Universal Restore suggestion

Discussion in 'Acronis True Image Product Line' started by dobbelina, Jul 21, 2006.

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

    dobbelina Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2005
    Posts:
    54
    Hi !
    I have a small suggestion.
    Why don't you make "Universal restore" independent of TI ?
    (It could be both, used together with TI or standalone.)
    The value of the app would then truly increase as it's usage wouldn't be restricted to TI image restoration only.
    It could then be used on "working systems" directly after let's say a
    mainboard failure.
    Just rip out the hd and replace comp, run UR and you're good to go,
    No Data Lost !.
    The way UR works today, one will always loose the data between
    when a crash/malfuntion occurs and the last backup.
    If UR were standalone, this wouldn't be the case.
    One could then potentially also use it to restore images made from other manufacturers as well...
    I'm sure Acronis would improve sales with this change.
    That's my suggestion, thanks.
     
    Last edited: Jul 22, 2006
  2. jeremyotten

    jeremyotten Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2005
    Posts:
    684
    I can confirm the need for this option!
     
  3. starsfan09

    starsfan09 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2006
    Posts:
    352
    Not quite sure about what you're asking here.
    I have 2 Raptors (WD740GD and WD740ADFD -74gb-10,000). I Reinstalled Windows XP Pro on one. Then, installed all my programs in the order I wanted them. Finally, after about 16 hours,....everything is installed, and ready to go. I ran "ScanDisc", and then "Defrag"....and immediately made a Full Backup using Acronis Boot-CD. Just as soon as Acronis finished making the Back-Up, ....I took the file (11gb) and ran the Boot-CD to RESTORE the file on the other Raptor. Been testing all week, and have not noticed a difference in performance at all!!! It runs perfect!

    Now, if my Motherboard went out, ..and I had it replaced ...I think I would want to Re-Install XP because the "Disc Image" that was previously made with a previous motherboard would be no good. Why? Because when you boot the computer up...the New Motherboard will try to install everything it notices. It will ask to install the drivers for everything in the computer such as the Video Card, Sound, Ethernet, Modem, USB port, and etc. You'll have one hell of a mess on your hands. You're way better off just Reinstalling the OS... when replacing the Motherboard.
     
  4. dobbelina

    dobbelina Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2005
    Posts:
    54
    I'd beg to differ.
    If your using a comp in a working enviroment, and the data that has accumulated since the last backup is important, it would be a hassle getting it out if the replacement system has a different hal.
    If Universal Restore was standalone, this wouldn't be the case.
    Instead of having to use time consuming tools like PE, to rescue un-accesible data.
    All that would be needed is to run UR on the target machine instead....
    Time is money, and since this is a "corporate" product, i'm sure the standalone option would be very much welcomed.
    I don't see the "mess" youre talking about ?
    After the first boot, yes, windows will ask for/install drivers for the new hardware. But after that has been done, there shouldn't be any difference between the "old" system and the new one as far as the data is concerned.
    That's far better than "Mr blue screen".
    At least that's my opinion :)
    Put simply, Universal restore isn't used to it's full potential by being "locked"
    to TI.
     
    Last edited: Jul 22, 2006
  5. starsfan09

    starsfan09 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2006
    Posts:
    352
    Thought you were talking about a home computer.

    Corporate, and Enterprise computers are a different ball game.

    I had a Motherboard go out on a home system a year ago. When I replaced it, ...it asked to reinstall the drivers and software. Although the drivers, and software was already on the Hard Drive because it was not changed...the New Motherboard didn't recognize any of it. It picked up everything as a New device to install.
    It was heavily "suggested" that I just wipe it all off, and Reinstall XP to eliminate any problems.
     
  6. dobbelina

    dobbelina Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2005
    Posts:
    54
    Well, that's the whole idea with UR, not having to do that.
    (a little bit off topic)
    You were lucky being able to boot into windows at all with your new mobo..
    If I came as far as you did, i'm 98% sure I could get it up and running again
    without the need for a re-install.
    Basically all you had to do is to enter the device manager and manually un-install all the devices and reboot.
    After that, pop in the mobo CD and everything should install smoothly.
     
