Acronis True Image 11 Home Build 8053

Acronis True Image 11 Home provides the maximum flexibility to ensure you are adequately protected and can recover from unforeseen events such as viruses, unstable software downloads, and hard drive failures. Create an exact copy of your PC for a full backup or backup only your important data — your choice.

Features:

  • Backup your entire PC
  • Backup your documents, music, video, photos, and e-mails
  • Protect your digital memories from a fatal system failure.
  • Protect your applications
  • Try & Decide
  • Security and privacy tools

Changelog:
  • Unknown at time of newspost
Download: Acronis True Image 11 Home Build 8053 (Shareware, $49.99)
Link: Home Page

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

UltimateDefrag 1.72

Next Story

WindowBlinds 6.01

19 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Things I like about Acronis True Image:

Backup the hard drive from inside Windows, BartPE plugin, or BootCD.

Lets you browse and extract individiual files from the backup image.

Lets you make incremental/differential archives based on an older image, to save some space by only recording "changes"...

Lets you backup/transfer your Office 2007 settings (and a bunch of other applications) in Windows XP (Microsoft doesn't seem to want people to be able to transfer their settings unless they have Vista).

Version 10 worked great under Virtual PC, but the in the first build of Version 11 it wouldn't boot from the ISO, I hope this has been fixed with this new build.

It's not made by Symantec.

I've submitted related software to extensive testing. I used to have an AMD Athlon 2400+, which was more powerful than the machine I presently have.

No one other software of its kind seems to beat Drive Snapshot. And, by the way, that's 3 GB OF DATA, not my whole drive size itself, which has a 40 GB storage capacity. Drive Snapshot offers the option to back up only the occupied sectors of the drive, which is the option that I use. The compression used is invariably the default one (which gives me, by the way, smaller files than, say, Acronis True Image is able to produce) and the restoration is performed (with an image CD/DVD or even from a floppy disk) under DOS using ULTRA DMA drives.

I hope to manage to afford a much more powerful machine in the near future (I'll just wait prices to drop down here for a quad core system), in which occasion I'll sure submit Drive Snapshot and alike software to a comparative benchmarking process. And guess what: I can anticipate the "winner"... You should do the same as regards a benchmarking test... before opting to buy an alternative piece of software of this kind.

Greetings.

MCHAL said,
I've submitted related software to extensive testing. I used to have an AMD Athlon 2400+, which was more powerful than the machine I presently have.

No one other software of its kind seems to beat Drive Snapshot. And, by the way, that's 3 GB OF DATA, not my whole drive size itself, which has a 40 GB storage capacity. Drive Snapshot offers the option to back up only the occupied sectors of the drive, which is the option that I use. The compression used is invariably the default one (which gives me, by the way, smaller files than, say, Acronis True Image is able to produce) and the restoration is performed (with an image CD/DVD or even from a floppy disk) under DOS using ULTRA DMA drives.

I hope to manage to afford a much more powerful machine in the near future (I'll just wait prices to drop down here for a quad core system), in which occasion I'll sure submit Drive Snapshot and alike software to a comparative benchmarking process. And guess what: I can anticipate the "winner"... You should do the same as regards a benchmarking test... before opting to buy an alternative piece of software of this kind.

Greetings.

Love that - complete opinion and no evidence. OK so i'll do it - on RAID 0 with a P4 3.4ghz, Vista Ultimate 32bit Partition is 7.215mb in use.

DS:

4:21, 6.52GB filesize (default options) (in multiple files for some reason!)

TI 10:

3:25, 6.53GB filesize (default options - i.e. normal compression) (in one file)


So, it seems that TI is much faster and the filesize difference is neglible and almost certainly down to compression. Increasing compression on TI would probably beat DS - i can do this if required - i bet it still beats DS in time too :)

Additionally: DS has a TERRIBLE UI - far less options/features and i much prefer just booting the TI recovery disk (which uses linux) with it's full soft-RAID support, or I could ask it to restore my image with just a simple reboot without even needing to insert media (even for the system drive). To do the same with DS i'd need (i guess) to work out how to load the drivers into a DOS environment or use it in some kind of PE environment. Where's the scheduler? TI does it cheaper, faster and easier. TI wins hands down.

Greetings.

