Acronis True Image 10, false labelling on the box!

[Cymbal Man Freq.]

It says on the side of the box that Acronis True Image 10 supports Win 98SE. I
read the pdf manual on the disc (opened software now, dammit) and the manual
says XP is supported, no word on 98SE. So which is it? Is Win 98SE supported by
True Image 10 or what?

 

[Jaymon]

Why aren't you asking that question here..?
http://www.acronis.com/
j;-\

 

[Curt Christianson]

According to their user guide, it doesn't look like it does:

1.3 System requirements and supported media

1.3.1 Minimum system requirements

Acronis True Image Home requires the following hardware:


1.. . Pentium processor or higher


2.. . 128 MB RAM


3.. . FDD or CD-RW drive for bootable media creation


4.. . Mouse (recommended).



1.3.2 Supported operating systems


a.. . Windows® 2000 Professional SP 4


b.. . Windows® XP SP 2


c.. . Windows XP Professional x64 Edition


d.. . Windows Vista Ready (except for the Acronis Snap Restore feature)

 

[Guest]

It may be that you can't perform a backup from within Windows 98 (not sure on
this) but you should be able to do so with a bootable floppy or CD version of
Acronis. The latter should work for any FAT32/NTFS disk regardless of
contents.

 

[Cymbal Man Freq.]

| It may be that you can't perform a backup from within Windows 98 (not sure on
| this) but you should be able to do so with a bootable floppy or CD version of
| Acronis. The latter should work for any FAT32/NTFS disk regardless of
| contents.
|

OK, I'll go with this explanation.
I just boot the Win 98SE machine with the Acronis disk in the CD drive and the
BIOS is set to catch it before going to the hard drive, right?

Next question, for users familiar with Acronis TI 10: If I have 2 blank (or
nearly blank) partitions set aside as space for backup images, how do I get
Acronis to use both partitions when only one Acronis Secure Zone is allowed at
one time? I'm used to using Powerquest products (Drive Image 2002 & DI 7), where
I can set any destination I want. This Acronis seems to say one destination
only.

Say I have 2 partitions set up for image folders, but I have to backup 4 other
partitions into those 2 partitions? Does Acronis allow that?

 

[Alpha]

| It may be that you can't perform a backup from within Windows 98 (not
sure on
| this) but you should be able to do so with a bootable floppy or CD
version of
| Acronis. The latter should work for any FAT32/NTFS disk regardless of
| contents.
|

OK, I'll go with this explanation.
I just boot the Win 98SE machine with the Acronis disk in the CD drive and
the
BIOS is set to catch it before going to the hard drive, right?

Next question, for users familiar with Acronis TI 10: If I have 2 blank
(or
nearly blank) partitions set aside as space for backup images, how do I
get
Acronis to use both partitions when only one Acronis Secure Zone is
allowed at
one time? I'm used to using Powerquest products (Drive Image 2002 & DI 7),
where
I can set any destination I want. This Acronis seems to say one
destination
only.

Say I have 2 partitions set up for image folders, but I have to backup 4
other
partitions into those 2 partitions? Does Acronis allow that?

It is most certainly possible...you simply write to the partition the image
files. I do not for the life of me understand why this isn't clear to you.

The Secure Zone is a special area, but it does not preclude writing images
to folders anywhere in the system...including on external hard discs.

If you have not run Acronis before, the backup wizard lists every single
partition and area that could possibly used for the image, including the
Secure Zone.

 

[Alpha]

It is most certainly possible...you simply write to the partition the
image files. I do not for the life of me understand why this isn't clear
to you.

The Secure Zone is a special area, but it does not preclude writing images
to folders anywhere in the system...including on external hard discs.

If you have not run Acronis before, the backup wizard lists every single
partition and area that could possibly used for the image, including the
Secure Zone.

PS

(If you are still using 98SE, you need to rethink your priorities....you are
way out of date...and most system utilities DO NOT support this. I suggest
returning Acronis and purchasing XP).

 

[Cymbal Man Freq.]

| |
| (If you are still using 98SE, you need to rethink your priorities....you are
| way out of date...and most system utilities DO NOT support this. I suggest
| returning Acronis and purchasing XP).


