Would you recommend TIH 2012?
I had a terrible experience with TIH 2011. (It was completely unreliable and unpredictable for me.) Consequently, I returned to TIH 2010, which seems stable.
After my scary experience with 2011, I am very reluctant to consider an upgrade to 2012. So, I want to know what you think of it.
> Is it well tested? (Does it perform exactly as expected?)
> Is it usable? (Previous versions of the UI looked like they were designed by elementary school students.)
> On a scale from 1-10, how would you evaluate it? (1=recommend without hesitation; 10=would not recommend under any circumstances.)
ATIH 2012 is even worse than ATIH 2011 for me. I have a Cisco LinkSys NAS200 Network Attached Storage device with 1.5 TB of storage. With ATIH 2011 I could successfully backup drives and files but Outlook backup would not work. I have upgraded to ATIH 2012 only to discover that it doesn't work at all with my NAS box, despite backup to NAS being a promoted fature of ATIH 2012. Even worse, the installation has disabled Microsoft Windows BAckup an Restore, and uninstalling ATIH does NOT re-instate it, so now I have no back capability whatsoever.
If you have a NAS device, do NOT install this software!! It is a total disaster for me!
This is completly my opinion, too:
ATIH2010 worked fine.
ATIH2011 started to behave very unpredictable: Backup-Files changed their names without any rule and (as far I know), this was investigated at Acronis without being fixed any time. Backup-tasks suddenly stopped working and had to to be defined new.
My hope, that ATIH2012 would be a great new version is completely disappointed: The biggest thing is, that the Try&Decide - Feature corrupts the system just when selecting "discard changes"; Backup tasks that are marked as "favorite" (yellow star) for view-filtering very ofen "forget", that the star was set and after the last update (as I remember, it was a "sync" update) the Try&Decide completely destroyed my computer (endless stuck with "Acronis startup manager loading". no way out even with safe-mode boot or windows-startup-repair). Even the auto-consolidation settings are very poor
As every yearly Update costs 30€, this is a very poor experience .....
@ Philip,
See here about how to fix the loss of Windows backup. http://forum.acronis.com/forum/14782
@ Roger (OP),
Some users are keen on having the latest version of any software they use. My point of view is that backup software is a key utility, and if it works for your system, upgrade if you have a compelling reason.
I find that the sync feature of 2012 is promising. I am a big advocate of using sync instead of moving files into proprietary containers for big compressed files that do not change (movies, pictures, music, PDF, ZIP, ...).
The ATI 2012 sync feature is pretty basic both for a local sync (create a mirror of folders on a local/network disk) and for an over-the-Internet computer synch (a la Windows Live Mesh, MobileMe, etc.). For the purpose of simple backup, it is a good value add of ATI.
Historically, initial releases of ATI have been buggy, and the first update after the release solves many issues. I personally find that, if you can get 2012 installed without issues, the first release is very solid in the core areas: disk and partition, file backup. I would say more stable than 2011 at a same point of the life cycle.
As a conclusion, if you consider adapting your backup strategy to leverage synchronization and you are not in a hurry, wait for the first update to try it out.
Pat,
I'm not quite sure your philosophy on when to upgrade software or not is valid to this conversation. The OP raises very valid points, more so in an attempt to get Acronis to notice that they are doing their customers a disservace than anything else. Squeaky wheels get the grease.
I just purchased 2012 as an upgrade expecting great things based on the Acronis website and Acronis marketing materials. In other words their promised features and capabilities.
No where does Acronis say "data sync is very simple compared to other sync programs, expect to be dissapointed". Quite the contrary they lead you to believe you are getting a very capable sync system that is competitive with other sync tools out there. Boy was I surprised. Simplistic is an understatement. Not to mention the logon requirement I already posted my thoughts on elsewhere.
But my biggest complaint and disappointment is in the apparently haphazard coding and design being done by the Acronis team. For example the completely broken network backup from Windows. There is NO REASON why they should be asking for user credentials to a server where you already have rights based on your logged on Windows user account. If I can connect to a share via Windows Explorer I should be able to do so via TIH as well. Not only does it require credentials but after providing them it doesn't work still anyway.
