Acronis True Image Home (Wish list)

The 2011 version appears to be designed for the novice home user. I had to get a refund because of the lack of user controls (or the difficulty accessing them).

I came to Acronis years ago because it was touted to be the best imaging/backup software available. Through version 9 (and maybe 2010) I supported that opinion.

It would be nice if Acronis offered 2 applications - a version for home users who want simplicity and another that gives access to all the options when creating a backup task along with a visible log of the success of each backup. I'd gladly pay more for a more "hands on" version.

Hi Don,
there are already two different versions, today. Please check out Backup & Recovery 10 (advanced) Workstation. It's a solution from Acronis, which appears as a product for enterprises, but it's also a perfect product for professional private environments and it has that much better UI, then ATIH2011.

Hi MichaelH

Do you know if you can run Backup and Recovery Workstation in parallel with ATIH2011?

Thanks

Thanks David. I compared the products here: http://kb.acronis.com/content/7540

The Backup & Recovery did not have a contents search feature which I like. Other than that, I did not see much difference for installation on a single machine. I did not get a view of the UI on Backup & Recovery.

TI Home PP 2011 had so many changes that I found unacceptable & I had to delete it, request a refund & reinstall Home 2010. I feel like I've lost a friend - I've used TI for at least the past 5 years.

I guess when I get the upgrade urge again, I'll look at the version of Backup & Recovery being offered at that time. It may be several years & that's a shame since I have not missed a single TI upgrade until now.

Acronis True Image Home 2011 and Acronis Backup & Recovery (Advanced) Workstation cannot be installed simultaneously!

unsubscribing thread

Since Online Backup is included with TI, I hope it's OK to put OLB comments here. I've been evaluating Carbonite and iDrive to find they store the encryption key on the backup server (by default). I really like Acronis's implementation of asking for the key from the user EACH time a restore or modification is done. PLEASE continue to challenge the user to enter the key.

I wish Acronis OLB put an indicator on files/folders that are being backed up, like Carbonite. That is a fantastic feature.

I also agree the 2010 version of TI's user interface is MUCH better than the 2011 implementation.

It is clearly posted that, for ATI to work, you must be part of the Administrator group,
BUT
I always thought that, for security, Administrator should only be used when making system changes. I use pre & post commands and e-mail notification. and I use either Spybot/Zonealarm or ESET/NOD32 for security.
SO FAR
running as administrator, has not caused me any problems, or so I think. But I would like the Option, to be safer, by running as a Limited User

User with restricted access privileges is able to invoke the
the TRY mode of Try&Decide.

Has anyone seen a post praising the TI2011 user interface?

Not here (13905) True Image Home 2011 Task Management,

or here (15763) POOR User Interface in True Image Home 2011,

TI2011 does its backup/recovery job very well. There are perhaps small improvements to be made or features to be added to that function. The User Interface is clearly THE BIGGEST PROBLEM to resolve in the next major release of TI.

Andrey K of the development team stated "We'll listen to our Customers", but prefaced this self-contradictorily with " that's why we are not going to change [the UI] a lot during next releases".  THAT IS NOT LISTENING TO CUSTOMERs!!! THAT IS IGNORING THEM!!!

My wish with regard to TI:

1. The next release (presumably TI2012) has a User Interface according to the customer wishes which have inundated this forum in several places (see above) and
2. TI2012 is an absolutely free upgrade for TI2011 users who have had to suffer with this UI and have contributed so much time and effort in documenting, debugging, error tracking, and commenting extensively on the cosmetic and functional catastrophe of the user interface.
3. Provide at least 6 months free support (more would be better). Many errors in the TI product line are typically discovered after 30 days (which is perhaps exactly why the free Acronis support for TI2011 expires after that time!). Show your customers that you stand behind your product! Any customers having issues unresolved by Acronis support during the free support period should receive an extension on the free support period, too.

PS: Disclaimer: The word c\ustomer (\ to prevent autoconvert) is automatically converted to "Customer" by the forum and is not done by the author.

Happy cυstomers don't generally post here. Protip: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upsilon

Got a point there - I'll give you that.
So let me put it this way: Has anybody seen a review (in computer magazines, for example) praising the "user-friendliness" of the interface?

Yes, squeaky wheels tend to post on these forum threads. For the traditional reasons for calling attention to squeaky wheels.

