Where is the Plus Pack
I received emails from Acronis in the last two days offering a Plus Pack addon to enable restores to different disk sizes than the HHD from which the archive was generated. I went online, ordered the product, the Acronis True Image 2010 Enhanced Backup and Recovery Functionality addon package, offered for $14.95. Cleverbridge/ Acronis Americas took my order and charged my credit card, then sent me an email saying the product was not available and they were "working on it".
Was this a ripoff by some hacker who hijacked Acronis customer lists? If so, I will block the charge to my credit card. If not, where is the link to the product for which I have paid? If the product is not available from Acronis, why did they send me the email offeroing it for sale?
Pete Barnes
I upgraded to True Image 2010 Enhanced Backup and Recovery today. I received the receipt, the link and it downloaded and installed just fine. However, I can't find any instructions on how to use the darned thing.
Hello all,
Gary, here are some useful KB articles on how to use Acronis True Image 2010 Home Plus Pack:
- Acronis True Image Home 2010 Plus Pack: Dynamic Disks and Disks with GUID Partition Tables (GPT) Support
Please let me know if you have any additional questions.
Thank you.
You don't need the so-called Plus Pack to restore to diff size Hdisks. ATI will do that without the Plus Pack.
The Plus Pack is intended to allow you to put an image on a disk in a machine that has diff hardware (i.e., requires diff drivers) than the source machine. Before Plus Pack you had to buy the more expensive version of ATI to be able to a restore to s diff (hardware) system or you had to use sysprep or make other accommodations for the migration.
Additionally, the Plus pack allows ATI to work on Windows Dynamic disks and it apparently provides a windows PE environment for restores -- without this you have the linux environment and the linux drivers don't work on as many machines as the windows drivers. It's not clear if this environment includes a winPE boot disk or what. Not only is Acronis not clear about how to use the product, it's unclear what it specifically does. In any event you need the latest version of ATI to use the Plus-Pack, so that's a big minus in and of itself ;)
I received emails from Acronis in the last two days offering a Plus Pack addon to enable restores to different disk sizes than the HHD from which the archive was generated. I went online, ordered the product, the Acronis True Image 2010 Enhanced Backup and Recovery Functionality addon package, offered for $14.95. Cleverbridge/ Acronis Americas took my order and charged my credit card, then sent me an email saying the product was not available and they were "working on it".Was this a ripoff by some hacker who hijacked Acronis customer lists? If so, I will block the charge to my credit card. If not, where is the link to the product for which I have paid? If the product is not available from Acronis, why did they send me the email offeroing it for sale?
Pete Barnes
Ilya -
Thanks for your kind assistance. ATIH is such a great product you must be proud to work for Acronis. Perhaps the company is doing poorly during this economic downturn, thus affecting the ethical judgement of your management temporarily. Perhaps this will help clear their vision. It is fraud to take my money in a contract that promises me both ATIH and the Plus Pack together for a fixed price, then deny me the Plus Pack. Fraud is not merely a civil crime, although a civil proceeding is likely. Fraud is a criminal offense punishable by jail time and a kind of publicity Acronis does not need. After searching your web site for 2 days myself, and reading all of the complaints of others who cannot find a way to download their property, I think there may be enough money in this to interest a bright young junior partner. Your management and legal staff may disagree, of course. Then, again, perhaps a sincere effort to see that your customers get what they pay for would be prudent in this case. Feel free to contact me directly.
Sincere best wishes for all concerned,
Jerry Starr, 307-760-7227, J.Starr@StarrSysCo.com
Hello all,
Jerry, thank you very much for your feedback, I'll pass it to the appropriate person.
Peter, I'm really sorry for ignoring your initial request. Indeed, there were some issues with our online store and that is why you didn't receive a serial number for Acronis True Image Home 2010 Plus Pack.
I've sent you a Private Message with your new serial for Plus Pack, please register it under your account and you'll be able to download the software.
Please let me know if you have any further questions.
Thank you.
Ilya -
That's nice for Peter. What about everyone else who now rightfully owns a copy of the Plus Pack, but cannot pry it loose from Acronis, i.e., does not yet posess the Plus Pack? May we all have serial numbers for the Plus Pack, also? Is there something Peter did that the rest of us must do, in order to get what we paid for?
Hello Jerry,
The thing is that I was able to find that Peter has purchased Plus Pack, i.e. I've found his order in our system.
If you or any other customer has purchased Plus Pack, but didn't receive a serial number, please feel free to contact us at this page or to send me a Private Message with the details of your purchase (Order ID, etc) and I'll do my best to help you.
Thank you.
