Version 9 and 10 - Image Incompatibility

I installed Version 9 recently and updated to Build 3677. I DLed a complimentary Version 10 Upgrade since I was within 30 days of purchasing Version 9. Version 10 Upgrade is flawed and would not install, either raw or atop the installed Version 9. Babbles something like "install interrupted". There are posts here on this and Acronis is working with me to get the upgrade working.

Here's what I've found in my testing:

(Am using Windows XP SP2 on a Dell Dimension 9200 RAID1.)

1. I created an image of 4 important data directories (525MB) using Version 10 Rescue CD supplied by Acronis Support since the one with Version 9 wouldn't recognize my RAID1 array.

2. I created same image using the Windows XP installed Version 9.

3. I cannot use Version 9 under WinXP to recognize and restore the image created by Version 10 Rescue CD. In the window where you select the files to be restored there's an icon which is called "Unknown Drive", rather than showing me the directories backed up.

4. I cannot use Version 10 Rescue CD to restore the image created by Version 9 under WinXP. In the window where you select the files to be restored the Rescue CD shows me the full directory structure of the four directories I've backed up. However, when I tell it to proceed, it IMMEDIATELY tells me the files are restored ... and of course they're not.

5. Finally, each of my two scenarios can successfully restore the TIB file that they themselves created.

This experience is discouraging and flies in the face of comments made on Acronis' web site which indicate their True Image products have full backward and forward compatibility. I have neither.

Can some of you comment on whether my situation is common or whether I might unwittingly be doing something wrong, which my intuition says I'm not?

Also, can some of you assure me that if I had a Rescue CD that was at the SAME version as the WinXP installed Version, that I can create a System Partition image while in XP and be assured that it will work when I need to use the Rescue CD?

Sorry for the long post but I wanted to provide a clear explanation of what's happening here.

Thanks to all ... Sam

 

The only thing I can tell you is that at TI9 Build 3567 the engine was changed with a resulting image file format change. An image created with build 3567 or later needs build 3567 or later to read the image. Usually the message is something along the lines of "this is not a TI image...". TI is backwards compatible since build 3567 or later will read and restore images created by earlier builds. It is not forwards compatible.

To answer you question quoted above: Yes, it should work and if all is well it does work. However, there are no guarantees, the only way to know that it works is to actually do the restore and check the result. The recommendation is to buy, beg or borrow a second HD to test it. Anybody who thinks they have a reliable backup solution without testing the whole process which includes a restore is living in a dream world.

 

"seekforever", I appreciate your quick response and your comments about the compatibility aspects of using the build I updated to. It was especially enlightening to learn that TI can not be expected to be forwards compatible. My intuition told me that but their web site said the opposite. I was very goosy about using their Version 8 BartPE plugin for that reason, since I would be counting on V8 to recover V9 or V10 images.

A tech rep from Acronis told me, when I asked how I could verify whether a system restore would work, to create an image of some data files and then see if the Rescue CD would recover that image successfully. If it did, he said there would be no problem with an XP System restore since the process is the same.

Do you agree at all with that advice?

Thanks ... Sam

 

I would expect tI 10 to use an image format not understandable by tI 9, that's normal for new versions of software when there are functional changes.

However tI 10 sure betta be able to use TI 9 images.

I would uninstall TI 9 and then install TI 10, but I do not see sufficient change in TI 10 to justify replacing TI 9 on extant systems.

 

Howard, I'm brand new to True Image. I bought it because of the product's good reputation and especially since it's the only competent backup program that promised to support my new Dell Dimension 9200 configured with RAID1.

I bought Version 9 from Amazon and then saw that Acronis had a Version 10. They graciously allowed me a complimentray upgrade since I was within 30 days of purchase. I had tons of trouble getting the upgrade to install. Acronis helped me but I think the key ingredient was updating Version 9 to the latest build first.

I did some testing and saw that Version 10 was indeed able to process a Version 9 TIB. That made me happy.

What made me unhappy, however, was the drive letter incompatibility between LINUX and WINXP. I backed up (as a test) 4 directories on my "D:" drive using the Rescue CD. He saw my "D:" drive as "E:" and according to Acronis' web site that shouldn't matter.

Well it DOES matter. When I tried to restore this TIB to "original location" in WinXP the program tried to restore to the XP "E:" drive (not "D:") and it failed with a miserable 6 line error since the "real" "E:" is a CDROM.

I then tried to restore to "new location" and pointed TI to the real D: drive. This time it restored, but to the wrong place. It created a directory on the D: drive called D:\Drive(E) and restored the TIB there. That's absolutely unacceptable because it forces me to move those directories manually to the correct path (D:\) and then delete the incorrect directories, now empty.

Can't believe Acronis retains the LINUX drive letter when running the restore from non-LINUX. I'm hoping they have a solution for me.

This glitch is the only thing separating me from really liking this product. (I also bought Disk Director 10 because it's the only program that can partition RAID1 and I like that program as well).

Thanks for the post, Howard.

-- Sam

 

Sigh, it's against my religion to say something nice about TI, but, if you don't tell anyone, here goes.

When booting from a rescue CD, ANY product, be it TI or Ghost or ..., has to make a choice as to what OS to use during the boot.

Unless one uses a Windows OS when booting, the drive letters are going to be different. That's just the way it is.

It is easy to adjust, especially if you give your drives meaningfull volume names.

For example, on my system, I got creative and gave drive C the name xxxxC, drive D the name xxxxD, etc., where xxx can be whatever you wanna use, just make sure the drive letter is in there, usually as 1st or last character is best.

So if Linux displays different drive letters, ignore them, go by the volume name.

OK, remember please do not tell anyone I posted the above.

 

Howard's right on the mark - Linux does it different from Windows but when you boot up Windows the drive letters do revert to where they were but you do have to be careful when restoring as you found out.

I use the method described by Howard and not just because of TI. I have more than one PC and I gave up a long-time ago trying to keep all the drive letters even roughly the same. Now I automatically look at the labels not the letter even in Windows Explorer.

 

I learned to not think in terms of drive letter a long time ago.
Indeed, when we designed ISO/IEC 13346 (on which UDF is based), we seriously considered doing away with he comcept of volumes.

A volume is just an artifact of an implementation, as it is so widespread, we gave in and used volumes.

Each volume is really just a file tree, which is nothing more than the node of the larger tree for all the files on the PC. And that tree is nothing more than a node on the tree of files on a network, etc.

It all started with thhat tree that grows in Brooklyn.