Hi, I'm new to TrueImage, previously been using Ghost. I turned to looking for alternatives after finding it impossible to do *proper* incremental backups in a certain particular situation, which I'll describe at the end of this thread. For now, I'll just say that TrueImage doesn't solve it either, and this is because of the way sector-by-sector imaging is (not) done by the ironically named "TrueImage". Here are two statements from Mr. Alexey Popov, a support team member, posted on two different occasion, statements that besides being expressed in a very clear, enlightening manner, are perfectly contradictory as well: 1) from https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=112864&highlight=sector-by-sector "Please be aware that when Acronis True Image 9.0 creates a disk\partition image it does a sector-by-sector backup regardless of whether the file system of the backed up partition is supported or not (corrupted). The only difference between these two cases is that when Acronis True Image 9.0 recognizes the file system (I mean that the file system is known by Acronis True Image 9.0 or in other words - supported) then it backups only the used sectors of the backed up disk\partition. Otherwise (in case of the unsupported or corrupted file system), there is no way for Acronis True Image 9.0 to determine which sectors are actually used and which of them are not, so it creates a sector-by-sector image of all sectors of the backed up disk\partition including so-called "free" space." And 2) from https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=110559&page=2&highlight=incremental restore "Please be aware that Acronis True Image 9.0 creates sector-by-sector images only in case of the corrupted or unsupported file system. It therefore does not restore files to the exactly same sectors they were residing at the moment you have created an image. However, it does not affect operating system functionality in any way." Now I would appreciate a confirmation from you folks, that it's not just my non-native English and these two are indeed opposite, that is, in the first statement, backup is always done sector-by-sector, with the observation that when the file-system is known and not corrupted, only used sectors are copied, whereas in the second statement, the backup is done on a sector-by-sector basis only when the filesystem is unknown or corrupt. Also, I would appreciate a final statement from the support (or - why not - development) team. And here's the problem I'm having with incremental back-ups: Usually, after I install the OS, I make a full back-up of the system partition and then an incremental back-up every once in a while, after installing certain programs. The thing is, I'm of a very curious/experimental nature and install a lot of crapware before choosing the right software for a particular job. Therefore, I revert very often to partition states reflected by the various incremental backups I made, in which situation, after restoration, I would like to go on experimenting, creating new incrementals from the restore point and discard the existing ones from that point up. The thing is, if I try an incremental back-up just immediately after a partition restoration, the resulting incremental image is about the size of the full back-up. This means that, either the initial disk sector layout is not exactly "mirrored" in the image file, or at restore time, the partition is not restored according to the exact layout supposedly stored in the image file. It can be true though, that the image is obtained after reading the hdd at sector level, (and not using OS-provided "descriptor" techniques), only the sectors are rearranged, which is sometimes not desirable and should at least be configurable by user. Thanks for listening and I would appreciate any comment.