True Image 2009 warning

[Anthony Buckland]

I'm one of the people who constantly direct users wanting
reliable backup of their XP systems to try Acronis True Image.
And I expect to go on recommending it.

However, I've had trouble using the newest version, TI 2009
Home. Sufficient trouble that I've backed out to an earlier
version (in my case TI 9, build 2337) and plan to stay there
until TI 2009 comes out with a reliable build. I just spent
some time on the Acronis forum bringing myself up to date,
and find there are various problems that various users are
having and which are sufficient to make restoring a partition
difficult or impossible (this is of course a vital core issue in
backup and restore).

Other users report trouble-free use of TI 2009. I can't see
any definite common theme in the differences beween those
users and the ones encountering problems.

My advice for now would be that you do the following if you
want to try TI 2009:
- have a restore CD made by an earlier version of TI.
Preferably, you should have used the CD for a successful
restore.
- immediately before installing TI 2009, make a full save of
your partition using the earlier TI version corresponding
to the restore CD.
- after you install TI 2009, do nothing affecting your data,
such as receiving and sending mail, creating or editing
documents etc. until you are sure that you can both save
and restore with TI 2009.
- make a partition save with TI 2009. Use TI 2009 to verify
it. Make a restore CD with TI 2009. Now restore the
partition with TI 2009 (either with the CD you just made
or by using F11 at bootup to access the restore program
TI squirrels away safely on your hard drive). Check that
the restore worked. Issues reported here include: being
completely unable to restore (me, for example); having
some vital software such as your word processor or office
type software not work or work with errors; having the
appearance of your desktop change inexplicably.
- if, and only if, you can save _and_restore_ with TI 2009
and see no change in functionality, go ahead and use
TI 2009 (but even then, I'd make independent saves in
native form of your mail and data files on external media,
such as a thumb drive, for some time pending new
problems appearing).
- if TI 2009 can't do the vital tasks of save and restore
for you, you may make offerings to various supernatural
beings of your choice that you have that older-version
backup and older-version CD to save you from great
misery. You might at this point also see why people make
more than one copy of all kinds of rescue CDs.

Given all the above, you might wonder why I still advocate
TI. Because it's good software, in earlier versions, that has
more than once saved my bacon big time. It's just one of those
cases where manufacturers release inadequately proven
(IMHO) versions. I could mention my waiting several years to
upgrade from Win98 to WinXP, for instance.

 

[olfart]

I'm one of the people who constantly direct users wanting
reliable backup of their XP systems to try Acronis True Image.
And I expect to go on recommending it.

However, I've had trouble using the newest version, TI 2009
Home. Sufficient trouble that I've backed out to an earlier
version (in my case TI 9, build 2337) and plan to stay there
until TI 2009 comes out with a reliable build. I just spent
some time on the Acronis forum bringing myself up to date,
and find there are various problems that various users are
having and which are sufficient to make restoring a partition
difficult or impossible (this is of course a vital core issue in
backup and restore).

Other users report trouble-free use of TI 2009. I can't see
any definite common theme in the differences beween those
users and the ones encountering problems.

My advice for now would be that you do the following if you
want to try TI 2009:
- have a restore CD made by an earlier version of TI.
Preferably, you should have used the CD for a successful
restore.
- immediately before installing TI 2009, make a full save of
your partition using the earlier TI version corresponding
to the restore CD.
- after you install TI 2009, do nothing affecting your data,
such as receiving and sending mail, creating or editing
documents etc. until you are sure that you can both save
and restore with TI 2009.
- make a partition save with TI 2009. Use TI 2009 to verify
it. Make a restore CD with TI 2009. Now restore the
partition with TI 2009 (either with the CD you just made
or by using F11 at bootup to access the restore program
TI squirrels away safely on your hard drive). Check that
the restore worked. Issues reported here include: being
completely unable to restore (me, for example); having
some vital software such as your word processor or office
type software not work or work with errors; having the
appearance of your desktop change inexplicably.
- if, and only if, you can save _and_restore_ with TI 2009
and see no change in functionality, go ahead and use
TI 2009 (but even then, I'd make independent saves in
native form of your mail and data files on external media,
such as a thumb drive, for some time pending new
problems appearing).
- if TI 2009 can't do the vital tasks of save and restore
for you, you may make offerings to various supernatural
beings of your choice that you have that older-version
backup and older-version CD to save you from great
misery. You might at this point also see why people make
more than one copy of all kinds of rescue CDs.

