Acronis True Image

[Nathan]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

I have Acronis True Image version 7. Are there any convincing reasons to
uipgrade to Ver 8?

TIA, Nat

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Nathan wrote:
> I have Acronis True Image version 7. Are there any convincing reasons to
> uipgrade to Ver 8?

Not really. The differences between 7 and 8 are nearly trivial. The
only thing that might be useful is that 8 excludes the pagefile and
hibernation file from backups, which can help with keeping incremental
size down.


--
-WD

 

[Nathan]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"Will Dormann" <wdormann@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:fuGdnW1EOKk72gjcRVn-iw@comcast.com...
> Nathan wrote:
>> I have Acronis True Image version 7. Are there any convincing reasons to
>> uipgrade to Ver 8?
>
> Not really. The differences between 7 and 8 are nearly trivial. The
> only thing that might be useful is that 8 excludes the pagefile and
> hibernation file from backups, which can help with keeping incremental
> size down.

Hi Will, thanks for the response. 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). I assume you've used version 7.
If so, have you experienced these problems, and are they corrected in
version 8?

Nat

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Nathan wrote:
> Hi Will, thanks for the response. 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.

Estimations for the image size will never be exactly on target. This is
because it depends on the data that you're backing up, and it won't know
this until the backup has completed. For example, if you're backing up
2GB of MP3s, it's going to take up significantly more than 2GB of Word
documents.


> Another problem is that the compression level in TI does not produce as
> small a file as Ghost (2000) or DI (2002). I assume you've used version 7.
> If so, have you experienced these problems, and are they corrected in
> version 8?

I haven't imaged my system with DI before, and it's been quite a while
since I've used Ghost. But since ATI8 doesn't include the data from
the pagefile or hibernation file, I suppose that the images should be
smaller. You could also try setting the compression ratio the maximum.


--
-WD

 

[Nathan]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"Will Dormann" <wdormann@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:AZ-dnWDKoIQD_QvcRVn-3Q@comcast.com...
> Nathan wrote:
>> Hi Will, thanks for the response. 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.
>
> Estimations for the image size will never be exactly on target. This is
> because it depends on the data that you're backing up, and it won't know
> this until the backup has completed. For example, if you're backing up
> 2GB of MP3s, it's going to take up significantly more than 2GB of Word
> documents.

There were (with DI 2002) always inconsistent file size predictions with my
other partitions, but never the C: partition. Oh, well. I guess I can live
with it.

>> Another problem is that the compression level in TI does not produce as
>> small a file as Ghost (2000) or DI (2002). I assume you've used version
>> 7. If so, have you experienced these problems, and are they corrected in
>> version 8?
>
> I haven't imaged my system with DI before, and it's been quite a while
> since I've used Ghost. But since ATI8 doesn't include the data from the
> pagefile or hibernation file, I suppose that the images should be smaller.

A good idea. Thanks.


> You could also try setting the compression ratio the maximum.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Will Dormann wrote:
> Nathan wrote:
>> Hi Will, thanks for the response. 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.
>
> Estimations for the image size will never be exactly on target. This
> is because it depends on the data that you're backing up, and it
> won't know this until the backup has completed. For example, if
> you're backing up 2GB of MP3s, it's going to take up significantly
> more than 2GB of Word documents.
>
>
>> Another problem is that the compression level in TI does not produce
>> as small a file as Ghost (2000) or DI (2002). I assume you've used
>> version 7. If so, have you experienced these problems, and are they
>> corrected in version 8?
>
> I haven't imaged my system with DI before, and it's been quite a while
> since I've used Ghost. But since ATI8 doesn't include the data from
> the pagefile or hibernation file, I suppose that the images should be
> smaller. You could also try setting the compression ratio the
> maximum.

Both Drive Image, Ghost 2003/9.0 exclude the hibernate and pagefile from the
image file as they are explictely marked in both the File Allocation Table
(FAT) and in the Master File Table (NTFS)

--
M.f.G.
Michael Kimmer

"Ein Tag an dem Du nicht lächelst ist ein verlorener Tag"
"Eine Nacht in der Du nicht schläfst ist eine verschlafene Nacht"

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Michael Kimmer wrote:
> Will Dormann wrote:
>
>>I haven't imaged my system with DI before, and it's been quite a while
>>since I've used Ghost. But since ATI8 doesn't include the data from
>>the pagefile or hibernation file, I suppose that the images should be
>>smaller. You could also try setting the compression ratio the
>>maximum.
>
>
> Both Drive Image, Ghost 2003/9.0 exclude the hibernate and pagefile from the
> image file as they are explictely marked in both the File Allocation Table
> (FAT) and in the Master File Table (NTFS)

I should have been more explicit in my reply...
"I suppose that the images should be smaller *than ATI7's*"

--
-WD