perpetual license

Avery Andrews wrote:

Steve Smith wrote:

If you do not have a perpetual or active subscription license for either 2020 or 2021, then you would need to purchase at least a single PC perpetual license of either of these to have access to recovering your existing .tibx files, where the preference should be 2021 for best backward compatibility!

I thought there was a discussion of this issue some time ago where people agreed that rescue media would continue to work when a subscription ran out.  Although I certainly would think that forever free and universally downloadable 'acronis restore' would be an excellent idea.  Also maybe even that expired subscriptions could still do restore.

I believe this to be true, yes. Any Acronis Rescue Media you may have made at some point in the past will continue to work indefinitely, without any lock downs or time bombs imposed on it. This is because it serves as a bootable device and the computer can boot off of it without depending on your main operating system such as Windows, and it has not been programmed to call home to Acronis mothership to report you in as unpaying customer so they can have the opportunity to block off access to its software. (Mobile devices running iOS and Android are too limited to be taken seriously, even though Acronis now offers backup for them too, they simply can't boot off of any such thing.) I don't know for sure about True Image 2020 and 2021, but I know I have used True Image versions as old as 2011 on a Rescue Media USB flash drive, as recently as 2017. That's how great software should work.

Ideally, yes. I also think there should be a free edition available, if not as a complete backup solution (like many competitors of True Image have on offer) then at least having a free "True Image Restore" software. I find it odd to think that I must create such a thing as "Acronis Rescue Media" ahead of my license expiration date to ensure I am able to recover my data should I decide not to extend my subscription plan. (I don't like playing this cat and mouse game.)

If Acronis Rescue Media is created from a valid activated version of ATI, i.e. during subscription or from a perpetual licensed copy then it will continue to work even after the subscription has ended or version is no longer actively supported by Acronis.

If the media is created from a trial version of ATI then it has the same limitations as for the trial.

See KB 2768: Trial version limitations of Acronis products.

Recovery of .tibx files require ATI 2020 or later as these files are not recognised by any earlier versions.  It is best to use the latest version in case of further changes and because Acronis state that these are backwards compatible with earlier versions (but not the reverse!).  See the link for backwards compatibility in my signature.

According to the table "Table of trial limitations of Acronis products" in KB2768, following applies to "Acronis True Image 2021 (Windows)":

You can only recover (restore) a backup when booted from Acronis Bootable Media, other options are disabled. Acronis Universal Restore is not available.

In other words, regardless if you have been running a 30 day trial of True Image or a paid and activated product (either subscription plan or perpetual license) you can always use the bootable media (a.k.a. Rescue Media) to restore files from a backup or do a full system restoration (with caveat of Universal Restore being unavailable for restoration to dissimilar hardware). The important think is that you create that bootable media ahead of time, before the subscription plan expires and you are met with a paywall to access the options for creating such media from within True Image as it is running in Windows.

In other words, if you create such bootable media using a trial version of True Image, you will not be able to use it to create new backups, and you won't be able to use the Universal Restore feature to restore existing backups to dissimilar hardware (but restoring to the same hardware should not be a problem).

From a previous post by Samir:

But if I wasn't this picky about the visuals and level of detail, I think I would fall for Macrium Reflect. It has just about everything True Image has.

I am playing around with Reflect. I have noticed one thing it can't do (or at least I've been unable to discover a way). If you want to restore a single file (or group of files) to some new location, you can't without the entire folder structure of the original backup being created in that place. For example, if I want to restore only file1.txt which is located in C:\D1\D3\D57, but for this restore I want it restored to C:\, I can't get C:\file1.txt, I have to get C:\D1\D3\D57\file1.txt.

Another disappointment is that I can only specify folders in backups. If I want individual files, I have to specify the folder tree in which the file is located, and then type in wildcards and such to include/exclude specific files. When creating a backup scheme, I want to browse to the file level (as ATI can), not just to the folder level.

Sandy McKean wrote:

I am playing around with Reflect. I have noticed one thing it can't do (or at least I've been unable to discover a way). If you want to restore a single file (or group of files) to some new location, you can't without the entire folder structure of the original backup being created in that place. For example, if I want to restore only file1.txt which is located in C:\D1\D3\D57, but for this restore I want it restored to C:\, I can't get C:\file1.txt, I have to get C:\D1\D3\D57\file1.txt.

Another disappointment is that I can only specify folders in backups. If I want individual files, I have to specify the folder tree in which the file is located, and then type in wildcards and such to include/exclude specific files. When creating a backup scheme, I want to browse to the file level (as ATI can), not just to the folder level.