There are about 4 different computers in the family that I'm trying to
assimilate into an Acronis backup strategy/solution. Two are Win 98SE, one has
Me & XP it (dual boot, dual physical hard drives), and one has XP Pro on it with
a 10 GB HDD in it. Two of the machines have very small physical hard drives (3GB
on one and 10 GB on another) and they probably need new drives of a larger order
of 60-120 GB as replacement drives, but not as second drives. The 98SE machine
I'm working on now has two 60 GB hard drives on it, and the backup partitions
already fill up with DI 2002, such that I have to use part of a third used
partition to store even more backup info.

If I can store the backup images anywhere, what is the Secure Zone about?

I assume one Acronis purchase can be used on several computers? No activation or
genuine checks, eh?

I've never used Acronis before, so I'm a bit blind about the possibilities yet.

 

[Alpha]

| |
| (If you are still using 98SE, you need to rethink your priorities....you
are
| way out of date...and most system utilities DO NOT support this. I
suggest
| returning Acronis and purchasing XP).


There are about 4 different computers in the family that I'm trying to
assimilate into an Acronis backup strategy/solution. Two are Win 98SE, one
has
Me & XP it (dual boot, dual physical hard drives), and one has XP Pro on
it with
a 10 GB HDD in it. Two of the machines have very small physical hard
drives (3GB
on one and 10 GB on another) and they probably need new drives of a larger
order
of 60-120 GB as replacement drives, but not as second drives. The 98SE
machine
I'm working on now has two 60 GB hard drives on it, and the backup
partitions
already fill up with DI 2002, such that I have to use part of a third used
partition to store even more backup info.

If I can store the backup images anywhere, what is the Secure Zone about?

Other programs cannot see the Secure Zone. Only Acronis and its boot discs
know its there. Thus it is unlikely for accidental erasing using the OS.
Also it is managed completely automatically by the program---no info. on
parameters, locations, sizes is required.

Off topic:

Acronis has a nifty and robust ability to mount an image...it becomes a
drive in the computer. This works wonderfully for reading individual files
etc from an image.

I assume one Acronis purchase can be used on several computers? No
activation or
genuine checks, eh?

I do not know...I have only one machine.

 

[Alpha]

Other programs cannot see the Secure Zone. Only Acronis and its boot
discs know its there. Thus it is unlikely for accidental erasing using
the OS. Also it is managed completely automatically by the program---no
info. on parameters, locations, sizes is required.

Off topic:

Acronis has a nifty and robust ability to mount an image...it becomes a
drive in the computer. This works wonderfully for reading individual
files etc from an image.


I do not know...I have only one machine.

Finally, at least on XP, Acronis can backup the system drive FROM WINDOWS
without dropping to DOS. You can continue to work on your computer as it
images the very drive you are working from.

 

[Noncompliant]

Read all your replies to the thread to this date/time.

The only advantage you have is using Acronis to image external of XP vs
using DI 7.0 within XP only. Have same OSes, and same DI 7.0 and DI 2002 to
work with. Don't see any reason to use anything else.

Misleading box details. Never go by that, ever, for explicit/correct
information regarding the product. Almost any imaging program supports
backing up a FAT16 or FAT32 partition with msdos/windows 3.x/95/98/98SE/ME
residing therein. Whether it works within one of those environments is
another issue. Whether is works within the same environment and backs up
the boot partition is another issue as well.

 

[Cymbal Man Freq.]

from the Acronis doesn't listen dept.....
Complete thread at the links...

http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=103113&page=2

http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=103113

Well I am really bummed about this Snap Restore issue... I was reading the TI
9.0 users guide and in section 5.3.3 I saw a warning...


Quote:
"When performing Snap Restore, the current Acronis True Image version always
restores the entire system disk. If an image contains, for example, two
partitions of three, the third partition will be lost. Therefore, it is
recommended to back up the entire system disk, if you are planning to use
Acronis Snap Restore."