I think it is pretty unanimous that the new interface sucks. And I have not seen a clear solution announced by the manufacturer. In fact, there was a post here that had the developer saying they were not going to change the interface. Programmers are generally the completely wrong people to define a user interface. They know too much about the product and make reflexive assumptions about the understanding on the part of the user. And vastly overestimate the desire or willingness of users to understand any particular amount of obscure happenings and constraints on what needs to be an appliance. For a reliable appliance you can't screw up just because you have not read, AND UNDERSTOOD ALL OF THE RAMIFICATIONS OF WHAT IT SAID, page upon page of obscure documentation written in terms civilians don't understand.

One of the things I used to do for a living is design user interfaces for new systems. I am not just making this crap up. I know the process. Right or wrong, Windows users expect to sit down and get an application to work properly with nothing more than the user interface. And backups are not all that complicated. Office and all its' features; that is complicated. Backup/restore is a simple utility. Not requiring graduate level study to backup. And a PHd to create the tools, which ought to have been included in a functioning form and in the price of the backup software, to allow you to actually get a restore to work. People are OK with learning Office; not a utility. And many many (probably most) don't use the documentation for Office. Enough works to satisfy most ordinary people's needs without learning the documentation. This in not a useless reference. Acronis needs to change the way they view this product. It is checkdisk; not Office.

But just as bothersome is the variety of problems reported in this forum. Compare the variety to some other online forums for a single product. This product has been around long enough that there simply should not be that many problems. And many occur when you entire data life is at risk. Rather the wrong time to find out your sole salvation to prevent losing 20 years of your computer life does not work for the purpose for which it was sold. Note that many of the problems occur after a system failure and users need another computer to go through the crap of trying to find a solution on this forum. In the world of people with no computer, the one computer person is king; unless they use this backup program.

This thing needs to be stabilized and the interface mostly put back the way it was in 2010 before new features are played around with. This type of product just HAS to be rock solid. Period. End of sentence.

Doesn't matter if it is a coding error or no one can understand what to do. There needs to be a customer reviewed list of what should be changed in the next major release. Not a wish list; a reviewed list of candidate functions provided by the company derived from the wish list. Then there is a controlled alpha release to enthusiasts (i.e., the real crazies that will spend 20 hours a day to find problems). Then a beta to people who like to play and have the resources; but are not the fanatics the alpha was given to. After that all works, a release is made. If it is not yearly for revenue, and the business model requires that, the business model needs to be adjusted.

I need a backup program, but this thing just scares the Hell out of me. Last year I spent months trying to recover from a motherboard failure. No luck. And I was using 2010 Acronis. In retrospect (sorry about that), I suspect Acronis playing with boot processes was what made it impossible. Not sure; no evidence; don't ask. I stopped using Retrospect about that time because I finally figured out how to do backups (not too hard) but I just could not figure out how to restore a system. They make Acronis look almost user friendly.

Key idea - don't make up words so yours are different than everyone elses' in the industry and no one can ascertain and retain their meaning. English works; after a fashion.

If you really want to screw things up; use a common word, but make it mean something else entirely.

Hi
Make it work with Windows 7 64 bit?
M

ATIH2011 works with Windows 7, 32 and64Bit!

Hi
Check this: http://forum.acronis.com/forum/19256#comment-59262

Thanks
M

Currently, to check disk space occupied by ATI's Security Zone for presence of bad sectors or other errors one has to disable the SZ, to schedule check by Windows on-board tools, finally to enable the SZ. Complicated and operations intensive task.
Improvement proposal: A smoother procedure for starting such checks. On one-mouse click base.

I want to add my name to the list of people who are distressed with the horrendous user interface and removal of functionality of TIH2011. Based on the excellent experience I had with 2009 and 2010, I recommended the product to my boss, who is understandably less than happy with me right now.

I know that having put in much time and effort into the project, it will be difficult emotionally to admit to failure, but my god, what a cock-up.

I don't have any idea how it works with current version ATI but yet as for Home 2009 it is a big limitation.
User with no administrative access rights are not able to consume the services of ATI Home.
Simple example, a user needs to make a backup of his usb drive. To do this, he/she needs to call the administrator, the administrator has to come and perform this backup.

This is a big non-sense!!!
A lot of ATI's services must be available for user without administrative privileges.