Oh wow, I would absolutely hate that. I haven't used Reflect long enough to know for sure if this behavior can be modified, but I understand the problem you're describing. Scoping is something a lot of software out there don't get right, or they make the options very confusing.

To this end I will throw in TeraCopy for scrutiny, an otherwise excellent little file copy tool, but try setting up a file verification test between two sets of files in two separate folder structures/trees. You have to like... point to the parent folder on one side to compare its child folder to the desired folder on the other side. It's difficult to explain, I can hardly remember how it works out because I just get it right and do my business and then forget about it, it's all just a fade (brain doesn't want to remember this messy disorderly order or operation). I think you have to do this crazy trick on the folder side you want to compare and not the side being compared to. It's a mess, nonetheless. But otherwise the tool is excellent, you should try it sometime if you haven't (it's a freeware with good reputation).

I haven't installed Reflect again to check this out, but from looking at their help article it does seem like there is no option to select files individually. See the link below.

https://kb.macrium.com/KnowledgebaseArticle50077.aspx

The dialog itself is titled "File and folder backup". That's a revealing clue right there. They would need a "File or folder backup" to allow users to backup individual files.

Also, I will add that this example shows how much we appreciate True Image as a backup software. I know I do. I personally don't agree with the direction Acronis is taking it now, that's my main objection. With the whole subscription only business model, and loading it up with a bunch of features that don't directly relate to or qualify as backup features and having it morph into this bizarre "cyber protection" product.

Then they tell the story that customers want this, and that times we live in demand this, and that this adds more value to the customer. Bla, bla. I could not care less. By all means, do all your crazy market testing, but please do it in another product. Here's a crazy idea for you: a brand new product? Instead of destroying a good thing you have going for you already. But that's life I guess... you win some, you lose some. You lose some customers and you win over some new customers (it's like with friends). I definitely feel like Acronis has turned its back on the whole home user customer base. Sadly.

Yeah, I'm not real happy with the ATI direction either (hence my exploring alternatives). I ain't crazy about only subscription pricing, and I ain't crazy about backup software doing any function outside of backing up. It also seems that I have frequent struggles with backups to the ATI cloud. The UI interface speed for such things as requesting a file tree in order to restore something seems inexcusably slow.

OTOH, for local backups and disaster recovery I trust ATI.  Frankly, I'd hate to leave it behind......and I'm certainly not going to do so if the competing software doesn't even allow me to easily select individual files to backup.

P.S. As for TeraCopy....I use a program called Winmerge for those functions. I'm quite happy with it.

The Bottom Line:

Arguing with a corporation is like reading the "Software License Agreement".

In the end, you have to ignore everything and click, "I Agree"

It is now and always shall be , all about Rubles

Steve F.

Sandy McKean wrote:

 

I am playing around with Reflect. I have noticed one thing it can't do (or at least I've been unable to discover a way). If you want to restore a single file (or group of files) to some new location, you can't without the entire folder structure of the original backup being created in that place. For example, if I want to restore only file1.txt which is located in C:\D1\D3\D57, but for this restore I want it restored to C:\, I can't get C:\file1.txt, I have to get C:\D1\D3\D57\file1.txt.

You can double-click on any MR backup archive and mount it to a drive letter (for disk & files/folders backups) then do the same as with ATI and use normal Copy & Paste commands to grab individual files or folders.

You can also use the Edit Source Folder Filters option to specify which files (by mask) to include and/or exclude from the backup for a files / folders backup. 

Both options are available in the licensed version of MR.

I concur with Steve S.

I tested by deleting a file in my documents folder, opened a MR Archive, selected a file I wanted to recover and did a simple drag and drop.  No problem at all.  MR opened the archive up and assigned a drive letter quickly so I was able to open it, find the file and drag a copy over to my working documents folder in a few seconds. 

Now this test was with a licensed copy of Macrium Reflect 8.  I purchased MR 7 but was notified of a free upgrade about 6 months after the purchase.  I suspect MR 7 will work exactly the same and MR carries a perpetual license.

Regards,

Steve F.

Perdido Beach wrote:

The Bottom Line:

Arguing with a corporation is like reading the "Software License Agreement".

In the end, you have to ignore everything and click, "I Agree"

It is now and always shall be , all about Rubles

Steve F.

Haha! So true! Yes, I agree, now give it to me.

I am staying with True Image for now, but I am not buying into its subscription agenda. I will keep my eyes and ears open for good alternative software. To that end, thank you for sharing your experience with Macrium Reflect!

Perdido Beach wrote:

I concur with Steve S.

