Acronis True Image 2012?


C

Char Jackson

I've never seen it said with such pride before.
I wondered if someone besides me would notice and capitalize on that.
Well said, as usual.
 
Ad

Advertisements

J

Jan Alter

blank said:
It was fair and very reasonable comment and on the contrary shows
humility.
If anything your thoughts show humility to give him the benefit. His
comments on the other hand shows arrogance, conceit, and a flagrant attitude
that even if he is wrong about something over and over he promises to
continue to charge on without consideration or reflection to his own
mistakes.
"I have zero interest in one-upmanship with anybody. I could be wrong a
zillion times in a row and that isn't important to me. What is important to
me is the truth comes out by somebody. Who exactly I frankly don't care."
When I responded to his accusation that no one had been able to use Acronis
Plus to restore an image to another computer with different hardware I
pointed out to him that I wrote that I had already done that as an exercise
to see if it could be done in the previous post. His response was that he
was glad that someone had been able to do it. There was no apology or
admission that he was wrong or had probably just missed reading it, but he
could not admit even that.
I'll say this. He sure can be antagonistic whether he's right or wrong

Jan Alter
(e-mail address removed)
 
S

Stan Brown

I wondered if someone besides me would notice and capitalize on that.
Well said, as usual.
Thanks. The line was not originally mine, but was adapted from an
episode of /Barney Miller/. :)
 
B

BillW50

In
Char said:
Agreed, that's the usual approach.


It's not that often that I can find something to agree with you on,
but I agree that backups should be tested. Until you do, you're really
gambling that they'll work when needed.

Having said that, I've never had an Acronis failure in any version of
the program that I've used, going back to about 2003. Have I just been
lucky? The primary reason I've stayed with it this long is that it
just works.
If you don't use USB external hard drives, you will never see this
problem of not being able to restore. And most people wont have a
Acronis True Image. And even if you do backup to USB drives, the problem
is only there with some USB chipsets.
Not quite. Cloning is equally reliable, not far more reliable, and
cloning does an equal job, not a far better job. The claim that it
takes less time (to restore) is probably valid, but it takes more
drives. That's a very expensive trade-off, one most people wouldn't
make.
Most people don't make backups period. I know. But I also admit some
people don't have anything on their computers anyway. And I admit some
of my computers have nothing important on them either. So in those
cases, backups aren't important. As if you have the restore disc and all
of the applications, you can restore the hard way if you ever get into
this spot.

The reason why I say backups are less reliable are for many reasons. One
is you don't know if each one is reliable until you actually go through
all of the trouble to restore. And most won't do it. Plus the majority
of backup software stores the backups in a proprietary format. Thus if
something goes wrong with the backup software, you can't restore
anything. When cloning, you have access to everything.

And if you dig deep enough on Acronis website. They tell you if you
update your build, older build backups might not restore. I sure hate to
learn this after the fact. And after doing this stuff for years, I've
found that archived backups isn't that hot of an idea. Although cloned
drives are very reliable for many reasons.
 
W

wilby

Hi, folks! I've got TI Home 2011, and you've seen me posting some of
my beefs with it. It does the basic job, but it's confusing and
annoying to use.

Here's the $20 question: Is TI 2012 enough better to make it worth
spending on the upgrade? For one thing, is it faster? For another,
is the user interface better? Could any of you who have upgraded
from 2011 to 2012 share whether you think it was a good move or not,
and why? $20 for the upgrade isn't that much to spend, these days,
but I'd rather not go through the upgrade exercise without some
reason to believe it will actually be better. We all know by now
that "it's newer, so it must be better" is a fallacy.
May I offer a better solution than Acronis?

Get the free Macrium Reflect imaging software and you will never go back
to Acronis. The paid version of Macrium has every bell & whistle you
could want, I am still on the free version.

I used Acronis for a few years and hated it even though it could be made
to work as I wanted. Macrium just works, no BS.

Wilby
 
Ad

Advertisements

C

choro

May I offer a better solution than Acronis?