Even, if to while being logged in as normal user and having started ATI as administrator does not help, because the created task for this backup never starts.

Agree that the interface is pants. Shows Acronis don't listen, as people we mentioning this in the beta phase.
They should revert to making the product less bloated, more faster, and tasks more reliable.

The imlementation of a True Image backup "data base" was first implemented with the now elderly Version 11. I objected because such a data base can never be a complete and accurate record of available backups. The reason being is that any backups or restores made from external recovery media do not and cannot update the data base. This situation continues through all following versions up to the current 2011 Version.

As one who makes regular full hard drive restores to a blank or previous generation hard drive I use the TI rescue media to perform the operation. The only way to be sure that the correct backup image can be found is to perform "browse for backups" function. I would like to see a browsed listing to appear automatically once the Inital restore function has been selected.

The rescue media interface has lots of room for improvement. The opening screen has a "Loading Squirl" for a second or so which is fair enough but when the loading has finished progress to the desired functions is frozen. I found be accident that clicking away from the TI screen and then going back the TI buttons became operable.
Having performed a browse for backups, made my selection and chosen to restore a full hard drive backup/restore the Wizard then leads me through a series of further steps which appear entirely unnecessary. The screen just before the commit stage where the destination drive is selected does not have sufficient warning for the unwary that its content will be overwritten. It is obvious that this will happen but a new user can lose more than was expected.

Total hard drive failures involving recovery to a new hard drive is a fairly rare event and I suspect that most users will only try it out when a real emergency arises and just hope it will work. Because of this lack of practice I believe the User interface should be redesigned to make it easier to use by someone who may well be flying after an engine failure with no previous practice.
I suggest that where a full HDD restore is started all the options such as MBR and disk signatures are automatically selected. Leaving the more experienced user the option to leave them out if that is what they want.

ATI 2011 tries to mimic Apple's time machine (which is fool-proof), but meanwhile it provides many advanced user options, which causes a design conflict and therefore bugs. I hope ATI chooses one philosophy, not two. I believe sticking to 2010's design philosophy is actually the best choice for advanced PC users.

Some Acronis engineering responsibilities are burden-shifted to end-users. I will attempt to support this assertion with specific examples:

Nonstop Backup cannot be configured.

• Why should a user need to search the open web to discover that Nonstop Backup cannot be configured until its service is stopped?
• Why should a user need to know how to start or stop Windows services in order to configure Nonstop Backup?
• IMO, no product should ever ship in such a condition. Controls should be in the UI and documentation should be in the documentation.

Backup Scheduling is broken.

• Fixing it requires an end-user to visit support forums, locate correct FAQ, read the FAQ, then download a module.
• Why should a user have to go through all this to get a product to work correctly?
• Users should never encounter a "known issue" when a product. It's engineering's responsibility to build products that work; bug-fixes should be pushed to users automatically.

Some documentation is stuck at 2010 version.

• Even when nothing has changed in a given chunk of functionality, the documentation should be relabeled to show all versions that it applies to.
• A documentation bug is a bug; product should not be released with documentation bugs.
• Failing to do this looks like [truly is] sloppiness in the vendor organization. This in turn casts [justified] doubt on the vendor's commitment [basic capability] to delivering value, and it [justifiably] erodes trust in the product and in the organization that stands [or maybe doesn't stand] behind the product.

this thread has 224 replies so far. i reject to read through the entire thread.

my proposal: please create a new sticky thread "Acronis True Image Home (wish list based on ATI 2011)".
with every new major version release there should be a new "wish list" thread.

I agree. The GUI is sluggish. I've tested it on an old Latitude D600 and a home brew Core2 machine with 4GB. I would like to see the GUI use a utilitarian interface. After all, TI is supposed to be a tool, not a fancy skinned media player.

The "Validation Function" should be logically in "Tools & Utilities" at least, or up front on the main menu.

I have to tell members it exists even, and how to do a validation (also explaining its purpose).

Sorry for the duplicate post on this subject.

I hope in next version of ATI 2012:

More option of mount file:
1. Save as full image (do not make incremental TIB file)
2. Save image (make incremental TIB)

You will understand if see this thread:
http://forum.acronis.com/forum/20602

Thank goodness for this Forum thread. I was beginning to think that it was me that was missing something in the TI 2011 GUI. I've used TrueImage for a number of years now, and recommended it unreservedly. I can't remember why I upgraded to 2011, but I really wish I hadn't. I find the user interface just completely incomprehensible. Whatever happened to drop down menus that told you what the option was that you were selecting?