Hello Ilya,
Following your offer to help resolve this Plus Pack issue, I sent you a PM yesterday asking for some guidance. I wish and hope we will find a quick solution for this as is it causing me a good deal of grief.
Thanks in advance for any help you may be able to provide.
Hello LinYu,
I hope I answered all your questions via Private Messages. Please let me know if you have any further assistance.
Thank you.
=== Edited for deletion, due to duplication.===
=== Please see next message. ===
Hi Ilya,
As I made it clear in our PM correspondence, you did such a great job in solving the difficulties I was having with the Plus Pack issue!... You did it promptly, courteously and efficiently, in one word -- professionally.
Please be reassured that I have no reason, whatsoever, to be less than completely satisfied with the kind of service I received from you and I thank you for that, very, very much.
Any issues I may eventually have on the actual advantages of this TI 2010 versus TI 11 (from which I upgraded) will have absolutely nothing to do with the superb job you did in resolving my situation.
If I happen across any other specific problem related to this package, I will be tempted to knock at your door, if you so allow me...
Meanwhile, please accept my best regards and my sincere thanks for a job well done.
Lin Yu
Hello LinYu,
Thank you very much for your warm comments, I really appreciate them.
Please let me know if you need any further assistance.
Thank you.
Did Jerry get a satisfactory resolution? I have also purchased Acronis True Image Home 2010 assuming the Plus Pack to be supplied free as per the web page which states that the Plus Pack is free until 31 Mar 2010. I have downloaded and installed Acronis True Image Home 2010 but the Plus Pack is NOT present! Is the Plus Pack currently free or not, and if so, how do I get it?
Hello TyrosMick,
The thing is that you've purchased the upgrade version of Acronis True Image Home 2010.
Plus Pack will be included for free only if you purchase a full version of the software.
Please accept out apologies for the inconvenience.
Thank you.
In which case it should state that on the web page! This is a complete con as anyone looking at the web page would believe that any purchase before 31 Mar INCLUDES the Plus Pack. Look at the price of the upgrade and the price of the plus pack, the total exceeds that of the full product by far and is therefore a classic case of yet again not rewarding client upgrade loyalty! The banks are bad enough but this is blatant mis-selling - never again!
Having given this further thought, I believe that there is a case for a complete and total refund as the product was not supplied as stated on the web page.
I personally have had no problems downloading and using the Plus Pack. I purchased the full product on 2/28/2010, registered ATI Home and the Plus Pack immediately, downloaded the appropriate files, and later installed them. Ilya provided me with a link to download the ISOLINUX bootable media version with the Plus Pack via PM contact in a short time frame - thanks Ilya!
There seems to be great confusion as to what the Plus Pack is or does. From what I can see, it provides the Universal Restore capability, which I have not had a reason to to try, but may be helpful if I need to transfer the system to a totally new HD, which I could see happening. I have no dynamic disks, which it also supports, so this is not of interest to me. What I do like and use that the Plus Pack offers is the WinPE bootable media generator, since WinPE provides an alternative to ISOLINUX, Acronis Loader, and BartPE environments. Having options for recovery environments is very useful, to provide some "insurance" that there will be some way to get a bootable disk.
... What I do like and use that the Plus Pack offers is the WinPE bootable media generator, since WinPE provides an alternative to ISOLINUX, Acronis Loader, and BartPE environments. Having options for recovery environments is very useful, to provide some "insurance" that there will be some way to get a bootable disk.
Hi Gary,
I'm afraid I may be missing something here. How would you describe the difference between the rescue media you got from the link to ISOLINUX versus the rescue media you could have created yourself from the downloaded files? I created my own bootable rescue media. Would you say the one you got is different from mine in any way?
And what is and how would you create the "WinPE bootable media generator"?
Thanks in advance for any info you can provide.
LinYu,
Here are some of the differences the way I see them... (others can correct me if I am wrong)
ISOLINUX refers to the bootable media made from downloading the .iso file from your account on the Acronis web site. You make a bootable CD from this file, and this boots into the ISOLINUX environment under which ATI Home runs. It is different from the Linux-based bootable media made from the Acronis bootable media builder that is part of the installed program set, which is based on an Acronis loader. There are descriptions of the differences elsewhere on this Forum (perhaps Ilya or someone else from Acronis can provide these - I'm a newcomer and don't know how to do this).
Both of these above media boot into a Linux environment. As the Acronis documentation states, all image recovery is done in this Linux environment, since this activity is best done outside of Windows.