Get the free Macrium Reflect imaging software and you will never go back
to Acronis. The paid version of Macrium has every bell & whistle you
could want, I am still on the free version.

I used Acronis for a few years and hated it even though it could be made
to work as I wanted. Macrium just works, no BS.

Wilby
Anybody wants to comment on *Paragon*? What's it like? I am more
interested in cloning a disk or rather partition (where I keep my OS and
programs) that will enable me to just to swap the HD (in my case if my
C:\ HD gives up the ghost one day) rather than making a single-file
backup of it, and just carry on as if nothing had happened just by
connecting the normally backing up HD as my master HD and disconnecting
the faulty HD.

I back up my user files regularly or rather copy them to an external
hard disk which I find far more practical as this enables me to access
any file instantly, some of them xcopied of xxcopied from my now retired
though not quite defunct desktops.

I understand that making a single file backup of say the C:\ drive does
not guarantee that you will be able to get it up and running again as
things can go wrong. But a cloned drive, as I understand it, is less of
a hassle to get going.
-- choro
 
B

Brian Matthews

Anybody wants to comment on *Paragon*? What's it like? I am more
interested in cloning a disk or rather partition (where I keep my OS and
programs) that will enable me to just to swap the HD (in my case if my
C:\ HD gives up the ghost one day) rather than making a single-file
backup of it, and just carry on as if nothing had happened just by
connecting the normally backing up HD as my master HD and disconnecting
the faulty HD.

I back up my user files regularly or rather copy them to an external
hard disk which I find far more practical as this enables me to access
any file instantly, some of them xcopied of xxcopied from my now retired
though not quite defunct desktops.

I understand that making a single file backup of say the C:\ drive does
not guarantee that you will be able to get it up and running again as
things can go wrong. But a cloned drive, as I understand it, is less of
a hassle to get going.
-- choro
I installed a 2nd HDD in my PC and also used (free) Macrium Reflect to
clone it. I then checked it by unplugging my main drive and booted. It
worked like a charm but every month or so when I clone it, I always
check it.
 
B

BillW50

In
choro said:
Anybody wants to comment on *Paragon*? What's it like?
I have lots of experience with Paragon products. And they have lots of
products which many of them overlap each other. Meaning that a feature
like cloning maybe found on two or more of their products. And in many
areas, Paragon has Acronis beat. I do have three problems with it.

1) Incremental and differential backups takes three times longer than a
full backup.

2) The Linux boot CD software doesn't fit on 800x480 screens.

3) Paragon software knows I had Windows 7 and XP in a dualboot
configuration on this very machine. While I removed all traces of
Windows 7 that I can think of, Paragon still thinks it is there. It even
knows the correct Windows 7 build number in the logs. And when cloning,
instead of booting XP. Paragon sets it up to boot the nonexistent
Windows 7.
I am more interested in cloning a disk or rather partition (where I
keep my OS and programs) that will enable me to just to swap the HD
(in my case if my C:\ HD gives up the ghost one day) rather than
making a single-file backup of it, and just carry on as if nothing had
happened just by connecting the normally backing up HD as my master HD
and disconnecting the faulty HD.

I back up my user files regularly or rather copy them to an external
hard disk which I find far more practical as this enables me to access
any file instantly, some of them xcopied of xxcopied from my now
retired though not quite defunct desktops.

I understand that making a single file backup of say the C:\ drive
does not guarantee that you will be able to get it up and running
again as things can go wrong. But a cloned drive, as I understand it,
is less of a hassle to get going.
-- choro
I've used many different backup methods. And by far the best is cloning.
So I am completely with you. And since it is so easy to check if the
clone process actually worked by swapping drives. And if someday your OS
becomes corrupt or the drive fails, the clone(s) are really to go
without fuss.
 