Well that about explains it all... I still am unsure why this feature would be
included if it erases the target drive minus the Secure Zone. I personally
separate my large hard drive into several partitions for storing various types
of files. All of which are backed up pretty regularly to DVD manually. Most of
the files are either music or pictures from my digital camera and there is no
real need to image those partitions since the data is already backed up. If I
were to make an image of my entire 250 GB hard drive, then the image file would
be huge and it would take forever to create and restore. So there is no real
need to image the entire drive, just the partitions containing the operating
system and the applications.

Acronis needs to change the way that the Snap Restore feature works or make a
warning screen after selecting Snap Restore to alert the user that all data on
the target hard drive will be lost if continuing with the Snap Restore. At least
this would give the user a chance to go back and change their selection to do a
regular restore instead, before the hard drive is cleared. As soon as you click
next after selecting Snap Restore, it erases all partitions on the target drive.
It would be an incredible feature if it were able to restore just one partition
with out deleting the remaining partitions of the target drive.

Finally, despite Snap Restore erasing my target drive, it also failed saying the
image was bad. Which I know the image is good since I can use it to do a regular
restore with out a problem. So I am left once again unsure if TI 9.0.0.2289 has
a bug or just a very poorly worded description of the new Snap Restore
feature...

I really hope this thread is useful to some of you, since I spent almost all day
testing this...



The above image shows the poorly worded option for Snap Restore and its
description.
**********************************************************************
Thanks for the post. You saved my life just before my first try to use TI9 to
restore a image. Is it possible that your image of C: not contains all
disk/partitions to be reported as corrupt?

If snap restore may destroy some partition unexpectedly either by a try click or
mistake click , is it possible to implement a disable button to let any users
who choose NOT to use this dangerous feature can disable it. (Had better disable
it by default)
*********************************************************************
*********************************************************************

Well the saga continues. I was setting up a new computer and decided to test TI
Home v10 to see if there was a warning for snap restore. I have 2 partitions,
one for windows and one for documents. I always put my documents on D: drive so
I can restore C: and not lose anything. Anyway since D: just had a bunch of
empty folders from the "My Documents" folder in it, I installed TI Home 10 and
made an image of C: to the secure zone. I then booted and hit F11 to get to the
recovery and chose the secure zone as the source, C: image, and then snap
restore. I saw proceed for snap restore and clicked it. Guess what. It started
right away with no warning. BAD NEWS! I tried to hit cancel, but it wouldn't. So
I hard booted my pc and got back to windows, but it was all messed up. I still
had drive D:, but it wouldn't open. So there is still no warning and people are
still at risk of losing all data stored on all partitions when using snap
restore. You would think Acronis would have listened by now. My initial post was
from October 2005. Anyone else have similar problems with the TI line or Acronis
not listening to customer requests and repairing potentially entire system data
loss issues?

HELLO ACRONIS!!!!!!
***************************************
Firstly, I don't think it is acceptable to have a feature like this which one
cannot backout of before you finally start it. If there is no way to cancel when
you expect it to then that is a problem.

The suggestions in this thread about providing better warnings are right on the
money.

However. I actually agree that the correct place in the sequence for a cancel is
after the proceed button has been pressed. This is a fairly standard user
interface model. You execute a function, and then, it can offer a warning as a
very last opportunity. For example, saving files from office applications,
shutting a machine down, executing Del *.* (are you sure).

I think it is essential for good interaction design that user interface models
are consistent, and whilst offering a cancel before Proceed may be acceptable, I
would disagree that it is consistent with thousands of other designs where the
warning is the last thing you do before a function starts (or cancels).

I think the confusion here has arisen because of a lack of confidence that the
feature works at all. If there had been no problems with it then we wouldn't
even be discussing the user interface.

I suspect Acronis have not changed this because in their opinion (and mine) the
user interface is not broken.

**********************************
If they don't consider a data security product wiping out every partition on a
given volume without warning as broken, they don't deserve to sell a single copy
ever again.

I have no need nor wish to touch ATI10, so I'm basing this on the poster that
stated ATI10 offers no warning at all. At least ATI9 eventually got a warning
added. Cryptic and inadequate it may have been, but at least it was something.