Also available for download is the plug-in for making a BartPE boot disk. BartPE stands for Bart Preinstalled Environment, and since this is built from original Windows XP files, you boot up into a "Windows" environment that runs entirely in RAM, as opposed to the Linux environment from the first two methods. ATI Home can then be started from this environment. Since BartPE uses Windows drivers, APIs, DLL's, etc., your hardware can normally be recognized with accuracy, and so ATI has better "knowledge" (sometimes) of you system than it gets from Linux. BartPE also has a menu interface structure which most feel very comfortable with, although you can get a command line prompt.
Part of the Plus Pack is a utility to generate another "Windows" bootable disk, this one from Microsoft, know as the Windows Preinstallation Environment. Similar to BartPE, Windows components are used to build a "Windows" environment that runs entirely in RAM, and ATI Home runs from this environment. The plug-in for the BartPE is used for this build, so there is no additional software provided. The WinPE builder is not related to the Universal Restore feature that the Plus Pack provides - it is independent. And once you get out of ATI Home, you are left with only command prompt interface. But the WinPE environment has some interesting features, such as built-in VBScript support, which might be important to some people.
I view the Plus Pack as primarily providing Universal Restore and dynamic disk support, and I know nothing about either of these. The WinPE builder is what interested me.
I currently have eight boot CDs with ATI Home-
2 ISOLINUX versions (Base ATI and Plus Pack), from .iso files downloaded from Acronis website
2 Acronis Loader versions, generated from Bootable Media Builder installed with ATI Home (Base ATI and Plus Pack)
2 BartPE versions (Base ATI and Plus Pack), generated from BartPE plugins and BartPE builder - this is well documented
2 WinPE versions (Base ATI and Plus Pack), generated from BartPE plugins and WinPE builder supplied in Plus Pack installation
The difference between the Base ATI and Plus Pack versions, from my perspective, is the inclusion of Universal Restore in the Plus Pack versions.
So if you have ATI Home with Plus Pack installed, and you generated Linux-based rescue media from the software, you would have what I call an Acronis loader version with Plus Pack, meaning that Universal Restore is available as a recovery option. As I've tried to describe above, this is different from any ISOLINUX version. The ISOLINUX Plus Pack version I got from a link provided by Ilya, since only the ISOLINUX Base ATI version is available from my Acronis account.
Does any of this make any sense? I apologize if I've bored you to tears or totally confused you.
The reason behind different bootable media environments is that sometimes the Linux-based ones have trouble recognizing the different disks in the system, and this situation is sometimes helped by booting into a "Windows" environment.
Gary,
First of all, I truly appreciate your prompt and detailed reply.
Now, yes, it was a little confusing, indeed. But let me add quickly: This is because of my ignorance, not of your explanations. I'm serious.
As I mentioned before, I have been using Acronis for a number of years and I must clearly state that NEVER -- not one single time -- did I encounter any problem doing a full backup (which I do every week on two of my three machines) OR while restoring my entire disks (done multiple times).
This said, I do not feel much inclined to be overly concerned about not being able to boot up either normally (through Windows) or using bootable media (Acronis, NIS) or from my secure disk partition, containing factory-installed software.
But, hey, if disaster strikes, you want to err on the side of redundancy, not the lack of it...
With this I meant to say that I do have in my Acronis Account, in the box for the Acronis True Image 2010, a button labeled "Free Plugins) that list a downloadable file called "BartPE & SafeMedia".
Is this the file you refer to when you talk about "BartPE boot disk"?
Included in the folder "True Image Home" that I have in my computers, I can already see a subfolder called "BartPE" (size = 74.4 MB). Is this it? And how do I create the bootable CD from it? Or is it something else?
And how exactly would you then create the WinPE builder?
If all these questions give you a hint of how confused I am -- but not at all bored, I promise you! -- you got it!!!
Thanks again for your patience.
Just to be clear, restoration of a windows system partition cannot be done while the os is running on that partition. However, win can be used as the OS fro doing a restore; it jsut has to be a separate instance of the OS. This involves some licensing issues and most disk image/resatore vendors use some version of linux instead. However, there are driver issues with linux that one doesn't have with win. If ATI runs on yur machine under win, then you have adequate drivers to run ATI under Win--so a boot wdisk with Win, using those drivers is not going to have driver issues. Using linux, the drivers might not be adequate and so diff vesion of linux, linux loaders and linux drivers might need to be obtained form Acronsi to get a bootable cd that works on you hardware. That a winPE option is available for ATI is, as I se it a big plus, although most users probably will do fine one of with the linux boot cds.
ATI has lone inlcuded an xp option based on BARTPE. An option using a later version of windows, even better imo.
LinYu,
. . . As the Acronis documentation states, all image recovery is done in this Linux environment, since this activity is best done outside of Windows.
. . .