I agree with everything I've read in these forums about the appalling user interface. Unfortunately, I skipped 2010 and went from 2009 to 2011, so I can't revert to 2010. 2011 is so bad though that I might have to revert to 2009. I'm still hanging on to XP so I might get away with it. I'm afraid that I've struggled with the 2011 user interface too many times, and I still can't rely on it doing what I thought I'd asked. And as for showing me what backups I've got .................. And I particularly like the feature where the backup entry partially obscures the one below, all the way down the list of backups (or potential backups, or jobs waiting to be started, or possibly scheduled jobs, or jobs that don't exist because I haven't asked for them to be created, or whatever they all are). I'm afraid that I might have set up an automatic backup that'll overwrite one that I want. I loved TrueImage, it's always been straightforward, secure, and fast. Recovering a boot disk was a simple job too.

I've had enough now with the 2011 user interface. Sorry, but I have.

I have true image 2011, and for my wish list for the new 2012 i wanna see these option when performing a back up..
option 1- full recovery
optiion 2- semi recovery (only includes windows files WITH NET FRAMEWORKS)"like a repair mode"
optiion 3- Drivers and Programs...

my windows xp crash, soo i did a repair mode with the windows inistallation cd, and it didnt when well, they were some problems with net framework versions...:( soo i wanna see above options on the next version of true image, because my friend has a emachine with pc angel recovery mode, and he can just click on a recovery mode or full...

I installed ATI2011 build 6696 trial a couple of days ago, and noted a few "issues". Found this forum today and surprised (or not) at the rather negative response to it.

The immediate 3 wish-list items:

1....When browsing a backup with several versions, it may take ATI a bit of time to update the display after I click on a particular version... But there is NO INDICATION than anything is happening. Please put up an hourglass or whirly whatever.

2....When I schedule a "daily" backup, I have a dropdown which allows me to choose 1,2,4, or 6 hour intervals. However, when I choose the "6" hour interval and create the backup, the backup description then shows that this is being scheduled as a "5" repeat "FIVE" hour interval???

3.... I created a small test "file" backup of just a few folders and files. One of the files in the group is known to be updated frequently (hourly). Scheduled as a "custom differential", every two hours. Let it run for a day and a half... During that time, I MAY have changed a parameter for the backup after its creation, cant recall for sure.... I checked the progress of the known-file.. it was being updated as expected and the archive bit was set.

At the end of the period, I browse the backup... it had the expected number of versions, about 15... BUT THEY ALL showed (and recovered) ONLY THE ORIGINAL version of my test file... the more recent versions were not displayed (and hence could not be recovered). Based on the small size of the differentials, I suspect that they never got backed up at all.

I deleted the backup completely and tried again (without doing any adjustments), and it DOES seem to now work properly.

IF I am not supposed to be able to make adjustments to a backup after creating it, then DON'T LET ME DO IT.... This could have been a big surprise a month down the road, if I really needed this file.

...

A little update to number 3...

After running my "small" 2-hour-interval test backup for a couple of versions, I verified that this time it did, indeed, show the most recent version of the file. Everything looked good, so I "consolidated", leaving one backup.
When this backup was browsed, it showed the latest versions of the two files that are in it, and was described as a "full" backup.

HOWEVER, I just noticed that the schedule time now shows THREE (3) hour intervals instead of TWO... and a check of the actual run times shows it having run at a THREE hour interval this afternoon.

Now waiting for the next sked, to see if it catches the updated file.

...

Continuing my evaluation for ATI 2011 before purchase....

Another wish-list item comes up....

One of the attractions of ATI for me is that it seems to be good for creating "many" backups... where I can choose a subset of my system to be backed up "frequently", another subset "occassionally", and yet another "rarely"... depending on what my system does and which pieces get more (or less) activity. I foresee backups which will be scheduled several times per day.

In my tests, however, I find that ATI sorts versions of a file in a peculiar way. I am talking about the situation where I "browse" a backup, then right-click on a particular file and ask for "versions".

The default seems to be:
Latest version (with the title: "NOW")
The remainder of today's versions (with the titel ("TODAY")
Yesterday's versions, (which has the peculiar title "LAST WEEK"??????)
Previous day, etc...