C

choro

I installed a 2nd HDD in my PC and also used (free) Macrium Reflect to
clone it. I then checked it by unplugging my main drive and booted. It
worked like a charm but every month or so when I clone it, I always
check it.
That's interesting to know, because that's exactly what I intend to do.
I have got a 2TB HD installed (but not wired in) on my old XP machine
which in the meantime gave up the ghost, the machine I mean, which more
or less forced the issue and I moved over to my newly built Windows 7
machine. In the meantime I have repaired the old XP machine (the PSU had
given up the ghost after 10 years!) and it is now sitting under my desk
with my newly built Windows 7 machine taking the pride of place on my
desktop where my XP machine used to sit. I have several machines hooked
up through a KVM box.

What I am thinking of is to open up the old machine, pull out the unused
unconnected 2 TB HD and install it in my Win 7 machine and use that HD,
or rather a partition on it, to clone the C:\ partition on my Win 7
machine where I keep just the OS + my installed programs.

I have moved ALL my user files to another partition though in the
Libraries they still show up normally but they are actually on D drive
now. Of course they show up normally on D drive as well when you use
Windows Explorer.

Once I have the C:\ drive which now houses just my OS and program files
cloned onto a partition on the new 2TB HD, I can sleep peacefully
knowing that should anything happen to HD I can disconnect the existing
HD, hook up the new 2 TB HD with the cloned stuff on it as my primary
master and just carry on without any further ado.

From what I understand, once you have another HD with the cloning, no
other procedure is needed other than the necessary rewiring of the new
HD -- in other words making it the master drive either by pin
configuration or through the wiring.

I have done a Macrium backup of my C:\ + other drives (in fact all the
partitions on that HD!) which I have saved onto a 2nd HD but which I
have not updated for some time now. But instead of updating the backup I
would prefer to actually clone just the C:\ partition this time onto a
partition on the new 2 TB drive to enable me, in the event of a HD
failure, to just do a 5 minute rewiring job to get the machine going
again, knowing that my user files I can just drag and drop from my
external HD.

As I said, I have got xcopies and xxcopies of my user files on an
external HD. Incidentally, I would strongly advise others to install
*xxcopy* and use that one in preference to xcopy as it is far superior
to xcopy. xxcopy will reach the parts other beers, such as xcopy, can't.
It can do things that mere xcopy, which comes as standard with Windows,
just cannot tackle. Take my word for it. So download and use xxcopy in
preference to xcopy. It has basically the same switches as xcopy. So if
you have used xcopy before you should have no trouble using xxcopy.
After having tried and tested *xxcopy*, I've deleted my xcopy copied
files from my external HD. I name the folders on my external HD "Xcopy
of D Drive" or "XXcopy of D Drive" etc so that I know what I am doing.

You can of course use the drag and drop method itinially which is
probably better BUT you have to use either Xcopy or XXcopy thereafter to
copy any new or altered files with the A attribute. And don't forget to
remove the A attributes of files copied in this manner. Use
File|Properties|Advanced to remove the A attributes of a whole series of
files on any folder and sub-folders. With Xcopy or XXcopy make use of
the proper switch to automatically turn off the A attribute of new or
updated files after they have been copied onto the external HD.

NOW ME SEEKING ADVICE
Good question: Could I clone the existing C:\ partition just using the
XXcopy command IF I configure Windows to show hidden files as well?
Anybody out there who has tried this method?

And what has been your experience with Paragon? I've just bought a copy
and now I want to find out how good or how bad it is!!! Or have I closed
the stable door after the horse has bolted? Or as they say on one
language, has the old woman finally bolted the door after making sure
she got "raped" first?

And oh, before you do an Xcopy or XXcopy, do not forget to make sure you
do NOT show hidden files as otherwise those hidden files will be copied
as well.

Sorry for the verbosity! I know I write too much! Sort of compensates
for the fact that I don't say much when I talk. But I used to get paid
by the word when I wrote stuff for a living. ;-)
-- choro
 
C

Char Jackson

What I am thinking of is to open up the old machine, pull out the unused
unconnected 2 TB HD and install it in my Win 7 machine and use that HD,
or rather a partition on it, to clone the C:\ partition on my Win 7
machine where I keep just the OS + my installed programs.
I haven't found a cloning program that didn't work, so if your choice
is Paragon you should be fine. Remember to disconnect the clone once
the cloning operation is complete. Windows doesn't like having two
drives pretending to be system drives at the same time, or at least
that's the impression I have.
 