Scott-
Thanks for the clarifications. The Acronis documention is not quite written with a view toward the BartPE or WinPE environment. I see these options as a big plus also, which is why I have looked into them.
I misstated earlier that I have a WinPE CD without the Plus Pack, but with further checking, I found that this is not true. The Acronis WinPE ISO Builder produces only Plus Pack versions, so it works differently than the BartPE builder.
LinYu-
You have the proper directory for WinPE generation. I'm trying to put together a more detailed response, but in the meantime, I really found everything needed in the ATI Home documentation, Chapter 15 on creating bootable media. But I can make a few quick points:
-For BartPE, it works best if you have an original XP CD. There is lots of information on working with BartPE builder, for instance http://kb.acronis.com/content/1506
-For WinPE, I use the Windows Automated Installation Kit (AIK) for Windows Vista (PE 2.0). It say it works with XP SP2, but it works fine with my XP SP 3. I had more current .NET Framework and Core XML builds already.
I don't have the time right now for more details. Making BartPE or WinPE media can be a little confusing.
I have started a new thread http://forum.acronis.com/forum/9449 with a psuedo-tutorial about creating WinPE bootable media.
Gary,
For my part, thank you much for the extensive work you did to come up with your "pseudo-tutorial" (as you call it...). It looks like a quite interesting tool but, unfortunately for me, it also seems to be quite more than my teeth can grind...
I used to be a reasonably knowledgeable reader and writer of DOS language (the C: prompt commands...) in the epic, good old days of the Commodores -- the Vic-20, the 64, and beyond... Then Windows came along, convenience reigned over diligence and the result was that many, myself included, remember very little today of what they once knew... I guess such is life and this is no crying over the spilled milk...
But I would still ask you one more question, if I may:
Do you think that the real, practical, advantages of building and using such an utility are good enough for the average daily user of information technologies to warrant the time and pain (and potential risks, too?) that will have to be applied on the task?
In fact, as I said before, on issues of security, backups and recoveries, it is always preferable to err on the side of redundancy than on the side of laxity. On the other hand, you have a business and/or a job to run, so you need to assess what is adequate and reasonable for your specific situation in order to keep focused on the larger picture, if you see what I'm trying to say...
Knowing exactly what the relevant issues are in both situations (having vs. not having the utility) it seems to me that you are in a privileged position to offer a well informed answer to the question: Is it really for the average guy like me, in the situation I just described?
Thank you for your great patience and help.
You don't need a Bart or Vista boot disk of the regualr acronis bootdisk works on your pc. Either the regular boot disk works or it doesn't, and if it does, you're not going to do better than that as far as running ATI. The ATI boot disk is the esiest to build because you don't have to hink about driver files and file locations -- otoh,l that is it's weakness if it doesn't have the driver files you need for your machine.
Some prefer it because you can run other programs from the windows boot disks, such as file managers.
LinYu,
As Scott points out, BartPE or WinPE are not needed for running ATI, if that is all that you want to do. But ATI is only one part of a recovery scenario. If your system crashes, rebuilding it by bringing back a previous image with ATI will get it to work, but this process might not be necessary - it could be overkill. In some cases, a particular system file (like ntoskrnl.exe) or system/application DLL may be all that is screwed up for whatever reason, and the system can be repaired by replacement of this file using a file manager, disk editor, or whatever other tool for the job is appropriate. This situation is where BartPE or WinPE comes in handy. If you don't think you will be in this kind of situation, as I have been fairly recently, then don't bother with a BartPE or WinPE - these are meant for access to applications other than ATI in a recovery situation.
As an example, if a disk/partition is crashing or exhibiting weird behavior, it is often prudent to run chkdsk or other disk maintenance procedures, which may help. In this case, it is much easier to run chkdsk from the "outside" environment of BartPE or WinPE. Also, in some cases, disk partitioning is needed without having access to the main system, which you are trying to recover. I've seen this situation in a number of other threads. With BartPE or WinPE, you can run the powerful Diskpart utility, or have access to fdisk, which are fully documented and easy to find out about. Using only the ISOLINUX or Acronis loader Linux boot disks, you have to do this at a wonderful Linux '#" prompt, and use Linux tools, that at least to me, are unfamiliar and foreign, even though I find them interesting. I don't know much about Linux at all, and I wouldn't want to have to learn about it in a pinch in a recovery situation, when I don't know where to look for the infomation. I already have lots of documentation on Diskpart, on the other hand.