However, WITHIN each of the days, the indivdual versions are sorted in REVERSE, that is to say, the OLDEST is at the TOP.

So we have this peculiar sort order where the DAYS are sorted with the MOST RECENT at the top, but the individual versions are sorted with the OLDEST at the top.

Clicking the "version" header, reverses the sort as expected, and in the "reverse" case, the oldest DAY is now at the top, and the most recent is at the bottom.... but again, within each day, the sort order of individual versions is reversed... the oldest day is at the top, but the oldest version of that day is at the BOTTOM of that day.

So the wish list item for sorting file versions is.....

Sort the VERSIONS, not the DAYS... MOST RECENT to oldest, or OLDEST to most recent... period.

Also fix that funny title "Last week", when we really mean "yesterday"

...

Continuing pre-purchase evaluation of ATI 2011, and I must admit that I am afraid, very afraid.

This particular wish-list item may be a deal-breaker, until it is fixed.

A single back-up file HAS to be able to stand on its own. I cannot depend on a backup chain to be intact 6 months down the road when I really need to recover a particular file. My backups have been moved somewhere else off a wobbly drive, my main drive has failed; I've had to re-install Acronis, etc. etc.

My Tests show that ATI cannot recover files from a random differential backup file. It requires a chain with a full backup as part of the chain.... and that is totally unacceptable in the real world.

===

To simulate, I removed one of my backup chains from the ATI list, them took a random tib file from the chain, (which happened to be a "differential"), and stuck it into a random directory, then restarted ATI and asked to "browse for a backup".

The first surprise was the browsing dialog. 400 million people in the world expect that a right-click on a folder in a browsing dialog will DO something.... but I digress.

So we browse and find my "random" backup file, and ask "add to backup list"

I am switched back to the home page and the "backup" shows up in the list as expected.

We ask to "explore and recover".

The normal backup-browser is opened to "my computer".

Now I need to work down the folder hierarchy to get to the files I want to recover. When I attempt to expand "my computer", I get the following "warning":

"Specify the location of volume [follwed by a square box, probably representing a non-print char].
Click BROWSE to specify volume location, RETRY to try again, or click CANCEL"... with the 3 buttons retry-browse-cancel.

Clicking "browse" re-opens the browse-for-a-backup dialog with the "add to backup list" button.

This seems useless, considering I have already FOUND the backup, so it is not clear what should be done here???

However, clicking CANCEL FOUR TIMES, expands the "my computer" to show the "C" drive. When I try to expand the "C" drive, the volume-location-warning comes up again. TWO cancels, expands to the first directory level. Same thing all the way down, TWO cancels for each directory level.

When I get to the lowest directory, FOUR cancels to open it and see my files.

OK, I place the check marks for recover, and press the "RECOVER" button. It opens the "WHERE TO RECOVER" dialog... I ask for "new location, absolute path".... The (windows-style) browser works great, I specify the location and press "RECOVER NOW".

The Acronis pop-up from the tray comes up to say "starting"...
But then the volume-location-warning POPS UP AGAIN!!! This time, there is nothing that can be done. Retry just keeps popping the warning back up, BROWSE gets me the useless "browse-for-a-backup" dialog.

So the only option is Cancel... The recover-progress goes all-green, the Acronis pop-up from the tray says "Operation has successfully completed"...,

... BUT THERE ARE NO RECOVERED FILES ANYWHERE.

This is not an issue with bad hardware.
This is not an issue with incompatible versions.

This is a backup which was created YESTERDAY, and cannot be read by the same software TODAY, unless that backup is in its proper place within its original chain.

This, my friends, is totally not acceptable.

Now I tried the same experiment with a file which was a "FULL" backup, and that seems to work okay.

But like I said at the top.... in the chaos of a disaster, I cannot be guaranteed to have the full backup which I need. I have to be able to squeeze every bit of data that I can from what I DO have.

And it is obvious that THAT cannot be done from an ATI differential, standing alone.

...
..

This particular wish-list item may be a deal-breaker, until it is fixed.

A single back-up file HAS to be able to stand on its own. I cannot depend on a backup chain to be intact 6 months down the road when I really need to recover a particular file. My backups have been moved somewhere else off a wobbly drive, my main drive has failed; I've had to re-install Acronis, etc. etc.