The fact it wasn't there to begin with, and apparently didn't get included in
ATI10, shows a severe lack of common sense on behalf of the dialog designer. To
such a degree that the person responsible really should find something else to
do, in my opinion.
***********************************
I don't really care when the warning is presented either. As long as it is
before any changes are made.

The feature itself does work as designed. It is, for whatever technical reason,
supposed to wipe out every partition on the volume in order to snap restore. The
major issue is the fact you might have hundreds of gigabytes worth of data on
those other partitions and it doesn't bother warning you about what it intends
to do.

After all this time it still baffles me that anyone could manage to overlook the
need for a very big warning. And it depresses me that Acronis still doesn't seem
to understand what the problem is, even after all the posts about it.

 

[Cymbal Man Freq.]

| Read all your replies to the thread to this date/time.
|
| The only advantage you have is using Acronis to image external of XP vs
| using DI 7.0 within XP only. Have same OSes, and same DI 7.0 and DI 2002 to
| work with. Don't see any reason to use anything else.
|
| Misleading box details. Never go by that, ever, for explicit/correct
| information regarding the product. Almost any imaging program supports
| backing up a FAT16 or FAT32 partition with msdos/windows 3.x/95/98/98SE/ME
| residing therein. Whether it works within one of those environments is
| another issue. Whether is works within the same environment and backs up
| the boot partition is another issue as well.
|
| --
| Noncompliant
|
| For corporate legal advice regarding the EULA for XP, check with a lawyer
| qualified in corporate law.

Well, there are also incremental backups, and differential backups available
with Acronis. But I don't know how to set them up yet. I've got to read the
Acrois forums to do more research. They have a rapid rate of postings on a daily
basis.

Maybe I'll just save this Acronis until I get a new computer for myself, but I
hear there are problems backing up dual-booted XP & Vista OS machines, thanks to
a new Vista design to the boot files.

http://www.multibooters.co.uk/cloning.html

Cloning Vista

The change in Vista from the boot.ini to the BCD file has meant that getting a
clone to boot from its new location has caused some problems. With boot.ini you
just had to change a few numbers in a text editor to make it point to the new
partition number. The BCD is not so easy to edit and requires you to create a
new partition GUID number (Globally Unique Identifier). I have not yet seen a
way or figured out how to manually make this change in the BCD of a clone or
independent Vista install. It can however be done with the auto repair feature
from the Vista DVD if the conditions are right. See alternative method below.

I have however come across a BCD edit that seems to essentially turn off
bootmgr's dependence on the GUID number, partition offset and MBR Disk Signature
and direct bootmgr to just boot the partition that it is itself on. A Vista
clone will then happily boot from any partition or hard drive. Please note that
making this change to the BCD file is of course only desirable if you are not
using the Windows bootmanager. If you don’t know for sure that you are not, then
don’t mess with the BCD file.

This is not as far as I’m aware a Microsoft approved modification, so it is
still experimental and there may indeed be issues involved that I have not yet
come across, so I would not suggest this for a mission critical machine just
yet. If you have been using or testing this modification to the BCD then please
give me some feedback on whether you have or have not seen any issues. So far I’
ve had no problems with cloning to various hard drives and to both primary and
logical partitions. In all cases Vista boots without complaint and I have seen
no real issues yet on two test machines, certainly no signs that two installs
are becoming cross-linked. The one anomaly I have come across is that when an
independent install of Vista is running from a second or higher hard drive the
Disk Management utility will sometimes number the drives incorrectly. I have not
explored the variables yet that might have been responsible for this. Perhaps
something to do with drive configuration of IDE and SATA, or maybe the
bootmanager I was using at the time.

more of this at the link above...

 

[Cymbal Man Freq.]

Ok I have tried wading through the posts and saw this was an image on other
builds.
I have TI Home 10 build 4871 bought and paid at Staples.

I was so disappointed since after reading many reviews this was supposed to be a
good program.
Why are the DVDs blank after going throught he process for an hour & 20 minutes?