Ad

Advertisements

C

Char Jackson

But in
the meantime I was wondering whether XXcopy cloning the C:\ drive or
rather partition could do the job too? And why not? Though I understand
that the OS has got certain folders and files that are not visible at
all and which would NOT therefore get XXcopied. Hence, if this is the
case, the project would not work.
I wouldn't expect the xxcopy "clone" to be bootable since it's not
really a clone. Not a big deal if you're prepared for it, but what
else did xxcopy skip? One wonders.
Trouble with having a mix of Win 7 and Win XP machines is that I will
have to reset up the network which is very easy if you have all Win 7
machines though it does tend to get a bit more complicated and requires
a special procedure for a mix of Windows machines. But there is a HOW TO
page on the internet which I have noted somewhere and saved as a file on
my HD -- IF I can find it, that is! :-(
The only special procedure I'm aware of is to avoid Win 7's Homegroup
feature when dealing with a mix of Win 7 and previous Windows
versions. Beyond that, it's pretty easy and straightforward. Holler if
you get stuck.
And BTW, don't waste your money on the paid version of RealPlayer. There
are freebies and other software for far less that will do the job
better. I couldn't even install it on my laptop after installing it on
my desktop. Presumably they will want more $$$ to let me install it on a
second machine which is ridiculous as nowadays even MS Office you can
install on 3 machines with just one home license now. Ridiculous!
I can't believe RealPlayer is still around, (RM content died out at
least a decade ago), and that they have the balls to charge for their
player when RealPlayer Alternative is free and works better. On top of
that, you say they bundled a crappy download manager, as well? You
could have done a lot better by going with FreeDownloadManager, which
of course is free, and is as good or better than any paid DM. You can
get it at www.freedownloadmanager.org.
 
C

Char Jackson

The reason why I say backups are less reliable are for many reasons. One
is you don't know if each one is reliable until you actually go through
all of the trouble to restore. And most won't do it.
I no longer check every backup because over time I've built a certain
level of confidence that they'll work. More frequent testing in the
beginning, less frequent testing as time goes on. Never a problem.

Regarding your statement that, "you don't know if each one is reliable
until you actually go through all of the trouble to restore", how
often do you check your clones? After all, they are subject to the
same failures that any backup can suffer.
Plus the majority
of backup software stores the backups in a proprietary format. Thus if
something goes wrong with the backup software, you can't restore
anything. When cloning, you have access to everything.
Since the first days of Norton Ghost, all the way till now, backup
programs have provided ways to verify the integrity of image backups
and allow you to explore and extract individual files or branches of
files. I'm absolutely not worried that I won't have access to my files
because of the proprietary file format of the image. One could argue
that files stored within a backup image are actually safer than files
stored in the clear, like you'd get with a true clone. Inside a backup
image, you're limited to reading and copying files. To change or
delete anything, it has to be extracted first. Thus, the integrity of
the backup is not put at risk.
And if you dig deep enough on Acronis website. They tell you if you
update your build, older build backups might not restore. I sure hate to
learn this after the fact. And after doing this stuff for years, I've
found that archived backups isn't that hot of an idea. Although cloned
drives are very reliable for many reasons.
I remain unconvinced, but like I said, I'm glad your way works for
you, (it would be horrible and ridiculous for me), and I do sympathize
with you for all of the problems you've had.
 
W

WaIIy

Anybody wants to comment on *Paragon*? What's it like? I am more
interested in cloning a disk or rather partition (where I keep my OS and
programs) that will enable me to just to swap the HD (in my case if my
C:\ HD gives up the ghost one day) rather than making a single-file
backup of it, and just carry on as if nothing had happened just by
connecting the normally backing up HD as my master HD and disconnecting
the faulty HD.