Is a BartPE or WinPE version of ATI really necessary? Not really. I fully recovered my system, after doing something stupid that I should not have, using the ISOLINUX disk - it was all that I had, since at that point I had not even installed ATI! After I registered, I downloaded the ISOLINUX ISO file, burned it to a CD, made my disk image, and as it turned out, had to do a full recovery that I hadn't planned on. After this, I installed ATI on my system. But I haven't yet run it. The only parts of the software that I have used are the bootable media generators, which are separate programs. But I like the flexibility of BartPE or WinPE.
LinYu,Is a BartPE or WinPE version of ATI really necessary? Not really. I fully recovered my system, after doing something stupid that I should not have, using the ISOLINUX disk - it was all that I had, since at that point I had not even installed ATI! After I registered, I downloaded the ISOLINUX ISO file, burned it to a CD, made my disk image, and as it turned out, had to do a full recovery that I hadn't planned on. After this, I installed ATI on my system. But I haven't yet run it. The only parts of the software that I have used are the bootable media generators, which are separate programs. But I like the flexibility of BartPE or WinPE.
A few people have made reference to the ISOLINUX disk... What the heck is this? Is it the disk you get by using the bootable media creation facility of the Acronis program? What?
Sorry for my ignorance...
LinYu
Its available in your account. See http://kb.acronis.com/content/4828 for instructions to find it.
ATI must be booted from an instance f an OS other than what is on the system disk when you are restoring the system disk. The bootCD you make with ATI comes with a version of Linux and an ATI Loader. It doesn't always have the righht hardware drivers for your paritcular machine. You can download a diff iso version with more up-to-date drivers (that's the isolinux) and you burn that iso to a CD to make BootCd (the isolinux disk). Or you can make a BartPE bootcd, which uses XP and the hardware drivers you have for XP -- if ATI runs on your XP machine, then the BartPE disk should work for you. YOu can also make a Vists Boot Cd (WinPE) disk that runs a small version of Vista and use the vista drivers . . .
It seems to me there is still some arguments to be made in favor and against either method.
While some appear to favor the so called IsoLinux disc, from the texts I read following the link provided above by Thomas and other links I subsequently found about this issue, it becomes obvious that I may have as much to gain as to lose by adopting either method.
One thing is clear: Acronis has recommendations all over the place about using FIRST the disc created from the Acronis loader. And ONLY if and when any problems are encountered, to resort then to the IsoLinux disc, pointing out, along the way, that neither is one hundred percent safe. Both discs have advantages and disadvantages when compared to each other.
Did I get right?
Also, when I look at my own experience, going back to Acronis 10 and 11, I never used any other media for my recoveries in the past other than the ones created from the Acronis loader. Did I encounter any problem, ever? Zippo... None.
Just one more thing: You spoke of small versions of Windows XP and also of Windows Vista. I have two machines running on XP and the newest one on Windows 7. What about this last one?
Cheers.
LinYu.
See this Acronis knowledge base article http://kb.acronis.com/content/5421 and this one http://kb.acronis.com/content/5415. Windows 7 uses WINPE 3.0. Its more complex to build than the standard Linux or Isolinux recovery disks. The biggest advantage is the windows drivers are already included in WINPE and addtional drivers can be added. I have 3 versions of the recovery disk:
- Standard Linux disk made from within TI 2010.
- Isolinux Recovery disk available as a download from your account.
- A Winpe 3.0 recovery disk built using the TI 2010 Plus Pack.
I like to cover all the bases when I have to do a restore.
Well, that's touches on precisely the point, what works on some or even most machines won't work on all. Some folks needed diff drivers than the regular bootcd had even in version 8, 9 10, 11, etc. While one verson might work for you, another might not.
Thus the need to try isolinux or a windows solution if the regular bootcd doesn't work. the reason to try the regular bootcd first is that it's the easiest to make.
It seems to me there is still some arguments to be made in favor and against either method.
. . .Also, when I look at my own experience, going back to Acronis 10 and 11, I never used any other media for my recoveries in the past other than the ones created from the Acronis loader. Did I encounter any problem, ever? Zippo... None.
. . .
You can read things like these in various entries from Acronis itself:
http://kb.acronis.com/content/4828
Introduction
(!) It is strongly recommended to resort to ISOLINUX Bootable Media only if Acronis Loader Bootable Media does not work.
http://kb.acronis.com/content/4831
Description
There are two types of Acronis Bootable Media:
• Acronis Bootable Media that you can generate in your Acronis product. This type of media is based on Acronis Loader;
• Acronis Bootable Media that you can download from your account on the Acronis website. This type of media is based on ISOLINUX.
(!) It is strongly recommended to resort to ISOLINUX Bootable Media only if Acronis Loader Bootable Media does not work.
Now, you say "the reason to try the regular bootcd first is that it's the easiest to make". I'm not trying to decry the least what you say, but it does seem there might be a little more to it than just easiness of making... At least for the majority of the regular crowd..