Hi MoodyArt

I think if you look at ANY backup solution you will find this is the way things work.

If you want to backup/restore in the way you say then you must take a full backup each and every time. The cost to you is storage space.

RayG wrote:

...

A single back-up file HAS to be able to stand on its own. ... .

I think if you look at ANY backup solution you will find this is the way things work. If you want to backup/restore in the way you say then you must take a full backup each and every time. .

I am very sorry, Ray, but I must disagree with you loudly and vehemently!

A backup "chain" is only a backup "chain" because we say it is. But any one particular backup-file does not care whether it is part of something bigger or not:

... It contains files

...Those files should be extractable

Even lowly old Windows NTBackup allows me to restore from a "differential" or an "incremental" backup.

After all, WHAT IS a "differential", or an "incremental" backup?  How is it ANY DIFFERENT than a 'full" backup?  It is simply a different way of CHOOSING THE FILES!! There is nothing magic about the CONTENT!!!    

The backup-file does not need to know how its content was selected, and neither does the restore program which is trying to recover that content.

Sure, as a user, if may be USEFUL for me to know this backup-file's relationship to the backup "chain" or backup "generation". But it is certainly not MANDATORY.  So, if I DON'T KNOW, .. the contents should still be extractable.

===

But also to the point, is the WAY in which the "restore" fails with stand-alone differential files.  Charitably, it can only be described as "buggy".   Frustrated users recovering from a disaster with thier last hope repeating "retry, browse, cancel" over and over.... They are not apt to be charitable....   

...

...

A corollary to the above...

I notice that, when browsing a backup, I can choose to "delete version".

If that version happens to be a "full" backup, ATI automatically deletes all of the following incremental or differential versions as being "dependant".

This makes no sense at all.

THIS IS PRECISELY the sort of error that happens manually all of the time.... somebody browses through the backup directory to clean up space and mistakenly deletes a "full" backup.

That is why it is SO important that subsequent incrementals/differentials MUST be accessible as stand-alones... the file to be recovered just MAY still be in there.

...

That's the reason I am searching for a backup manager such as ATI in the first place.... I was hoping it would help REDUCE such errors.

...

MoodyArt wrote:

RayG wrote:

...

A single back-up file HAS to be able to stand on its own. ... .

I think if you look at ANY backup solution you will find this is the way things work. If you want to backup/restore in the way you say then you must take a full backup each and every time. .

I am very sorry, Ray, but I must disagree with you loudly and vehemently!

A backup "chain" is only a backup "chain" because we say it is. But any one particular backup-file does not care whether it is part of something bigger or not:

... It contains files

...Those files should be extractable

Even lowly old Windows NTBackup allows me to restore from a "differential" or an "incremental" backup.

After all, WHAT IS a "differential", or an "incremental" backup?  How is it ANY DIFFERENT than a 'full" backup?  It is simply a different way of CHOOSING THE FILES!! There is nothing magic about the CONTENT!!!    

The backup-file does not need to know how its content was selected, and neither does the restore program which is trying to recover that content.

Sure, as a user, if may be USEFUL for me to know this backup-file's relationship to the backup "chain" or backup "generation". But it is certainly not MANDATORY.  So, if I DON'T KNOW, .. the contents should still be extractable.

===

But also to the point, is the WAY in which the "restore" fails with stand-alone differential files.  Charitably, it can only be described as "buggy".   Frustrated users recovering from a disaster with thier last hope repeating "retry, browse, cancel" over and over.... They are not apt to be charitable....   

...

I agree with what you are saying, and I have found the same issue with 2009 & 2010, but I think there is a little confusion here, so I will attempt to clarify.

To perform a full restore from a differential backup, ATI should only need:

- The differential backup file in question.
- The corresponding full backup.

It should not need any other differential backup files taken in between, and Acronis should make sure that this is the case.

On the other hand, a full restore from an incremental backup would need all the files in the chain.

It would also be a useful facility if it was possible to access/restore files contained in individual differential or incremental backup files, but I appreciate that, depending on the technology employed, this may not be possible. For example, if it is not files that are chosen, but rather changed sectors, it would not normally be possible. I do not know whether this applies to ATI, but suspect that it does.

Dave.

MoodyArt,
. I would certainly concur that it far to easy for user to make deletions which can ruin a perfectly good backup. This has been reported in the past and many of us users are hopeful that backup deletions will be revised to instruct the user what happens if they go forward with the deletion with confirmation on what is actually being deleted.

