N
Nonny
But in your typical fashion, you never admitted that you were wrong
and that JS was right.
But in your typical fashion, you never admitted that you were wrong
and that JS was right.
B
Bill in Co.
Nonny said:
Maybe I was trying to emulate you, for some occasions?
J
JS
Nonny,
There are no apologies necessary from Bill, I have been following the entire
thread over the last few days and Bill has asked some very good questions
about Acronis.
I use Ghost which (at least my older version) does not have the feature
quoted by Lee: "If there is not enough space, older backups will be deleted
to create free space."
JS
But in your typical fashion, you never admitted that you were wrong
and that JS was right.
There are no apologies necessary from Bill, I have been following the entire
thread over the last few days and Bill has asked some very good questions
about Acronis.
I use Ghost which (at least my older version) does not have the feature
quoted by Lee: "If there is not enough space, older backups will be deleted
to create free space."
JS
But in your typical fashion, you never admitted that you were wrong
and that JS was right.
B
Bill in Co.
With a segue like that, how can I refuse? OK, I apologize. 
J
John Barnett MVP
Sorry Acronis Secure Zone isn't for you; still a removable drive is just as
good. On the subject of removable drives, my drive is actually an old ATA
drive I removed from my old PC prior to disposing of it. This ATA drive I
installed into a portable hard drive case (USB 2.0).
My desktop machine has SATA drives and, as I've pointed out before, one
backup copy of the operating system is stored on a Partition on one of the
internal hard drives and another on the removable drive. I have actually
re-installed the operating system from both of these backups and, although I
haven't timed everything to the last second, I should say, from my
experience, that there is only 'around' a 2 or 3 minute difference in the
time it takes to re-image the drive back between the SATA and the IDE. Not
having the exact figures in front of me, it usually takes around 15 minutes
to re-image my drive from the internal SATA and around 18 minutes from the
removable IDE drive.
--
--
John Barnett MVP
Windows XP Associate Expert
Windows Desktop Experience
Web: http://xphelpandsupport.mvps.org
Web: http://vistasupport.mvps.org
The information in this mail/post is supplied "as is". No warranty of any
kind, either expressed or implied, is made in relation to the accuracy,
reliability or content of this mail/post. The Author shall not be liable for
any direct, indirect, incidental or consequential damages arising out of the
use of, or inability to use, information or opinions expressed in this
mail/post..
good. On the subject of removable drives, my drive is actually an old ATA
drive I removed from my old PC prior to disposing of it. This ATA drive I
installed into a portable hard drive case (USB 2.0).
My desktop machine has SATA drives and, as I've pointed out before, one
backup copy of the operating system is stored on a Partition on one of the
internal hard drives and another on the removable drive. I have actually
re-installed the operating system from both of these backups and, although I
haven't timed everything to the last second, I should say, from my
experience, that there is only 'around' a 2 or 3 minute difference in the
time it takes to re-image the drive back between the SATA and the IDE. Not
having the exact figures in front of me, it usually takes around 15 minutes
to re-image my drive from the internal SATA and around 18 minutes from the
removable IDE drive.
--
--
John Barnett MVP
Windows XP Associate Expert
Windows Desktop Experience
Web: http://xphelpandsupport.mvps.org
Web: http://vistasupport.mvps.org
The information in this mail/post is supplied "as is". No warranty of any
kind, either expressed or implied, is made in relation to the accuracy,
reliability or content of this mail/post. The Author shall not be liable for
any direct, indirect, incidental or consequential damages arising out of the
use of, or inability to use, information or opinions expressed in this
mail/post..
J
JS
Thanks, you have me interested enough to try True Image on a PC I'm getting
ready to perform some testing on so I might as well test True Image as well.
JS
ready to perform some testing on so I might as well test True Image as well.
JS
B
Bill in Co.
Well, I went ahead and just bought an eSATA external HD enclosure, adapter,
and drive, so we'll see how that works out. I bought a Vantec external HD
enclosure. I've had good luck with Vantec external HD enclosures before, and
just love its simplicity. (The only disadvantage being: it's a bit of a
pain to remove or replace the drive inside, but fortunately, that is rarely
needed).
As for the Secure Zone, I think it's too potentially too problematic for me
to really consider using, so that's why I did this. Plus of course it's
better to have backups on another drive, anyway.
But I *am* expecting it to be much faster than using the USB 2.0 external
now.
Theoretically, SATA is 6 times faster (not sure if that's for SATA-1 or
SATA-2).
So this should be as fast as if I added the second drive internally. I
just don't need a second internal drive at this point.