I back up my user files regularly or rather copy them to an external
hard disk which I find far more practical as this enables me to access
any file instantly, some of them xcopied of xxcopied from my now retired
though not quite defunct desktops.

I understand that making a single file backup of say the C:\ drive does
not guarantee that you will be able to get it up and running again as
things can go wrong. But a cloned drive, as I understand it, is less of
a hassle to get going.
-- choro
I use Casper with Win 7 and XP on internal and external USB connected
drive enclosures.

I love it. Simply love it.
 
Z

Zaphod Beeblebrox

Char Jackson said:
Remember to disconnect the clone once
the cloning operation is complete. Windows doesn't like having two
drives pretending to be system drives at the same time, or at least
that's the impression I have.
Actually, I haven't found that to be the case. Starting with Windows
XP at least, it doesn't seem to care. We use a setup with two
internal drives and clone the primary drive to the secondary
automatically on a regular basis and Windows doesn't complain at all.
If the primary dies, it can be disconnected (or in some cases, just
disabled in the BIOS) and we can boot to the secondary. Note that
this isn't a backup strategy, we keep regular rotated and off-site
backups as well, it is more of a recovery method in the event of a
primary drive failure. Our software also monitors the secondary drive
availability so if it fails it can be replaced.
 
C

Char Jackson

Actually, I haven't found that to be the case. Starting with Windows
XP at least, it doesn't seem to care. We use a setup with two
internal drives and clone the primary drive to the secondary
automatically on a regular basis and Windows doesn't complain at all.
If the primary dies, it can be disconnected (or in some cases, just
disabled in the BIOS) and we can boot to the secondary. Note that
this isn't a backup strategy, we keep regular rotated and off-site
backups as well, it is more of a recovery method in the event of a
primary drive failure. Our software also monitors the secondary drive
availability so if it fails it can be replaced.
Cool, that's good to know. I've had trouble in the past when I've
slaved a Windows system drive into a running system, but in those
cases the two system drives weren't clones. Windows would get all
confused, running some programs from one drive and others from the
second drive. With a clone, I guess it would be transparent.
 
Ad

Advertisements

Z

Zaphod Beeblebrox

Char Jackson said:
Cool, that's good to know. I've had trouble in the past when I've
slaved a Windows system drive into a running system, but in those
cases the two system drives weren't clones. Windows would get all
confused, running some programs from one drive and others from the
second drive. With a clone, I guess it would be transparent.
I guess I'd have to see it to understand what might be happening
there, but it seems odd that Windows would behave that way since
everything is based on drive letters. On the other hand, if you left
a drive in the system after cloning and hadn't had one in there
before, it might change your drive letters and cause mayhem - we start
with the two drives and force the drive letters so that isn't an issue
for us.
 
C

choro

I wouldn't expect the xxcopy "clone" to be bootable since it's not
really a clone. Not a big deal if you're prepared for it, but what
else did xxcopy skip? One wonders.


The only special procedure I'm aware of is to avoid Win 7's Homegroup
feature when dealing with a mix of Win 7 and previous Windows
versions. Beyond that, it's pretty easy and straightforward. Holler if
you get stuck.


I can't believe RealPlayer is still around, (RM content died out at
least a decade ago), and that they have the balls to charge for their
player when RealPlayer Alternative is free and works better. On top of
that, you say they bundled a crappy download manager, as well? You
could have done a lot better by going with FreeDownloadManager, which
of course is free, and is as good or better than any paid DM. You can
get it at www.freedownloadmanager.org.
I go along with you re RealPlayer. It is not too bad but definitely not
worth the extra for the paid version, especially the tied-in download
manager which does seem to be crappy as it is very slow and works only
on very few sites. I get the feeling that their DVD burning add-on in
the paid version is actually Roxio. I am doing a test burn now and it is
converting the downloaded videos to burn the DVD playable on an ordinary
DVD player. It's cost me some money but so what? I'll try the
www.freedownloadmanager.org stuff you mentioned. But I've already got
Applian plus their downloader which seems to be lightning fast. I must
say I like Applian but may be I should have bought only their downloader
which I had to buy and install separately. It comes under a different
name but it is still Applian. I downloaded it from cnet where it is very
highly recommended.

