Acronis Teamed Up with Western Digital

[JS]

In JS typed on Fri, 18 Sep 2009 09:42:25 -0400:

Well guess what? I finally see it! If the WD is the only drive on the
system, the CD version can't see it. Add any other drive (doesn't have
to be a WD one) and it works fine. Seems like a bug to me. <sigh>

It did not work for me. Tried two WD drives.
Both formatted - No Luck
Slave not formatted "Unallocated" - No Luck.
Removed 2nd partition from Master drive - No Luck.

Only thing that works is when I use the Full version's recovery
CD to boot from, then it sees the drives.

 

[BillW50]

In JS typed on Fri, 18 Sep 2009 11:34:08 -0400:

Sorry for the delay but I just got off the phone
after spending about 2 Hrs. with WD Tech Support.

Not much help but their take on this is the drive can
not have more than one partition. So I will need to see
if this is the case, which also means you need two drives
as you mentioned. The big question is what happens to
users like myself who did have two drives attached but
both drives had multiple partitions?

So I guess I'll try out your suggestion and then
WD's suggestion.

I too was busy doing other things. I don't buy the idea there can't be
multiple partitions. Every test I have done has multiple partitions on
them. Although I do have another WD drive with a single partition, so
I'll give it a try in the next couple of days.

 

[BillW50]

In JS typed on Fri, 18 Sep 2009 12:49:50 -0400:

It did not work for me. Tried two WD drives.
Both formatted - No Luck
Slave not formatted "Unallocated" - No Luck.
Removed 2nd partition from Master drive - No Luck.

Only thing that works is when I use the Full version's recovery
CD to boot from, then it sees the drives.

Oh I am doing this on laptops and netbooks (that is all I use nowadays).
So all of the other drives have been USB and as long as one drive is a
WD, it doesn't matter if it is internal or external. But so far, there
has to be one external USB hard drive connected and it works.

 

[BillW50]

In BillW50 typed on Fri, 18 Sep 2009 16:51:40 -0500:

In JS typed on Fri, 18 Sep 2009 12:49:50 -0400:

Oh I am doing this on laptops and netbooks (that is all I use
nowadays). So all of the other drives have been USB and as long as
one drive is a WD, it doesn't matter if it is internal or external.
But so far, there has to be one external USB hard drive connected and
it works.

I tried without the internal drive and just one USB WD hard drive. And
the CD WD version couldn't find any drives. Added another WD USB drive
and the very same. Running Acronis True Image WD Edition from the
internal drive alone and it works just fine. Go figure.

I also ran the full version CD and no problems found.

 

[JS]

In BillW50 typed on Fri, 18 Sep 2009 16:51:40 -0500:

I tried without the internal drive and just one USB WD hard drive. And
the CD WD version couldn't find any drives. Added another WD USB drive
and the very same. Running Acronis True Image WD Edition from the
internal drive alone and it works just fine. Go figure.

I also ran the full version CD and no problems found.

There is an .ISO file created when you burn a recovery CD using the GUI
interface.

So next thing I plan to do is to use that .ISO to create a recovery CD.
(Will use another PC to burn the CD to eliminate any chance of a bad
burner).

 

[BillW50]

In JS typed on Fri, 18 Sep 2009 22:18:20 -0400:

There is an .ISO file created when you burn a recovery CD using the
GUI interface.

So next thing I plan to do is to use that .ISO to create a recovery
CD. (Will use another PC to burn the CD to eliminate any chance of a
bad burner).

That is what I am using for a recovery CD, what are you using?

 

[JS]

In JS typed on Fri, 18 Sep 2009 22:18:20 -0400:

That is what I am using for a recovery CD, what are you using?

You have the option to burn the CD directly
from the True Image GUI interface, which is
what I used.

I did try the .ISO file and still no luck. I think
I've beat this thing to death, so I'm going to put
the problem on the back burner for now.

 

[BillW50]

In JS typed on Sat, 19 Sep 2009 09:45:09 -0400:

You have the option to burn the CD directly
from the True Image GUI interface, which is
what I used.

I did try the .ISO file and still no luck. I think
I've beat this thing to death, so I'm going to put
the problem on the back burner for now.

Oh okay, I gotcha! I tried using WD Recovery CD with an internal WD hard
drive with one partition and it won't detect it either. The only way I
can get the WD CD to detect WD drives is if you throw on just an USB
hard drive. Then everything works as expected. Although the internal
drive has to be there too. And the number of partitions doesn't change
anything. And only one of the drives has to be a WD one. And it doesn't
matter if it is internal or USB.