For the sake of clarity, a few comments about backup files.

From the standpoint of Acronis *.tib files, the full backup is the base of any and all backups. If the full backup is not available to TrueImage, any Incremental or Differential is non-usable as they require the full backup for their foundation.

Differentials.. Once a full backup is made and differentials are created, you can choose any single differential from the group and he full backup plus the selected differential will be restored. The non-selected differential are not required as part of the restore. Or, you can select specific files from the any of the differentials and they will be restored--providing the base full backup is available. The non-selected differentials could be manually deleted and the remaining diff would be restorable providing the base full is available. One quirk does exist in that while the missing files will cause the backup to fail validation, the missing files will not prevent the backup from being restored.

Incrementals are a different story.
Once a full backup is made and incrementals are created, these become a chain and any link which is either missing or corrupt will cause all newer backups to be non-usable. Example: One full backup plus 10 incrementals numbered 2-11. If incremental numbered 2 is deleted or corrupt, then only the full backup is restorable. The backups numbered 3-11 are non-usable. Or, if it was backup numbered 9 which was missing or corrupt, then you can choose any of the 2-8 incrementals and the restore would restore the full plus all the incrementals up to the selected incremental number. Or, if you wanted only a few files restored, the same rules would apply as long as the chain is intact from the selected incremental back to the original full.

This may or may not be what you want. As you are posting in the Wish List section of the forum, this is the right place to make known any suggestions for changes.

Thank you, Grover, for your clear explanation:

GroverH wrote:

MoodyArt.

For the sake of clarity, a few comments about backup files.
From the standpoint of Acronis *.tib files, the full backup is  the base of any and all backups. If the full backup is not available to TrueImage, any Incremental or Differential is non-usable as they require the full backup for their foundation.
</p>
<p>Differentials.. Once a full backup is made and differentials are created, you can choose any single differential from the group and he full backup plus the selected differential will be restored. ...
...
...
</p>
<p>Incrementals are a different story.<br />
Once a full backup is made and incrementals are created, these become a chain and any link which is either missing or corrupt will cause all newer backups to be non-usable. 
...
...
...
<p>This may or may not be what you want. As you are posting in the Wish List section of the forum, this is the right place to make known any suggestions for changes.</p>

This is very dissapointing.

This is a philosophy for incrementals and differentials which makes no sense to me, and which is certainly NOT "what I want"!

UNLESS you are actually recording the internal changes of individual files.... similar to MS-WORD's "track changes" feature....    (This I would find very surprising because of the computing expense which it would require, but it would be the only explanation for such a philosophy.)

Otherwise,you are assigning the "full" backup some "magic" which it does not deserve.  The only difference between a "full" and "incremental" backup, is the manner in which the contents were chosen. Once the backup is complete and the content is in the backup-file, the method of having chosen it is irrelevant.  Why does the "restore" have to know how the content was chosen?  THIS is the version I want, from THIS particular file, and who cares what came after or before, or even if others exist...

So what if the original "full" got corrupted?  What is wrong with assuming that the first incremental is a "full" and all following incrementals chain forward from THAT ONE?

And, of course, if there is only ONE file, what is wrong with assuming that THAT is a "full", for the purposes of restoration?

Sure, I am not going to be able to restore EVERYTHING that was backed up way-back-when.  But I WILL be able to restore the little bit which  I have left.

Yes, the version-management user interface may know about non-existing and/or corrupt version-files, and it is nice of it to tell me about them...that helps me decide what I want or don't want to restore....

Yes, the version-management UI may be able to do special functions such as "full-restore-to-this-version", where it would be useful to have the previous backups in the chain, so that no files are missed, 

But so what if previous backups in the chain ARE missing???  Why shouldn't I be able to restore WHATEVER I HAVE?   

If but ONE useful backup file exists, it SHOULD still be restoreable, if user so wishes.

THAT is my wish.

Hi MoodyArt

I may be wrong here but my understanding was that ATIH does an image backup which copies sectors from the disk to a TIB file.

When a full backup is taken all the data on the disk is backed up to the file.

When an incremental or differential is taken it only has to backup the sectors that have changed since the full backup was taken.

Differentials get larger the more you take as they have to backup more sectors that have changed since the full backup was taken. Because they contain ALL the changes since the full backup any differential + the full backup can restore the disk to a point in time.