I tested by deleting a file in my documents folder, opened a MR Archive, selected a file I wanted to recover and did a simple drag and drop.  No problem at all.  MR opened the archive up and assigned a drive letter quickly so I was able to open it, find the file and drag a copy over to my working documents folder in a few seconds. 

Now this test was with a licensed copy of Macrium Reflect 8.  I purchased MR 7 but was notified of a free upgrade about 6 months after the purchase.  I suspect MR 7 will work exactly the same and MR carries a perpetual license.

Regards,

Steve F.

So the file name extension for Macrium Reflect backup files is ".MR" and you can double click on it to mount it as a disk image? This sounds very familiar to True Image. Are you also able to specify what version (or "slice" in True Image terms) to look at?

Steve Smith wrote:

You can also use the Edit Source Folder Filters option to specify which files (by mask) to include and/or exclude from the backup for a files / folders backup. 

Both options are available in the licensed version of MR.

Using file masks to specify what files to include or exclude from what is essentially a folder backup is a clumsy design in my opinion, even though True Image may actually be doing the same in the background. These complicated steps need to be abstracted away from the user, a regular user should not need to know what a wildcard or masks are to make use of these features.

But still... with all things considered, I think Macrium Reflect is a worthy opponent of True Image. It has many if not all of the same features that True Image does.

I only tested the free version of MR, and only the disk imaging feature. All features may not be available in the free version.

Thanks Steve for this feedback.

You can double-click on any MR backup archive and mount it to a drive letter (for disk & files/folders backups) then do the same as with ATI and use normal Copy & Paste commands to grab individual files or folders.

I had tried the "mount the backup" facility, but it hadn't dawned on me that it can be used to "solve" my "restore a file without the directory structure" issue. Doing that way is not my preference, but it is an effective work-around.

You can also use the Edit Source Folder Filters option to specify which files (by mask) to include and/or exclude from the backup for a files / folders backup.

I'm with Samir on this one. Using file masks etc is a terrible way to select individual files for backing up. Let's say I want to backup 7 files out of 50 files that may be in some data repository folder. Let's presume none of the 7 files share the same extension or partial filename. With MR one would need to type in the full name of each of those 7 files. Nope, I want to quickly and easily pick any set of individual files I like (preferably with a simple checkbox).

OTOH, I would agree that MR is a good choice for a straight-forward, if simplistic, backup software product.

Samir,

I never said the file name extension for Macrium Reflect backup files is ".MR".  Not sure where you got that.

The file name extension for a Macrium Reflect backup file is ".mrimg"

I think you are very correct saying that MR is a worthy opponent of TIH.  The licensed version did everything I needed and more plus it did so at super speed when compared to TIH.  In my case, that speed difference is based on TIH and MR being tasked with backing up the same disk to the same backup disk from the same computer.

I also noticed an increased backup speed difference when I installed a licensed copy in lieu of my previous free version.

I think that this discussion about the pros and cons of Macrium Reflect (from the perspective of ATI users) would fit better in the thread Reflecting on a Post-ATI World (in the Off-Topic forum); feel free to contribute your thoughts there.

Sandy McKean  :

OTOH, I would agree that MR is a good choice for a straight-forward, if simplistic, backup software product.

I don't think it is entirely fair to Macrium Reflect to call it "simplistic".  First of all, none of the issues discussed here apply to the partition imaging functionality of the MR.  Second, what we would consider a missing feature as ATI users really just reflects (no pun intended) a different paradigm for working with the software -- MR users would probably consider our way of picking individual files by clicking each one to be cumbersome and inflexible.  In fact, a GUI file picker was briefly beta tested in the most recent release of MR, but it was decided there was not sufficient demand, while it also got in the way of the "normal" way of defining file & folder backups in MR ("normal" to MR users!).

I just converted to MR and I'm still learning the ropes.  However, my impression is that it is a mature product with sophisticated features, excellent performance and robustness, as well as highly responsive support team (and an active user forum like this one).

I accept that there will be a bit of a learning curve to retrain my brain to think about backup processes and procedures using the MR paradigm rather the one I am used to.  I don't think I will be fully able to appreciate whether the UX differences are drawbacks or improvements until I have worked with the software for a few months at least.

Perdido Beach wrote:

Samir,

I never said the file name extension for Macrium Reflect backup files is ".MR".  Not sure where you got that.

The file name extension for a Macrium Reflect backup file is ".mrimg"

I think you are very correct saying that MR is a worthy opponent of TIH.  The licensed version did everything I needed and more plus it did so at super speed when compared to TIH.  In my case, that speed difference is based on TIH and MR being tasked with backing up the same disk to the same backup disk from the same computer.