3GB? Yeah, try 250 or more. I'm sure that your program would take just as long to restore 250 GB as TI would. 3GB is nothing.

nunjabusiness said,

And nearly TWICE the price? - pass!

...and TI let's you backup 'directly from the Windows environment itself' too. It has for bloody ages. Gah.

dangel said,

...and TI let's you backup 'directly from the Windows environment itself' too. It has for bloody ages. Gah.

Even so, I think it's worthy every penny asked for it, 'cause, as I said, it's much smaller and MUCH FASTER, taking at least half the time (in my case) to back up and restore one's whole system. As far I am concerned, it takes just 2 minutes to take things back to its previous, original healthy state over here (almost 3 GB of data!). And, what's more, I am on a Intel Celeron D 315 machine, ATA 5200 RPM Maxtor HD... Can you imagine how it will perform on a topnotch quadcore system, with a SATA 7200 RPM HD? ;)

By the way, there are FREE "alternatives" also (not so fast or powerful), such as:

1) http://damien.guibouret.free.fr/en/index.html (Partition Saving)

2) http://www.clonegenius.com/ (35 MB in size!)

With kind regards,

MCHAL
Brazil

MCHAL said,

Even so, I think it's worthy every penny asked for it, 'cause, as I said, it's much smaller and MUCH FASTER, taking at least half the time (in my case) to back up and restore one's whole system. As far I am concerned, it takes just 2 minutes to take things back to its previous, original healthy state over here (almost 3 GB of data!). And, what's more, I am on a Intel Celeron D 315 machine, ATA 5200 RPM Maxtor HD... Can you imagine how it will perform on a topnotch quadcore system, with a SATA 7200 RPM HD? ;)

By the way, there are FREE "alternatives" also (not so fast or powerful), such as:

1) http://damien.guibouret.free.fr/en/index.html (Partition Saving)

2) http://www.clonegenius.com/ (35 MB in size!)

With kind regards,

MCHAL
Brazil


I'd like to see some benchmarks - remember it's all dependant on drive speed and the compression used - and also how well it copes with software RAID when outside windows (kind crucial). TI comes with a lot of features for less money - DS had better be more than just a bit faster.. I back around a terrabyte with TI reguarly

I bought version 11 on release, and discovered that the boot CD doesn't support Marvell and NVIDIA RAID controllers (and most other RAID controllers judging by the forum posts I found using google). I've got version 11 intalled for use in Windows, but I'm having to use the boot CD for version 10.

Maybe this new version has better RAID support? I won't hold my breath.

Steve.

briangw said,
Instead of complaining here, you're better off contacting them directly to inform them of your issues.

Not really...

Acronis is notorious for not responding (other than scripted responses) to their users in any real constructive manner.

Don't get me wrong, I've been using Acronis religiously since version 8, when I dropped Ghost 2003 and 8.0. Acronis, for me, has the best features/functionality and has saved me on many occasions, but they do have a pretty lame support forum.

As for the changelogs, they also very rarely give you an updated changelog. I think it's their way of saying, "We'll fix the problem, but we'd rather not embarrass ourselves by admitting that the problem existed." It happened for the last few builds of version 10, they just kept the same changelog for several builds, and hoped nobody would notice.


the last i checked, i thought Ghost version 8 (which i think is the 2003) version was better than this software.

i still use Ghost 2003 myself as it just works and i tried "Acronis True Image 6" a while back and it sorta sucked.

i assume this new version is good now?

IMHO (and judging by reviews) Acronis True Image has been better than Norton Ghost since at least ATI version 9.

True Image has ****ed all over Ghost for a while now. And Ghost is on version 12 now and actually seems to have lost some functionality on the way.

testman said,
True Image has ****ed all over Ghost for a while now. And Ghost is on version 12 now and actually seems to have lost some functionality on the way.

That's because Ghost isn't Ghost. No really - it's actually a renamed Drive Image That's also why it's god awful slow and such a sack of crap.

sjgore said,
IMHO (and judging by reviews) Acronis True Image has been better than Norton Ghost since at least ATI version 9.

like i say the last good version of ghost was the version 8 (2003) version (the new versions SUCK). is these new versions of Acronis atleast as good as Ghost 2003? ... if it is i might get it