When testing a new imaging app, make sure you can restore an image to a new blank disk and be able to boot Windows from that disk. This simulates a disk failure. This is an old thread but there were a few surprises. https://www.wilderssecurity.com/threads/failed-uefi-restores-to-a-new-hd.373634/
I tried Paragon free today and it was pretty straightforward, simple and decently fast even though the frame size where problematic in recovery mode. So this one is possible to recommend to friends and novices. Active disc image was another story. The free, lite version, had no possibility to create recovery media, at all. Hmm. So do anyone know how one is supposed to create a media if using lite version?
Your inquiry would've and should've sufficed by stopping after your first sentence. Your opinion (taken as a grain of salt at best) suggesting that Aomei and EaseUS are deeply flawed and incompetent tools is neither popular nor is it corroborated by the multitudinous users of either app. I've been using the paid for version of Aomei for a couple of years. The updates are relatively frequent and the execution of each and every one of my system and file backups has been absolutely flawless.
I see an image for each partition as a positive feature. The images are all contained neatly together in a folder. I can quickly and easily see that all my partitions have been backup up, and I can just as quickly and easily open and view a partition. Restorations are just as easy. To restore a complete disk, you only have to select one of the images from the disk. The others are selected for you. If you think it's messy, then don't go looking in the C:\Windows\System32 folder.
Although in a way i may be considered relatively new to Aomei Backupper in recent months, the execution and file/disk backups, and more importantly (Restores) have for me also been 100% flawless, trouble-free, and superb without so much as a hint of any problems or else i would had been quick to complain about it. My results continue to be excellent!
Anyone knows if the free Acronis True Image WD (Western Digital) Edition would work on systems without a WD drive?
In the past it didn't if it didn't detect a WD drive. There was a Seagate version too, not sure anymore.
I would recommend Veeam Agent for Windows FREE because it is simple, reliable, and free of advertisements. I have used it, and it has never let me down. It provides the core features: backup and restore. There is no boot menu option. The USB recovery provides some extra tools. https://download.veeam.com/VAW/v5/VeeamAgentWindows_5.0.3.4708.zip
guys, how about Parted Magic? I know it's a disk partitioning utility but it also has a backup/clone feature. Anyone tried it to see if it's reliable?
Heh, let me throw another ingredient into the soup, Raxco’s First Defense. Used to be a favorite here at Wilder’s and still has a forum dedicated to it. It is not what the thread starter requested, free, but some of the other suggestions are not either. Yes, I know, it is slow, clunky, and takes up a lot of space on the c:drive, BUT, it has the one thing that I require most from a recovery program: it is extremely reliable, in my opinion, every bit as reliable as our favorites, Macirum, IFW, and Drive Snapshot. As far as my limited intellect is able to understand about these type programs, IR has one advantage and one disadvantage compared to the others. Advantage: for those who prefer this type of recovery, it does not overwrite the c:drive. Disadvantage: even though it has a pre-Boot screen which works very well should Windows become unbootable, it will not recover if you COMPLETELY hose your system and can only start things with a usb recovery key. I’ve been using this program (formerly named First Defense) since 2004. Only once did I need to fall back upon Macrium’s recovery USB key, I forget what I did to the system to cause that. Just thought that I’d throw another program into the fray. Take care, Acadia
AOMEI Backupper works well for me. But it's very rare for me to restore from a backup. When I have my issues with my system, I do my best to fix the issue before resorting to restoring from a working backup. I haven't used it since I tried v2. At the time, alternatives such as AOMEI Backupper and EaseUS Todo Backup had more options and seemed to be much better options. But I do like their partitioning software.
Anyone using EaseUS? I have EaseUS Workstation, and I noticed that after a restore operation, the size of the next incremental backup is like the size of the full backup.
Most, if not all, programs will do this. A restore creates so many changes to the c:drive that the next incremental will be very big. Same is true with de-fragging or re-trimming the c:drive; the next incremental will probably be very big. After a restore or re-trim, I usually just create a brand new, full backup, starting fresh because of all the changes that were made. Acadia
One thing I don't get though is why are we creating such a fuss about the tried Macrium Reflect which we all trust? Why do we need further updates? It has been polished a lot since the v8 release and the partition scheme of Windows is not changing any time soon so one could just create a bootable Rescue disk, backup or restore without needing updates right?
I also do not get it. The free version of Macrium is going to receive updates till Jan 2024 and even after that the last version dated Jan 2024 will continue to work for as long as it is being used on a supported system. Also, Jan 2024 is far off, it is quite possible that they might change their mind and continue with the free version based on their strategic plan at a later date. Macrium after all is a business, and exists to make money, not to uphold past commitments.
This is normal behavior with most backup utilities. In order to avoid this you need something like Macrium with delta restore enabled. Delta restore in Macrium only restores the changed blocks from the time the image was created to the time the image was restored. The changed data therefore is very small and your next incremental is going to be just an incremental.
I did some tests with IFW incrementals. The results aren't consistent with some of the above comments. Several incrementals were created until I had a consistent size. 4.tbi was 3 MB 4.tbi was restored without the metadata option (Delta restore) or the restore changed sectors only option. A normal restore. 5.tbi was created (based on 4.tbi). 5.tbi was 29 MB. A negligible increase in size. A Trim operation was performed. 6.tbi was created (based on 5.tbi). 6.tbi was 36 MB. A negligible increase in size. Computer was restarted. 7.tbi was created (based on 6.tbi). 7.tbi was 36 MB. 7.tbi was restored as a normal restore. As above. 8.tbi was created (based on 7.tbi). 8.tbi was 25 MB. I didn't see any large incremental images after restores or a Trim.
Brian, when the backups were created in IFW, was the "faster changes only backup" option checked? Macrium has three options that work in combination: 1- (DI) delta indexes for incremental backups 2- (CBT) changed block tracker for incremental backups - with an option to reset CBT on reboot. 3- (RD) rapid delta restores. During restore Macrium does not completely reset CBT and DI, but just resets them till the restored image. This is why the next incremental is not large. Before Macrium introduced these CBT, DI and RD, I remember my next incremental after a restore used to be very large. I am assuming IFW is also using something similar to Macrium. I am not much familiar with it. I just glanced at the user manual for EaseUS Todo Backup Workstation and it does not have anything similar to CBT, DI or RD, so an incremental after a restore where the CBT is reset or does not exit will be very large.
Raza0007, No, I tried to keep everything simple, default. IFW has metadata based backups and restores which I gather are similar to Macrium's rapid delta restores. It wasn't used either. IFW has Write Tracking but I've never tried it. No interest.
Then I am guessing that the default "faster changes only backups" option keeps track of the changes and this is why your incrementals were not large. As I said before, I am not that much familiar with IFW, so do not know how it works.
I see. I saw this option checked on a screenshot on their website, so I assumed it was a default setting.
It's a good setting as it allows a changes only backup to occur in a third of the time. But it has no effect on image size.
An interesting result from IFL as there were no restarts. All images were created offline. In IFL an incremental was created... 2.tbi was 360 kb (less than 1 MB) 2.tbi was restored 3.tbi was created (based on 2.tbi). 3.tbi was 380 kb (less than 1 MB)