 

[M.I.5¾]

In M.I.5¾ typed on Fri, 18 Sep 2009 11:01:02 +0100:

I don't know how it can, but it does. I am going by other backup
programs like Paragon Drive Backup 2009. About 30 minutes for a full
backup and 3½ hours for an incremental backup. Want me to try the same
under Acronis True Image?

So your critisism of TrueImage is based solely on a problem that you have
had with a totally unrelated product. That really makes for a worthwhile
post.

The incremental backup takes a pro rate time with TrueImage (in terms of
functionality, there isn't any real difference between incremental and
differential since TrueImage automagically handles the protocol on restore).

I suggest that you do try the same on TrueImage. The timings I gave are
more or less correct.

 

[BillW50]

In M.I.5¾ typed on Mon, 21 Sep 2009 10:22:25 +0100:

So your critisism of TrueImage is based solely on a problem that you
have had with a totally unrelated product. That really makes for a
worthwhile post.

The incremental backup takes a pro rate time with TrueImage (in terms
of functionality, there isn't any real difference between incremental
and differential since TrueImage automagically handles the protocol
on restore).
I suggest that you do try the same on TrueImage. The timings I gave
are more or less correct.

Sounds like you never used Paragon Drive Backup. As if you did, you
would notice that they are very similar. Both are great products. The
big difference between the two is Acronis True Image support is lousy,
while Paragon's is far better.

Also is it also true what they say about Acronis True Image, that it is
too stupid when it comes to restoring? That you must restore each
incremental/differential individually? How is that productive? Why even
bother? Why not just use full backup and restore instead? Or better yet,
just use BartPE and a file manager like A43 to make backups? No need to
use that mount and unmount crap either using Acronis True Image
proprietary file format.

 

[Terry R.]

The date and time was Monday, September 21, 2009 3:56:31 AM, and on a
whim, BillW50 pounded out on the keyboard:

In M.I.5¾ typed on Mon, 21 Sep 2009 10:22:25 +0100:

Sounds like you never used Paragon Drive Backup. As if you did, you
would notice that they are very similar. Both are great products. The
big difference between the two is Acronis True Image support is lousy,
while Paragon's is far better.

Also is it also true what they say about Acronis True Image, that it is
too stupid when it comes to restoring? That you must restore each
incremental/differential individually? How is that productive? Why even
bother? Why not just use full backup and restore instead? Or better yet,
just use BartPE and a file manager like A43 to make backups? No need to
use that mount and unmount crap either using Acronis True Image
proprietary file format.

Incremental's on any program would have to be done individually. Not so
with differentials's. Incrementals save backup space, but when you need
to track down the last time a file was modified, a differential is
quickest and easiest in any of the programs I've used.


Terry R.

 

[M.I.5¾]

In M.I.5¾ typed on Mon, 21 Sep 2009 10:22:25 +0100:

Sounds like you never used Paragon Drive Backup. As if you did, you would
notice that they are very similar. Both are great products. The big
difference between the two is Acronis True Image support is lousy, while
Paragon's is far better.

If I have a product that meets my requirements and does what I want without
creating problems for me, why would I want to abandon it and change to
something completely unknown (to me)? TrueImage support is not lousy by any
stretch of the imagination. Acronis are one of the few companies that I
have come across that do answer e-mails. And when I couldn't get the
bootable CD trueimage to recognise the mouse on one HP PC, an updated
version was available within one week that corrected the problem. I fail to
see how that is possible to beat.

Also is it also true what they say about Acronis True Image, that it is
too stupid when it comes to restoring? That you must restore each
incremental/differential individually? How is that productive? Why even
bother? Why not just use full backup and restore instead?

You are misinformed. When you come to restore, TrueImage offers you a list
of the full backup and all the subsequent incrementals associated with it.
You pick the one you want and True Image takes care of the rest. I have had
to use it few times in anger as drives have failed or an installation has
corrupted. It has never disappointed and had me up and running within a
couple of hours. Restoring a full and raft of incrementals takes only a
little longer than restoring the full only.

 

[M.I.5¾]

The date and time was Monday, September 21, 2009 3:56:31 AM, and on a
whim, BillW50 pounded out on the keyboard:


Incremental's on any program would have to be done individually. Not so
with differentials's. Incrementals save backup space, but when you need
to track down the last time a file was modified, a differential is
quickest and easiest in any of the programs I've used.

If you have to manually restore the incrementals after a full, then I would
agree that a differential is quicker. But TrueImage takes care of all the
restoration so it doesn't actually matter which way you go other than
backing up incrementals is quicker than differentials as the number
increases.

 

[JS]

In
<snipped?