  7. starsfan09

    starsfan09 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2006
    Posts:
    352
    I knew this, but also knew that sometimes... there are problems that arise from doing it this way. I didn't want to encounter any problems, so I took the "sure way" of Re-Installing XP.
    But hey, ..."different strokes for different folks"...I guess.;)
     
  8. imagegeek

    imagegeek Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2006
    Posts:
    11
    I agree to, this would be a great option to have.
    Maybe someone from the admin team could respond to this, thanks.
     
  9. Moon Shadow

    Moon Shadow Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2006
    Posts:
    1
    This worked for me: Replace the motherboard, CPU and memory and whatever else is new. DO NOT start up windows, boot directly from the ATI9 boot disk. Back up to an unused drive (I used an external USB2 drive). Restore your backup to the original drive (or a new one if paranoid, i was) with the Universal Restore Option. This is the first time I was able to use a different type of chipset (was VIA-AMD, now Intel-Intel) without days of cursing. Of course I had to reactivate WindowsXP and Office XP and for some reason Photoshop CS, but this was easy compared to stopping services from the recovery console and reinstalling Windows. Thank You, Acronis!
     
  10. dobbelina

    dobbelina Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2005
    Posts:
    54
    You wouldn't need to go thru the timeconsuming ordeal of backing up,
    followed by restoring, if Universal Restore was "standalone".
    That's the whole idea with this feature request.
    Your technique will offcourse also work, thanks for suggesting it.

    I do hope we can get some feedback from Acronis support team regarding this.
     
  11. dobbelina

    dobbelina Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2005
    Posts:
    54
    Would it be possible to get some feedback on this issue from support perhaps..?
    Would just wanna know if this feature could be/has been considered, or if it's
    undoable.
     
  12. Acronis Support

    Acronis Support Acronis Support Staff

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2004
    Posts:
    25,885
    Hello dobbelina,

    Thank you for choosing Acronis Disk Backup Software.

    We are sorry for the delayed response.

    Please note that the whole purpose of Acronis Universal Restore as an add-on to Acronis True Image is to restore the image that was already created to a different hardware. Thus, allows you to transfer all the data from one type of hardware to another one without losing it.

    The “standalone Acronis Universal Restore” you are talking about as far as I understand is completely another product (a good thought by the way). I am not sure that this idea will be realized as a standalone product (at least in the nearest future). Thank you for your suggestion anyway.

    Thank you again.
    --
    Aleksandr Isakov
     
  13. jeremyotten

    jeremyotten Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2005
    Posts:
    684
    The thing that you guys do with Universal restore is:

    1. restore the image as normally
    2. Run the universal restore thing which detects OS does the magic en sets driver search paths etc.

    GREAT!

    What would be more great is to add option 2 to the bootcd as a seperate option. That's all we want and shouldn't be that much more program work ;-) And would make the product a true No Brainer for Every System Administrator out there. Because it could handle ANY SCENARIO! I would suggest this feature to your CEO or developers as a MUST have feature ;-)

    BYE BYE SYMANTEC LIVESTATE RECOVERY gheghe ;-)
     
  14. AaronAnderson

    AaronAnderson Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2006
    Posts:
    65
    Another great thing to do, without paying for anything:

    change your IDE drivers to a generic controller and remove as much hardware as possible. Move the drive. Done. Works 99 percent of the time. Clients will love you.
     
  15. 1kyle

    1kyle Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2006
    Posts:
    8
    I would ALWAYS keep the OS separate from my data so when restoring / re-installing an OS you don't overwrite / lose your data. Makes it easier as well when buying a new computer / moving to a different machine.

    Even on a single disk system I always partition the hard drive into at least 'C' and 'D' . Whilst people might question the loss of maximum efficiency in partitioning a single disk drive - by isolating the OS from the User Data more than makes up by convenience and security.

    For example I'm currently using an 80GB hard drive on a Laptop. I've got a "Windows" 12GB partition defined and the rest is for data etc.

    Acronis backup images the OS when I need to.

    User Data I back up as "Data files" rather than image the disk.
    Another reason for separating the OS from user data is that these days especially in Corporate / Office type locations a lot of people do "Hot Desking" and often logon to different workstations.

    If the user data is separated from the OS this won't be a problem (and the user data could even be on a Networked drive).

    Cheers

    -K
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.