Given all the above, you might wonder why I still advocate
TI. Because it's good software, in earlier versions, that has
more than once saved my bacon big time. It's just one of those
cases where manufacturers release inadequately proven
(IMHO) versions. I could mention my waiting several years to
upgrade from Win98 to WinXP, for instance.

I've used Casper for years with very good results. However their latest
update about 3 months ago caused problems that could not be corrected. The
techs at www.fsdev.com finally refunded the cost of the update and I
reverted back to the version that had worked for me for so long.
Moral of the story....newer ain't always better

 

[Alan Biddle]

I will second that! I am also a longtime user and advocate to TI.
However TI 2009 has many tweaks to the user interface which make it
hard to decide whether it is a bug or a feature. Even if everything
is working as Acronis intended, it is still possible to shoot yourself
in the foot. It is running on my non-critical computer, but I will
hold off on getting an upgrade for the critical computer until things
are a bit clearer.

 

[Anna]

I've used Casper for years with very good results. However their latest
update about 3 months ago caused problems that could not be corrected. The
techs at www.fsdev.com finally refunded the cost of the update and I
reverted back to the version that had worked for me for so long.
Moral of the story....newer ain't always better

olfart:
I just came across your post above and was curious to know about the
problems you had with one of the Casper 5 newer "builds". Could you describe
the problems you encountered at least in a general sense and do you recall
the "build" version? As I'm sure you know Casper releases new builds on an
extremely frequent basis. The current build, as you may know, is v5.0.1492
dtd. 12/21/08. The developer apparently tries to keep the program as
up-to-date & problem-free as possible.

As you also may know from my posts to this and similar newsgroups re
disk-cloning & disk-imaging programs, I am a strong proponent of the Casper
5 program. (So much so that I have been not infrequently accused of being a
"shill" for the developer and having a commercial interest in the product,
which I do not). I've been using the Casper program (both its versions 4 and
the current 5 version) for more than three years now and, like you, I highly
recommend the program to users. We have found the program extremely reliable
and its simple-to-use, straightforward user interface is a real blessing for
most users.

While the program does not have disk-imaging capability, Casper's
disk-cloning capability is extraordinarily quick in operation for
comprehensive backup purposes. When used on a routine basis with some degree
of frequency to comprehensively back up one's system, the expenditure of
time to complete the backup operation is close to trifling. As a quick
example...

Coincidentally, a few moments ago it took me just under four minutes to
clone the 40-odd GB of data on one my "source" drives. That drive had been
previously cloned four days ago. (I usually use another internal HDD as the
"destination" HDD, i.e., the recipient of the clone. Using a USB external
HDD would take somewhat longer, but not terribly so).

And the nice thing about the clone is that it's a precise copy of the disk
that was cloned. All of its programs & data are immediately accessible to
the user. And should the recipient of the clone be another internal HDD,
that drive will be immediately bootable. Should the recipient of the clone
be an external HDD, e.g., a USB HDD, the contents of that drive could be
cloned back to an internal HDD for "bootability". Or, if the HDD contained
within the USB enclosure can be removed and then reinstalled in the PC, it
is immediately bootable under those circumstances.

More & more we've been going to external SATA HDD enclosures that provide
SATA-to-SATA connectivity. There you have the best of all worlds in that the
external SATA device can be physically/electronically disconnected from the
system while not in use; yet since the system treats a SATA-connected HDD as
an *internal* HDD, the drive is thus immediately bootable even in its
external configuration. We recommend that hardware arrangement whenever it's
practical for the user.
Anna