It is interesting to note below that you didn't see much speed difference,
however. I would expect SATA or eSATA to be significantly faster than
anything done through USB 2.0, however. USB 2.0 is limited to 480 Mbps,
as I recall, and SATA to 6000 Mbps.
and drive, so we'll see how that works out. I bought a Vantec external HD
enclosure. I've had good luck with Vantec external HD enclosures before, and
just love its simplicity. (The only disadvantage being: it's a bit of a
pain to remove or replace the drive inside, but fortunately, that is rarely
needed).
As for the Secure Zone, I think it's too potentially too problematic for me
to really consider using, so that's why I did this. Plus of course it's
better to have backups on another drive, anyway.
But I *am* expecting it to be much faster than using the USB 2.0 external
now.
Theoretically, SATA is 6 times faster (not sure if that's for SATA-1 or
SATA-2).
So this should be as fast as if I added the second drive internally. I
just don't need a second internal drive at this point.
It is interesting to note below that you didn't see much speed difference,
however. I would expect SATA or eSATA to be significantly faster than
anything done through USB 2.0, however. USB 2.0 is limited to 480 Mbps,
as I recall, and SATA to 6000 Mbps.
B
Bill in Co.
I've had great luck with Acronis True Image 11. I'm just staying away from
using its Secure Zone capability (only needed if using the same drive to
store backup images), and the potential headaches, therein - but for
external backups and restores, it's been great.
I use it quite frequently to backup (and sometimes restore after some
software tests!) the entire C: partition, which contains all of my programs,
data, and windows, of course (everything except for some large collections
of audio and video files which are each on their own respective partitions).
I purchased Acronis True Image in the box, since that way it comes on its
own Boot CD, which you can use should windows have a problem in booting up.
(You can make one if you don't, but this was easier for me.
using its Secure Zone capability (only needed if using the same drive to
store backup images), and the potential headaches, therein - but for
external backups and restores, it's been great.
I use it quite frequently to backup (and sometimes restore after some
software tests!) the entire C: partition, which contains all of my programs,
data, and windows, of course (everything except for some large collections
of audio and video files which are each on their own respective partitions).
I purchased Acronis True Image in the box, since that way it comes on its
own Boot CD, which you can use should windows have a problem in booting up.
(You can make one if you don't, but this was easier for me.
U
Unknown
What speed penalty? There isn't any.
Bill in Co. said:Yeah, I've heard about that, but I've been putting it off. But maybe
it's getting close to that time to take a look.
J
JS
I think your assessment is right on. Secure Zone does not seem to offer any
significant benefits other than it's hidden so it should stop anyone from
accidentally deleting any image backup files.
Question, can you create a boot CD with the trial version?
JS
significant benefits other than it's hidden so it should stop anyone from
accidentally deleting any image backup files.
Question, can you create a boot CD with the trial version?
JS
B
Bill in Co.
Using USB external hard drives for image backup and restore operations, VS
using either another internal drive OR using an external eSATA drive.
using either another internal drive OR using an external eSATA drive.
B
Bill in Co.
JS said:
Well, I think the main advantage of having the Secure Zone capability was
for those who have no other drives to use for backups. (Of course, they
could use DVDs, but what a pain, for backing up anything as big as the
entire system partition!).
With the trial version, I don't know. I haven't had to use that boot CD
very often, but it's handy, just in case. I think you can get a good feel
of the program without it.
J
JS
Thanks,
JS
JS
Bill in Co. said:
U
Unknown
But what speed penalty?? You back up periodically and restore when something
is damaged.
There is no speed difference whatsoever in normal operations.
is damaged.
There is no speed difference whatsoever in normal operations.
B
Bill in Co.
Of course there is, in what I've been addressing: namely, the time it takes
to backup and restore the whole C: partition, and NOT just for HD damage
purposes, but for some awry software installations and/or tests, and what
have you. Obviously if you don't install anything or test anything very
often, it's not an issue.
to backup and restore the whole C: partition, and NOT just for HD damage
purposes, but for some awry software installations and/or tests, and what
have you. Obviously if you don't install anything or test anything very
often, it's not an issue.
J
John Barnett MVP
Bill, I did a re-image of my hard drive yesterday from my removable backup
drive and, as you stated, the 'increase' in time to perform the task is
noticeable. Of course the first 'time' deficiency is that, when using a
removable drive, Acronis has to re-boot to the pre-windows environment prior
to starting the copying of files. Another annoying problem with Acronis is
that it doesn't seem capable of keeping an accurate time. As an example,
when I first entered the pre-windows environment and the Acronis interface
appeared the copying interface stated that the re-image would take 50
minutes. The next time I looked (probably 5 minutes or so later) the time
had dropped to 26 minutes. You only have to wait until the time counter has
reached the 1 minutes 55 second region to see that, for some unknown reason,
the Acronis clock allocated 3 to 5 seconds or more for every 'real time'
second, so when it states that the re-image has 1 minute 50 seconds before
completion you could be sitting there for 5 minutes or more before the job
actually completes.