Cheers.
They all run the same program. The difference is in how they get an OS up and running so the program can execute, and the batch of hardware drivers that are used -- and, as I stand corrected, in what info ATI uses to reconsctuct a disk during a restore from the Cd. If the "regular"one works, you don't need the others, which are increasingly more complicated to construct and increasingly more likely to generate greater need for further support.
The thread "System Is Unbootable after Restoring from ISOLINUX Bootable Media" is especially curious, somewhat alarming, and, imo, somewhat misguiding. In effect it says, try the regular bootcd because if that doesn't work, you might be totally screwed because isolinux leaves some systems unbootable -- i.e., you're left unable to restore to working condition, read 'em and weep.
The proferred solution for the isolinux cd making your system unbootable is to not use it but use the regular bootcd instead. Of course, you probably didn't get to the isolinux until you found that the regular bootcd doesn't work on your machine, but what the heck --- It's a fine how-do-you-do anyway you look at that thread. Actually the "solution" at that point (after the linux disks fail) woudl be to move on to a windows bootcd solution. These are def much more difficult to make than using either of the linux boot cds but much more liely to work if constructed properly.
Whatever you do, a test restore is very important.
Scott's point is excellent, as usual.
As I mentioned earlier in this thread, the ISOLINUX CD worked fine for me (with my system hardware configuration), but I prefer the flexibility of the WinPE version in that it give me more tools in addition to, not in place of, True Image. For example, I prefer to run chkdsk on my system disk from the WinPE recovery environment, which the ISOLINUX or Acronis loader versions do not allow, since they are running Linux, and chkdsk is a Windows tool.
The regular BootCd is the easiest to make and most likely to work if it sees all our drives.
The win cds give you the most flex and you can build them with whatever drivers you need.
I've had diff versions of ATI where only one or the other or the other other alternative would work on my machine. This changes from version to version so you have to test and see. No way one company can get al the diff hardware and test it all -- and under windows, the standards for hardware are reasonably open -- which means lots of hardware options and lots of driver probs -- and linux lagging far behind with drivers.
Thank you Scott and Gary for these quite enlightening pieces of information.
One more question, if I may:
Would a situation where a given backup was being restored to different hardware (the Plus Pack issue...) be more likely to bring up problems during the restore process then a regular restore to the same or similar hardware? Or would that be no reason, in and by itself alone, for any more problems than usual?
And if so, would that be one of those instances where the IsoLinux disc or the WinPE disc would come more handy or be more successful?
Thanks for your patience!
Cheers.
When using TI on different hardware than what you originally used, you would need to test it and see if it works. Does it see all the drives correctly? Does it validate the image successfully?
I wouldn't say it's more likely to cause problems just because it's different hardware. What can make it more likely is if it's newer hardware, especially if it's really new.
In those cases, if you had problems, you would want to try the alternatives. Try the ISOLinux-based CD and see if it works. It gets updated more frequently and may include drivers that will support the different/newer hardware.
If you're already setup with the WinPE-based CD, you would probably try it first.
When using TI on different hardware than what you originally used, you would need to test it and see if it works. Does it see all the drives correctly? Does it validate the image successfully?
So what you're saying is you have your "different hardware" already set up and running and you try to use it to validate a backup created from your "old hardware", so to speak, to test the success or the feasibility of the intended migration. Is this so?
The other thing is, unless you start to actually restore the backup of the "old hardware" onto the "different hardware", how could you tell if it does "see the drives correctly"?
In any case, how would you guys make the case against the possible allegation that at least some of those potential "difficulties" that can be encountered and may (or may not) be resolved by using one of those two resources -- the IsoLinux and/or the WinPE discs -- SHOULD have been anticipated during production and included in the original ATI program disc? To the extent possible, of course.
Obviously, it would be impossible to "guess" all the different machine and software environments the program could possibly be used on. Granted. But this is not what I mean. To put it bluntly, what I'm asking is if it would be reasonable to expect more from the original program capabilities at addressing possible problems of the kind that has been mentioned here, even if such extra effort would need to be reflected on the price of final product.
To avoid any possible misunderstandings, I hereby repeat that I NEVER encountered a problem with recoveries from ATI backups, and I have done many. But then again, I'm talking about True Image 10 and 11. With this 2010 version I performed just one restore, as a test, in my Windows XP machine. It worked flawlessly, like all the previous ones. But I read elsewhere in these forums that the most recent versions of ATI are not what the older ones used to be... And this is the kind of thing that puts a little shadow spot on the picture and makes you, almost instinctively, raise up your defenses and get out of your tent to check the field... If you follow what I'm saying...