Incrementals however only backup the changes that have taken place since the last backup (incremental) was taken. and to to restore to a point in time any incremental requires all the previous incrementals and the preceding full backup to work.

The backup does to my knowledge not get involved with files. Acronis works some magic when you mount an image to give you a file based view of your archive but it works the same as restoring an image as described above ALL the relevant files MUST be present to work.

If you want files as you describe then you need to do a files based backup which does not offer the quite the same facilities as described above.

I hope that helps you to understand why, what your are expecting is not possible - unless of course I am incorrect in my understanding of the was Acronis works.

I have used True Image since version 8. Up to and including version 10, I had no real problems using it. I went to 11 because of W7 support and I have only had one full backup that was a success. I wanted to make this the start of an incremental chain but did not realise that you had to nominate this in custom before starting the backup - real user friendliness guys :( . I have not been able to get another working backup off version 11. I don't need one click, I don't need dumbo, my wish list is just a working backup software that does incrementals and is straightforward. ATI is now off my list.

Include a consolidation/cleanup scheme that lets me set when (time) to make a full backup rather than by the number of differentials. If I could say make differentials all week and make a new full backup on Saturday, and keep two complete sets, that would be perfect. Even if I calculate it so that full backups would occur on Saturday, one manual backup and the plan is screwed.

I would like to see a checkbox in status dialog to shutdown on completion (like TI 2010)

I would like to see a checkbox in status dialog to shutdown on completion (like TI 2010)

I would like to see a checkbox in status dialog to shutdown on completion (like TI 2010)

>I wish you would put the main interface of Acronis True Image 2012 back the way it was in 2010. I don't like the interface at all in 2011 version. I prefer opening with all my options available and not having to click to get there.

Sometimes, I find the auto-updater flakey - this is true of 2010 and 2011 versions - sometimes it will work, other times it poops out.

I would like to see the layout of options made more plain and less well buried - things like compression ratio are very important and shouldn't be half way hidden in some menu option.

I think there should be a clear option to DELETE OLD BACKUPS (yes, use that kind of simple terminology) or ADD TO CURRENT BACKUPS (yes, use that kind of simple terminology) or to CREATE NEW BACKUP....use simple, VERY SIMPLE, terminology. It should be as simple as:

1. Create a new backup image
2. Delete an old backup image
3. Update a current backup image

What I think would be useful, instead of menus with buried options, a one screen, checkoff list of exatly the things you want to do, just like my little list there.

Make it possible (on short term) to be able to upload backupped single files over 2 GB, instead of limiting it. Paragon for example does allow it. Only Acronis True Image 2011 doesn't allow it. I receive the following error: SIZE not allowed in ASCII mode.

In the chat-session, at acronis.com, they confirmed it's limited to 2 GB. Why on earth is this? People have fast internet connections nowadays and we should be able to backup and upload as much as we want or need...

It's very unfortunate, because of this, you lost a potential Customer...

1. Possibility to define a chain of scheduled task.
One tasks triggers other task on its completion.
2. Possibility to use existing task as template while creating new task.
3. When verifying the settings of task ATI shows the task name
in the tittle bar or some where else
4. To view tasks all settings in one windows summary without to have step
through several dialogs
5. Unscheduled and scheduled tasks listed on common list.
Special markup used for differentiate them visually
6. Backup options dialog, ATI resizes the dialog size so its whole content
is visible without scrolling
7. Icons as registered in OS used while browsing images/backup files
8. Possibility to transfer the image/backup task to other ATI installation (other PC)
9. Possibility to archive the image/backup task to disc file
10. When scheduled task starts ATI doesn't scans partitions not involved in this tasks
for file system errors, nor any other errors
11. User without administrative privileges can use ATI functionalities
12. Possibility to select "shut down PC after task completes" while defining the task
Not only in task progress dialog.
13. By a special option in task's contextual menu: estimation of resulting image/backup file size
under consideration of task's current settings.

Dear Customers,

Thank you for the feedback provided, it is really important for us!

I have forwarded all your comments to the Development team. They took it under consideration. They currently working on the next version of Acronis True Image Home, and we expect them to improve the functionality to suit your needs better.

Let us know if you have any further suggestions or comments, we will be glad to receive them - we value your opinion.

Thank you!