Oh okay, I gotcha! I tried using WD Recovery CD with an internal WD hard
drive with one partition and it won't detect it either. The only way I
can get the WD CD to detect WD drives is if you throw on just an USB
hard drive. Then everything works as expected. Although the internal
drive has to be there too. And the number of partitions doesn't change
anything. And only one of the drives has to be a WD one. And it doesn't
matter if it is internal or USB.

Well I tried the Recovery CD on another PC
that has a WD Blue 640GB. True Image is not
installed on this drive but when booting from one
of the recovery CDs I made earlier it does see the
hard drive. Could be the other drives where just too
old to be recognized.

I have a WD Black and next I'm going to try a two
drive combination.

 

[Terry R.]

The date and time was Tuesday, September 22, 2009 12:40:57 AM, and on a
whim, M.I.5¾ pounded out on the keyboard:

If you have to manually restore the incrementals after a full, then I would
agree that a differential is quicker. But TrueImage takes care of all the
restoration so it doesn't actually matter which way you go other than
backing up incrementals is quicker than differentials as the number
increases.

I'm not sure we're talking the same thing here. After a full backup,
using incremental will only back up a file /that day/ that was modified,
so if you don't pick the right incremental when looking for a file, you
have to to search for it to find which incremental backup the modified
file resides on (although on most programs the paths to the file will be
included in the log even when the actual file isn't, so if you don't
look in the folder, one just assumes the file is at the end of the
path). Whereas a differential you can just use the latest one and even
a modified file from a day after the backup will still be backed up.

I don't see how TI can "take care" of that for a user, unless of course
you're restoring a full with "all" the incrementals after the full.


Terry R.

 

[JS]

Tried a three drive combination:
1) WD Blue - Windows XP
2) WD Black - New, no partitions
3) Seagate - Single 640GB Partition

WD Edition Installs OK.
Creates Image Backup OK.
Creates a Recovery CD.
Boots from Recovery CD.
It does find the WD drives.
It does restore the XP Partition OK.

So I guess it must be the "older" WD800 and WD1600
drives that are not supported and therefore the recovery CD program loads
and then just sits and searches but never finds these older WD drives.

Keep in mind that the full ATIH 2009 CD works find with these older drives.

 

[BillW50]

In JS typed on Tue, 22 Sep 2009 13:07:07 -0400:

Tried a three drive combination:
1) WD Blue - Windows XP
2) WD Black - New, no partitions
3) Seagate - Single 640GB Partition

WD Edition Installs OK.
Creates Image Backup OK.
Creates a Recovery CD.
Boots from Recovery CD.
It does find the WD drives.
It does restore the XP Partition OK.

So I guess it must be the "older" WD800 and WD1600
drives that are not supported and therefore the recovery CD program
loads and then just sits and searches but never finds these older WD
drives.

Well the WD CD doesn't work for me on a single drive (internal) system.
But add an USB drive and if any one is a WD, then everything is okay.
But you still need an internal or it won't work.

Keep in mind that the full ATIH 2009 CD works find with these older
drives.

Well the full version doesn't check whether you have a WD drive or not.
So it doesn't have this problem of checking for a valid WD drive.

 

[BillW50]

In M.I.5¾ typed on Tue, 22 Sep 2009 08:39:10 +0100:

If I have a product that meets my requirements and does what I want
without creating problems for me, why would I want to abandon it and
change to something completely unknown (to me)?

Simple! You might be stubbornly missing out on something. I never would
have tried the Mac or Linux if I had that attitude. By the way, I still
don't like them, but now I have experience and I can tell people why.
Btw, it is nice to see Acronis True Image is starting to catch-up to the
master of backups, Ghost.

TrueImage support is not lousy by any stretch of the imagination.
Acronis are one of the few companies that I have come across that do
answer e-mails. And when I couldn't get the bootable CD trueimage to
recognise the mouse on one HP PC, an updated version was available
within one week that corrected the problem. I fail to see how that is
possible to beat.

Funny, I found zillions of complaints that all said the very same thing.
Acronis takes 5 weeks to respond. Not a single one claimed they answered
quicker.

You are misinformed. When you come to restore, TrueImage offers you
a list of the full backup and all the subsequent incrementals
associated with it. You pick the one you want and True Image takes
care of the rest. I have had to use it few times in anger as drives
have failed or an installation has corrupted. It has never
disappointed and had me up and running within a couple of hours.
Restoring a full and raft of incrementals takes only a little longer
than restoring the full only.

Okay I have tried incremental under Acronis True Image (only found in
the full version) and it seems very impressive and beats Paragon hands
down in this department. I haven't tried to restore yet which I still
plan on doing.