Thank you guys for all your coaching and patience.
Cheers.
Restoring to diff hardware means the hardare drivers from the backed up image will be the incorrect drivers on the restored disk. So that' one problem you will have and that's independent of whatever restore disk you use.
The key thing is to have a spare drive that you can put in in place of your regular drive and then do a test restore, If it works, ypu're in business.
Restoring to diff hardware means the hardare drivers from the backed up image will be the incorrect drivers on the restored disk. So that' one problem you will have and that's independent of whatever restore disk you use.
The key thing is to have a spare drive that you can put in in place of your regular drive and then do a test restore, If it works, ypu're in business.
Let's clarify something here, please...
I thought "different hardware" meant something else altogether. Also thought that backing up one drive, replacing it with another drive and then restoring to the latter had nothing to do with "restoring to different hardware", in the context of the "Plus Pack". At the very least, mot necessarily!
In my book, different hardware would be, for example, a different machine. That's where the Plus Pack comes to play, is it not? To just make plain vanilla backups and restores, who needs the Pack? And who would need all those other resources?
Cheers.
So what you're saying is you have your "different hardware" already set up and running and you try to use it to validate a backup created from your "old hardware", so to speak, to test the success or the feasibility of the intended migration. Is this so?
Correct. I would assume that if you're doing a restore to different/new hardware (a new computer, for example), that it would be running. If it wasn't running why would you be doing a restore to it?
The point I was trying to make is that if you have Computer A and have used TI on it successfully for years and it worked perfectly fine, you can't automatically assume that it will work perfectly fine on Computer B (the different/new computer). You would need to boot TI on Computer B and see if it works. Does it see all the drives? Can it successfully validate the image you intend to restore to it? These kinds of tests are no different than starting out using TI on Computer B. UR doesn't even come into play. It's just a test to make sure TI works properly on the new computer.
The other thing is, unless you start to actually restore the backup of the "old hardware" onto the "different hardware", how could you tell if it does "see the drives correctly"?
Doing a test restore is the best. This is what Scott is referring to about using a spare drive. However, you can often tell if it sees the drives correctly by just looking at what TI shows as available to backup. In addition, validating an existing image will let you know if TI can successfully read it from that drive.
For example: If you boot TI on Computer B and it sees the USB drive with the backup image, but does not see the internal drive, you know you have a problem. You will not be able to restore.
In any case, how would you guys make the case against the possible allegation that at least some of those potential "difficulties" that can be encountered and may (or may not) be resolved by using one of those two resources -- the IsoLinux and/or the WinPE discs -- SHOULD have been anticipated during production and included in the original ATI program disc? To the extent possible, of course.
The problems are anticipated and expected. Linux does not run well on every computer. Linux drivers are often six months to a year behind Windows drivers. Linux drivers often are not optimized for every chipset, thus performing more slowing than their Windows counterparts.
In addition, Linux drivers are added/removed/changed on every build of the kernel. This means that support for some computers is lost in the newer builds. This is why people report that their TI 9 CD can boot up and see all their drives and the TI 2010 CD can't. The bottom line is that Acronis does not have control over the Linux drivers and can only include what's currently available (or create a custom build). This means that you can't expect a current Linux CD to support a new computer two years from now.
The ISOLinux build is updated more frequently than the one you can create using TI. This means that if you have problems, it's the next easiest one to try. Some people may not even create a TI CD with TI. They may just download the ISO and use that.
Using a WinPE-based CD allows you to add any Windows drivers you need. Using a more current WinPE-base means you will need to add less drivers. BartPE, for example, would need many drivers added to work on any of my current computers. Win7PE doesn't need any. On a new computer several years from now, expect to use a new WinPE version or to add drivers.
There isn't really any "right" or "wrong" here. It's just a matter of using what works best for you. Personally, I prefer WinPE-based media. It's usually much faster than Linux and I can add what I want. For people that only do infrequent backups and/or restores from the TI CD, the extra speed may not be needed. In addition, they may not wish to invest the time in creating a WinPE-based CD.
To avoid any possible misunderstandings, I hereby repeat that I NEVER encountered a problem with recoveries from ATI backups, and I have done many. But then again, I'm talking about True Image 10 and 11. With this 2010 version I performed just one restore, as a test, in my Windows XP machine. It worked flawlessly, like all the previous ones. But I read elsewhere in these forums that the most recent versions of ATI are not what the older ones used to be... And this is the kind of thing that puts a little shadow spot on the picture and makes you, almost instinctively, raise up your defenses and get out of your tent to check the field... If you follow what I'm saying...
