~OT~ Acronis TI

[ablesom]

Addressing you Acronis fans out there...any good reason to upgrade from v7
to v8?

Thanks!

 

[CS]

Addressing you Acronis fans out there...any good reason to upgrade from v7
to v8?

Thanks!

Only you can determine that. Read what the new features are at the
Acronis web site and decide for yourself.

 

[John Doue]

Only you can determine that. Read what the new features are at the
Acronis web site and decide for yourself.

Have you looked at the downloadable demo ? I'm using v8 but I am a new
comer, don't know what the differences are. You could ask Acronis too
the reasons they think you should upgrade ... and of course decide what
is BS and what is important for you.

 

[Lee Shipman]

In my case, v7 wouldn't recognize my SATA drive, but v8 would. This is with
the MSI Neo Platinum motherboard & WD HDD.

Lee

 

[=?iso-8859-1?B?uyBtcnRlZSCr?=]

It does the job quicker.

Updates for TI7 will probably end soon.

Save $20 from regular price.

--
Just my 2¢ worth,
Jeff
__________In response to__________
| Addressing you Acronis fans out there...any good reason to upgrade from v7
| to v8?
|
| Thanks!
|
|

 

[ablesom]

Only you can determine that. Read what the new features are at the
Acronis web site and decide for yourself.

I already have. I was hoping for opinions of users that have had hands on
experience of both versions. So much more informative than manufacturer
marketing.

Thanks!

 

[ablesom]

Have you looked at the downloadable demo ?

Thanks for the input, John. No, I haven't tried the V8 demo. I'm still at
the data gathering stage. I'm wondering if the bugs I have in v7 have been
addressed in v8 (see my response to Lee).

Thanks!

 

[ablesom]

In my case, v7 wouldn't recognize my SATA drive, but v8 would. This is
with the MSI Neo Platinum motherboard & WD HDD.

Lee

One problem I'm having with ver 7 is that it mis-reports the projected image
size. The image is always quite a bit larger than projected. I.E. TI
projects that the image size for C:\ will be 3.6 GB, but outputs an image
4.3 GB.

Another problem is that the compression level in TI does not produce as
small a file as Ghost (2000) or DI (2002). Have you experienced these
problems, and if so, are they corrected in version 8?

Thanks!

 

[ablesom]

It does the job quicker.

Updates for TI7 will probably end soon.

Save $20 from regular price.


Yes, I hope to make a decision soon. Thanks!


--
Just my 2¢ worth,
Jeff
__________In response to__________
| Addressing you Acronis fans out there...any good reason to upgrade from v7
| to v8?
|
| Thanks!
|
|

 

[Lee Shipman]

To be honest I don't remember how the previous versions of TI compared
regarding your questions. My main objective was to have it recognize my
SATA drive, and v8 does. Previous versions didn't. I haven't used Ghost.

Lee

 

[CS]

On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 11:11:29 -0600, "ablesom" <[email protected]>
wrote:

Ablesom:

I also have Ghost 2003, Drive Image 2002, and BING. True Image 7.0
and 8.0 always produce an image that is smaller and more tightly
compressed than that of the other imaging software I mentioned. At
least that has been my experience.

I usually set the image compression for "normal" and create all my
images when booting from the CD. I never use True Image 8.0 from
within XP or Win2000 to create images. The only time I run TI from
Windows is to verify the image which seems to be faster when done in
Windows.

I use TI 8.0 on my desktop and notebook computers. Desktop is
formatted to NTFS while the notebook uses FAT-32.

 

[ablesom]

To be honest I don't remember how the previous versions of TI compared
regarding your questions. My main objective was to have it recognize my
SATA drive, and v8 does. Previous versions didn't. I haven't used Ghost.

OK. Thanks for the info you did provide!

 

[ablesom]

Ablesom:

I also have Ghost 2003, Drive Image 2002, and BING. True Image 7.0
and 8.0 always produce an image that is smaller and more tightly
compressed than that of the other imaging software I mentioned. At
least that has been my experience.

I usually set the image compression for "normal" and create all my
images when booting from the CD. I never use True Image 8.0 from
within XP or Win2000 to create images. The only time I run TI from
Windows is to verify the image which seems to be faster when done in
Windows.

Thanks for the additional info.

Is it your experience that TI produces a more reliable image outside of
windows?
Also, in reading the posts at Wilder Security forums (Acronis Forums), there
seems to be quite a few issues with version 8. Have you found v8 more
problematic than v7?

 

[CS]

Ablesom:

See my answers below in line to your questions......

Thanks for the additional info.

Is it your experience that TI produces a more reliable image outside of
windows?

Yes. Actually it has been my experience with any of the mentioned
imaging programs. TI is no different.

Also, in reading the posts at Wilder Security forums (Acronis Forums), there
seems to be quite a few issues with version 8. Have you found v8 more
problematic than v7?

No. I find TI 8.0 to be a bit faster and just as reliable as TI 7.0.
TI 8.0 also has the advantage of not copying the pagefile to the image
plus it supports a greater variety of external hardware.

I don't pay much attention to the projected image size. After all,
it's only an estimate. I suppose this could be a problem if you were
copying direct to CDs or DVDs. I always copy the images to my
external Maxtor USB 2.0 hard drive. And...I tell TI 8.0 to split the
image at the 3GB boundary since my Maxtor drive is formatted to
FAT-32.

As I stated previously, TI 7.0 and 8.0 both produce a compressed image
that is smaller than images produced by Ghost 2003, Drive Image 2002
and BING. I can not speak for Drive Image 7.0 and Ghost 9.0 (actually
they're the same program now) because I have not used either one.

If your images are not compressing as tight as Ghost or Drive Image,
then there may be another reason. Make sure you're selecting the
tightest compression for all three programs.

Regards.

 

[Lee Shipman]

I was a bit apprehensive about trying v8 after reading those forum
messages. But my experience was without incident. I suspect that the users
we read about that are having problems are in the minority, and that for
most of us, things work out OK.

FWIW, I dropped a note to Acronis tech support, asking if they anticipated
any problems with my particular motherboard & chipset, and the were very
prompt in responding and answering my questions. In all, it was a good
interchange of info.

I've used the Acronis program a number of times to bail me out, and it's
worked perfectly. I really think it's a fine program.

Lee

 

[mxh]

I was a bit apprehensive about trying v8 after reading those forum
messages. But my experience was without incident. I suspect that the
users we read about that are having problems are in the minority, and that
for most of us, things work out OK.

FWIW, I dropped a note to Acronis tech support, asking if they anticipated
any problems with my particular motherboard & chipset, and the were very
prompt in responding and answering my questions. In all, it was a good
interchange of info.

I've used the Acronis program a number of times to bail me out, and it's
worked perfectly. I really think it's a fine program.

Lee

Thanks, Lee. I took the plunge and upgraded and am happy with the results.
Thanks for your input.

 

[mxh]

Ablesom:

See my answers below in line to your questions......

Thanks again, CS. Your info helped me to decide to go ahead, and everything
has turned out good. I've already made several images (I'm in the process of
converting all drives in 2 machines to NTFS) and all has gone well.