One good thing about RealPlayer or RealNetworks though. Their response
to queries is super fast. I mean they responded within 24 hours on new
year's day to my query with an extremely well written solution to my
problem. It seems that RealPlayer, the paid version that is, can be
installed on up to 5 computers BUT and this is a big BUT you can only be
signed in on ONLY ONE COMPUTER at a time. Before you can sign in to the
paid version on, say, your laptop you have got to sign off on the
computer where you are already signed in. Not the best solution as far
as I am concerned but still... I know what to do now.

Another problem was that installing the paid version features on my
laptop required me to de-activate Kaspersky for a while as Kaspersky
wouldn't allow RealPlayer's extra features to be installed.

AsI key in this response, RealPlayer Plus 15 (i.e. the paid version) is
*recoding* a couple hours' worth of video clips to burn my DVD disk
which should be playable on any DVD player. So, there is more than meets
the eye at first sight with the Paid Version of RealPlayer.

One thing though, some of the stuff I downloaded with another program as
MP4 files, RealPlayer does NOT recognize and won't import them into a
Playlist. From what I gather MP4 is more like a shell incorporating
different codecs etc which is a pity. Why can't there be a standard there?

However, to its advantage RealPlayer can and does build up Playlists
including video clips from various drives and folders which you can then
mix in any order you like to create your final playlist. Very handy
feature. You can for example keep all your Tijuana music in one folder
and your Argentinian Tangos in another but you can, using RealPlayer,
create a Playlist of specific Tijuana music and Argentinian Tango clips.
You can of course play all your clips in any one folder using Windows
Media Classic Player, for example, but then you cannot mix the clips
from different folders. Of course, nothing can stop you from creating
another Folder with a mix of different types of music videos but this,
of course, takes up valuable HD space as you are actually duplicating
the video files to create what is in effect a Playlist. RealPlayer does
this without wasting valuable HD space much like Libraries in Windows 7
which can look into all your dirty image files wherever you tell it to
look at! ;-)

Sorry, but I know I am verbose. Too verbose, in fact. I have a dirty
selse of humor too as I often ask for Rumpus Stekkus or Kosher Bacon at
the supermarket where shelf-fillers, at least some of them, respond with
a blank look on their faces! But this makes me popular among at least
some of them as they like my sense of wry humor. The poor bastards
having to do such menial lonely work. They grab the chance for a bit of
conversation with another soul especially if involves some dirty talk!
It brightens their day somewhat!
-- choro

PS. Please accept this as a response to all who so kindly responded. I
thought I'd write something for everybody to share. And a happy new year
to you all.
 
C

choro

I use Casper with Win 7 and XP on internal and external USB connected
drive enclosures.

I love it. Simply love it.
Re: Casper for cloning

Noted. Though Macrium seems to have more devotees.

However, I want to give resizing partitions a go too, for which I will
give Paragon a chance especially since I have already paid for it and am
waiting for the disc to arrive. I will probably download it too as it
will give me the latest updated version hopefully. But I always prefer
to have the CD/DVD if it doesn't cost a lot extra. Bit old fashioned I
guess!
-- choro
 
Ad

Advertisements

C

Char Jackson

I guess I'd have to see it to understand what might be happening
there, but it seems odd that Windows would behave that way since
everything is based on drive letters.
Agreed. You'd think that would be how it works.
On the other hand, if you left
a drive in the system after cloning and hadn't had one in there
before, it might change your drive letters and cause mayhem - we start
with the two drives and force the drive letters so that isn't an issue
for us.
It's not a drive letter issue. Windows seems to scan the second system
volume and discover, all on its own, that system files and special
folders reside there. After that, it starts using them. Not program
executables, but dll's and special folders like My Documents, My
Pictures, Shared Documents, etc.
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Top