Don't assume anything. If you switch to a different version of TI (or even a different build), test it out and make sure it works okay for you.
I ordered Acronis True Image Home 2011 Upgrade (English) with a free upgrade of 2011 Plus pack. I never received the plus pack from the download and I never received serial for the Plus Pack. I have proved that it was not the plus pack by registering it in my account and it is listed as Acronis True Image Home 2011 Upgrade (English)
That's a good point you raise, Larry. I didn't receive it either and I think I may know the reason. It may be just because you may have got the Pack for free, bundled with Acronis TI 2010, is it so? I got it that way and if they come up now and tell me I did not get my "Pack" with 2011 for that reason, I humbly submit that I would have been very grateful if they had the bother to make it plainly clear, publicly and for everybody, maybe even in their site or in one of those dozens of messages they keep feeding you through your email, advertising the product...
Wouldn't that be nice?
But hey, it's not for me to tell you that was the reason (or any other for that matter)...
Cheers!
The reason most likely is due to the communication between Acronis - which does not provide any free telephone support- and cleverbridge-which has excellent phone support. I just called them instead and they will cancel my order and will reorder the same product again as the offer expires on the 4th of September to get the free 2011 Plus Pack. The cleverbridge support team informed me that the problem was resolved.
I did not have the 2010 Plus Pack by the way so that was not the problem.
What hurts is the lack of communication- if you know what I mean.
The other problem that I have is that I cannot use Acronis "Live Chat". I filled in a request ealier today and "sent" and nothing happens. God forbid that I have to contact tech support for that !
Thanks
Larry,
So it seems I have been wrong all along. How did I come into the impression that the Plus Pack 2011 was only to be acquired separately this year? And how did you get the offer for an upgrade ATIH 2011 with a free upgrade of 2011 Plus Pack?
I purchased my upgrade from ATIH 2010 to the 2011 version and I also have the Plus Pack 2010 add-on. My purchase was made in September. Am I entitled to my Plus Pack 2011 free upgrade too? Who should I contact and how do I contact them?
Will this this become one more disappointment for me with Acronis services? Hope not.
Lin Yu
Here is the quote from the Email:
With this email we are happy to inform you about a time-limited
offer available for Acronis Home newsletter subscribers only:
from now on and until November 4 2010 you will get a free copy
of Acronis True Image Plus Pack when you purchase an
upgrade to Acronis True Image Home 2011 from this email.
The key word is: Acronis True Image Home 2011 upgrade
I am still waiting on Acronis to resolve the issue of only sending one serial instead of two
for this special offer of 29.99 for both.
Just remember that you will need a prior version serial along with the new serial .
I also subscribe to thier email-spam I know- but deals like this are hard to beat.
If you need a bare metal rebuild along with a Retail copy of Windows the plus pack is needed.
If you have an OEM copy you will be wasting your money because of the 1 motherboard rule.
Hello Larry and LinYu,
Thank you very much for your posts. I will certainly take care of this issue for you.
If you need immediate resolution for this problem please contact our Support team.
I would really appreciate if we can continue this conversation via private messages because it involves private information. I checked your Acronis accounts and there a few Plus Pack licenses there, but I need to know which ones your purchased outside the promo campaign.
Please let me know if you have additional questions.
Thank you.
Hi Anton,
Now that my issue has been resolved, I still miss your point in having suggested that this conversation involved private information and thus would best be continued via private messages. We did not exchange any privileged or private information that I am aware of, at all, and I cannot fathom a good reason why the solution provided could not be announced here for everyone to know. I believe it should.
Granted: Every company has the unquestionable right and privilege to decide about its best marketing strategies, no argument here. On the other hand, customers have also the unquestionable right to make their own judgments about the quality and fairness of those same strategies. No argument here either, I think.
I humbly believe that with such approach Acronis is not serving the best interests of its most faithful customers, those who keep promptly acquiring every new edition of its products, which goes to say that Acronis may not be serving its own best interests in the longer term. Then again, this is what I think, but I may be wrong.
Let me leave this clear: It is NOT the amount you pay, which is in the present case is quite insignificant, but to paraphrase one saying much in fashion through the media several years ago: "It's the principle, stupid!"...
No offense intended.
Cheers
Hello LinYu,
Thank you very much for replying.
You are absolutely correct, since there is no more need to verify sensitive s/n information, we can update this thread so that all of our Forum users can benefit from this information.
I am very sorry that you feel this way and I would like to forward your message to our Marketing team, so that in the future our Promo campaigns are more transparent and beneficial to our Customers.
As for Larry's issue, there was a problem with the promo link that he received and everything has been successfully resolved.
If you need additional assistance or have any other questions please let me know.
Thank you.