boot disc. Just double click an icon and your computer will restart, boot into IFD, run the restore and then reboot into your restored OS. All done while you are having dinner.

http://www.terabyteunlimited.com/howto/index.htm

See "Running Image for DOS Without a Boot Disk". It might seem a little confusing at first but put your brain in neutral and follow the instructions. Once you have created one bootfile the next will take two minutes. Make sure the bootfile is stored on the same HD as the OS.

 

Thanks Brian... I'm still very satisfied with DS, but I'm going to 'play around' with IFW/IFD when I get some free time.

Aaron