Under normal circumstances one usually leaves Acronis to get on with the job
but, on this occasion, I was writing at my desk and it was only when
periodically looking at the progress that I noticed this idiosyncrasy.
--
--
John Barnett MVP
Associate Expert
Windows Desktop Experience
Web: http://xphelpandsupport.mvps.org
Web: http://vistasupport.mvps.org
The information in this mail/post is supplied "as is". No warranty of any
kind, either expressed or implied, is made in relation to the accuracy,
reliability or content of this mail/post. The Author shall not be liable for
any direct, indirect, incidental or consequential damages arising out of the
use of, or inability to use, information or opinions expressed in this
mail/post..
drive and, as you stated, the 'increase' in time to perform the task is
noticeable. Of course the first 'time' deficiency is that, when using a
removable drive, Acronis has to re-boot to the pre-windows environment prior
to starting the copying of files. Another annoying problem with Acronis is
that it doesn't seem capable of keeping an accurate time. As an example,
when I first entered the pre-windows environment and the Acronis interface
appeared the copying interface stated that the re-image would take 50
minutes. The next time I looked (probably 5 minutes or so later) the time
had dropped to 26 minutes. You only have to wait until the time counter has
reached the 1 minutes 55 second region to see that, for some unknown reason,
the Acronis clock allocated 3 to 5 seconds or more for every 'real time'
second, so when it states that the re-image has 1 minute 50 seconds before
completion you could be sitting there for 5 minutes or more before the job
actually completes.
Under normal circumstances one usually leaves Acronis to get on with the job
but, on this occasion, I was writing at my desk and it was only when
periodically looking at the progress that I noticed this idiosyncrasy.
--
--
John Barnett MVP
Associate Expert
Windows Desktop Experience
Web: http://xphelpandsupport.mvps.org
Web: http://vistasupport.mvps.org
The information in this mail/post is supplied "as is". No warranty of any
kind, either expressed or implied, is made in relation to the accuracy,
reliability or content of this mail/post. The Author shall not be liable for
any direct, indirect, incidental or consequential damages arising out of the
use of, or inability to use, information or opinions expressed in this
mail/post..
U
Unknown
Completely insignificant.
Bill in Co. said:
F
Frog
Bill, you mentioned a discussion with Anna, and that reminded me of an
earlier exchange I had on this group about backup software. I was
looking for a backup method for my system and Anna came to my rescue.
She recommended Casper 4 (now Casper 5) as a good/easy to use method for
making backups. Well, the long and short of this exchange resulted in
my using a 500 GB external USB connected hard drive for my backup
location (under $100) and Casper 4 software for making my backups ($50
+/-). I have been extremely happy with this setup and thought I would
identify Casper 5 as a good method for backing up a system. You can
read more about this software package here:
http://www.fssdev.com/products/casper/
Frog
earlier exchange I had on this group about backup software. I was
looking for a backup method for my system and Anna came to my rescue.
She recommended Casper 4 (now Casper 5) as a good/easy to use method for
making backups. Well, the long and short of this exchange resulted in
my using a 500 GB external USB connected hard drive for my backup
location (under $100) and Casper 4 software for making my backups ($50
+/-). I have been extremely happy with this setup and thought I would
identify Casper 5 as a good method for backing up a system. You can
read more about this software package here:
http://www.fssdev.com/products/casper/
Frog
J
John Barnett MVP
Frog I've also used Casper (I've beta tested every version so far), and I
too found it useful. Obviously it is not as 'feature packed' as Acronis but
it does the job all the same.
--
--
John Barnett MVP
Associate Expert
Windows Desktop Experience
Web: http://xphelpandsupport.mvps.org
Web: http://vistasupport.mvps.org
The information in this mail/post is supplied "as is". No warranty of any
kind, either expressed or implied, is made in relation to the accuracy,
reliability or content of this mail/post. The Author shall not be liable for
any direct, indirect, incidental or consequential damages arising out of the
use of, or inability to use, information or opinions expressed in this
mail/post..
too found it useful. Obviously it is not as 'feature packed' as Acronis but
it does the job all the same.
--
--
John Barnett MVP
Associate Expert
Windows Desktop Experience
Web: http://xphelpandsupport.mvps.org
Web: http://vistasupport.mvps.org
The information in this mail/post is supplied "as is". No warranty of any
kind, either expressed or implied, is made in relation to the accuracy,
reliability or content of this mail/post. The Author shall not be liable for
any direct, indirect, incidental or consequential damages arising out of the
use of, or inability to use, information or opinions expressed in this
mail/post..
J
JS
John,
Have you tested the more recent versions of Ghost (Ver 12 or 14) and if so,
what is your opinion?
JS
Have you tested the more recent versions of Ghost (Ver 12 or 14) and if so,
what is your opinion?
JS