So in direct answer to the OP: Right now 2012 does not seem like a safe bet, especially if moving from 2011. I moved from 2010 and the ONLY value I see is the ability for the bootable rescue media to connect to the network to restore...and I am very very nervous about finding out if that actually works. Other than that I can find no value in this upgrade. It is so far unstable and introduces features that are marketed as being much more than what they really are plus require you to interact and provide data to Acronis in order to use. That I find very questionable and dissapointing.
I expect I will be requesting a refund of my purchase and will hope that these issues will be corrected in a future version. I also hope they remove this questionable practice of requiring connectivity to their servers in order to sync your private data. I'll never use the feature ever as a result of this and wish that the base product itself actually added value without this feature so I wouldn't feel like I was simply giving Acronis money for nothing.
@Keith
Acronis products log on to the system account and then via that to your user account, this is one reason why mapped NAS's don't always work properly as mapping is user specific not machine/OS specific. System accounts are used to allow the products to gain access to low level parts of the OS and also to allow tasks to run if the user is not logged in.
I had a terrible experience with TIH 2011. (It was completely unreliable and unpredictable for me.) Consequently, I returned to TIH 2010, which seems stable.
> Is it well tested? (Does it perform exactly as expected?)
> Is it usable? (Previous versions of the UI looked like they were designed by elementary school students.)
> On a scale from 1-10, how would you evaluate it? (1=recommend without hesitation; 10=would not recommend under any circumstances.)
I do not believe that the application has been well designed or tested. What I want in a utility is one that works, requires the minimum of keystrokes, and is user friendly. I do not believe that ATIH 2012 satisfies these conditions.
I have been using ATI since version 8 and have upgraded to each and every new version. Version 2012 is usable for me, but I am a home user with a home network connecting 3 machines so your experience may be different. There are several things that I absolutely hate about version 2012, but it does work and I would have to say that it is usable. Personally, I feel like two much emphases is being placed on cloud computing options (online backup, synchronization, etc) which is destroying an excellent product. Because of some of the changes that Acronis has made to True Image, I have started evaluating other backup applications such as Easeus TODO Backup and Paragon Backup.
On a scale of 1 to 10 with 10 being the worst I would have to give ATIH 2012 a rating of 5 or 6. The developers seem to have a definite design in mind which has prevented the application from being configurable or user friendly.
No where does Acronis say "data sync is very simple compared to other sync programs, expect to be dissapointed". Quite the contrary they lead you to believe you are getting a very capable sync system that is competitive with other sync tools out there. Boy was I surprised.
This is one of my issues with Acronis (I've been an ATI user since 2004). In recent years, they seem to have become 'desperate'. Rather than just continue to put out a quality product, they feel this need to add all these "wonderful, fantastic, how did you ever live without it?" features. The problem is, these features, IMO, are just fluff, and tend to fall flat (when they work at all). I don't want or need the bells and whistles (esp. when they don't work...).
Also in recent years, I have found that Acronis has a tendency to be deceptive in their marketing of features. There always seems to be some NEW! FEATURE! that has actually been part of ATI for one or more versions!
The lie this year is that Acronis Startup Recovery Manager is this "great new feature!!!":
"A Boot in the Right Direction New
If ever your Operating System fails to boot and you don’t want to fuss around with bootable CDs or flash drives to get back up and running, Acronis gives you a hand. With a simple touch of your F11 key, the Acronis Startup Recovery Manager hops into gear and gets you into a fully functional recovery environment through which you can recover your entire system with ease."
Of course, it has the bright orange "NEW!" logo adjacent to the text. How can we trust a company that is willing to compromise? I want to trust them. But trust is not fostered by desperate, deceiving marketing.
I love ATI and will continue to use it as long as the main event (image creation and recovery) is efficiently useable, accurate and, at least to some degree, intuitive in its use. I believe that they are the best imaging software out there, else I would be using one of the more than adequate free offerings. It's my hope that I will be able to continue, but rushing the product to market, deceptive marketing and the like needs to go away.
We don't need another "Norton" (those of you who have been around awhile know what I mean...).I'm using 2011 right now and have been very happy with it. I see no need to upgrade...at least until these forums are reporting a stable, viable product.