I know some here will try to tell me to burn to hard drive first and then burn
disks.
However I really want to burn some storage copies to DVD.Media used TDK DVD +R
4X. I have 6 disks made by choosing FULL BACK UP and got a successful message.
HOWEVER the disks are blank! WHY?

So how do you burn to DVD in version 10?
If it does not work than I do not see the point of owning this program. ALl
features advertised should work.
**********************************
Backing up to DVDs has been a problem for all imaging software. Acronis, Ghost
etc. Sometimes it backs up and sometimes it doesn't. Probably related to your
hardware. It doesn't work for me either.

I see this as an advantage because storing images on DVDs is a recipe for
disaster and the more discs you have, the more likely that the restore will
fail. I know you don't want to hear this but if you want reliability in the
restore process, forget DVDs.
*********************************
Thanks for news although discouraging.

The point is this, no matter what you guys tell me about not burning to DVD, the
product was adverstised to do so and other devices like harddrive can fail if
there was a power surge.

So I need to make a hard copy as a last resort style back up.

If the program spins disks and has me put in 6 DVDs than it should be writing on
them, yes? Then why didn't it?

If someone was splitting it up into DVD packets on a harddrive, does the program
write to a harddrive something or is it blank too?? WHat is the difference if it
is breaking into packets vs breaking into packets and burning to DVD?
Then what changes when writing to disk? Actually I do not care, I would like
info on how to make it work and be something that could be verified.
*********************************
Surprisingly, this method is much faster than direct writing to DVDs. But you
need another partition to create the images. You can write the images to the C:
drive and delete them after burning the discs but TeraByte Unlimited says this
is not a good idea although I don't know if their reasoning applies to TI.


Quote:
devices like harddrive can fail if there was a power surge

Good point. But for restores they are more reliable than DVDs. You should have
two backups for redundancy. I use a second (internal) HD and an external HD that
I only connect to the computer to copy the backup image. Every few months I do
copy an image to a DVD but my images are only 4 GB and fit on one disc. I've
never used the DVD for a real restore, only for tests.

To get the best usage out of your computer you have to spend more money. Backup
software, partitioning software and backup hardware are just starters.
**********************************
other devices like harddrive can fail if there was a power surge.
....

True and DVDs seem to be able to fail while sitting on the shelf.

I certainly agree TI should be as advertized and write to DVDs even if I don't
use it, and if it fails it shouldn't say the process was completed successfully
although that probably indicates the software received no error codes back from
the driver while writing the DVD.

Are you using DVD +/-R or RW? TI only supports one type of RW but I can't
remember if it is + or -
************************************

 

[Uncle Grumpy]

Acronis needs to change the way that the Snap Restore feature works or make a
warning screen after selecting Snap Restore to alert the user that all data on
the target hard drive will be lost if continuing with the Snap Restore.

Acronis has a user forum on its site. Take your problems there.

 

[Rock]

It says on the side of the box that Acronis True Image 10 supports Win
98SE. I
read the pdf manual on the disc (opened software now, dammit) and the
manual
says XP is supported, no word on 98SE. So which is it? Is Win 98SE
supported by
True Image 10 or what?

This isn't an XP OS issue. Maybe ask in an Acronis forum?

 

[...winston]

http://www.acronis.com/homecomputing/products/trueimage/requirements.html

http://www.acronis.com/homecomputing/support/kb/?topic=Products&aid=453&cid=101


:
: > It says on the side of the box that Acronis True Image 10 supports Win
: > 98SE. I
: > read the pdf manual on the disc (opened software now, dammit) and the
: > manual
: > says XP is supported, no word on 98SE. So which is it? Is Win 98SE
: > supported by
: > True Image 10 or what?
:
: This isn't an XP OS issue. Maybe ask in an Acronis forum?
:
: --
: Rock [MS-MVP User/Shell]
:

 

[Noncompliant]

Vista???? Thanks for info anyway.

 

[Noncompliant]

You said you have DI 7.0 It will write the image to hard disk, and has an
option to break it down to smaller units if needed. I've written such to
DVD afterwards. And, the restoration does work. Just a matter of knowing
when to insert the DVD media.