I also noticed an increased backup speed difference when I installed a licensed copy in lieu of my previous free version.

Sorry, I recollected that name extension from memory. Yes, it is MRIMG for sure. As in Macrium Reflect IMaGe. One thing I have not investigated is whether or not this format is open standard or uses some underlying open standard, and whether or not we can use it to create images that can be consumed by virtual machines.

I will admit that I have not given Macrium Reflect a fair shake. I was put off by the interface (for reasons stated previously). But I will tell you this! Macrium Reflect is fast! In my simple tests it was much faster than anything I have seen from True Image in any of its versions and across different hardware (old and new) that I've used over the years.

Just yesterday, I used True Image 2021 Recovery Media to restore a complete disk image of my Samsung M.e NVMe 500 GB SSD with Windows 10 on it. I had about 110 GiB of free space on that disk. So that would make it about 465 GiB in total, and if we subtract 110 GiB from that, then about 355 GiB was used by Windows 10, my data and recovery partitions. So essentially I had to recover 355 GiB of data with True Image. My backup TIBX file for this was stored on an external USB 3.0 WD MyPassport mechanical (HDD) drive. The HDD has a top sequential read speed of 110 MB/s, and the Samsung SSD has a read speed of 3200 MB/s (3400 MB/s read speed) or about 1770 MB/s in my last test (with CrystalDiskmark 6) before I wiped it clean in preparation for recovering the backup back to it.

Why am I telling you all this? Because the entire operation took about 4 hours to complete. Whereas the initial full backup (disk about equally occupied) took about 45 minutes from within Windows 10. Now, I don't know if this gaping difference in speed and performance is due to True Image working more slowly when it runs from a USB flash drive, but this is SLOW! I used a Kingston DataTraveler 111 USB 3.0 flash drive, which tested about 45 MB/S read and 5 MB/s write (tested with CrystalDiskmark after finishing recovery process). I did use a USB port at the front of the computer which may not be USB 3.0 compatible! Incidentally, once the recovery was over, I ran True Image from within Windows 10 because it was complaining about missed scheduled backups, so I let it run a backup (same MyPassport per usual) of an archive partition I have on one of the WD Red disks (good performers) and from within True Image I saw it display a crawling speed like "80 Mbps". Note that this is "Mbps" (megabits per second), so that equates to about 10 MB/s. It went up a little bit, but nowhere near the 700  or 800 Mbps it normally sits at. I then tested both the source and destination disk (with CrystalDiskmark again), and I got solid 90 MB/s on both read and write operations.

Oh and yes... I have since wiped the Samsung SSD disk in preparation for a second round of doing a recovery. This time I made sure to plug my USB devices in all the right USB 3.1 Gen 1 and Gen 2 ports at the back of the computer. Same USB flash drive with True Image is booted in UEFI mode, per usual, and the same incremental backup is selected, and... "The file is corrupted" said True Image. I click OK and it continues spinning its analog clock hands and then prompts me to select a destination disk for the backup. I select the Samsung SSD disk and click Next, and... it displays another error message telling me it can't do it.

Why I'm doing this is because I'm working on recovering from a corrupted Windows registry. As if that was not enough, now I seem to have a corrupted backup as well. I suspect it may have been spawned by prior abortion of another system backup it wanted to do when I was back in Windows the first time round, or possibly by that slow recovery process (may be indication of device driver and USB controller issues in the True Image Recovery Media OS environment).

So... I don't mind people exploring other options... it's just that there are no options out there that are 100% perfect, they are all lacking in some department in my experience. In spite of being paid software! And open source alternatives have their own shortcomings.

I would rather see Acronis do something about the quality of its software rather than force everyone onto this subscription bandwagon. This is not the first time I see this error reported, but I don't recall ever encountering it myself, I have seen other people report it in. But I have had other issues with the Recovery Media OS environment.

J K wrote:

 

I don't think it is entirely fair to Macrium Reflect to call it "simplistic".  First of all, none of the issues discussed here apply to the partition imaging functionality of the MR.  Second, what we would consider a missing feature as ATI users really just reflects (no pun intended) a different paradigm for working with the software -- MR users would probably consider our way of picking individual files by clicking each one to be cumbersome and inflexible.  In fact, a GUI file picker was briefly beta tested in the most recent release of MR, but it was decided there was not sufficient demand, while it also got in the way of the "normal" way of defining file & folder backups in MR ("normal" to MR users!).

That's an admirable company, one that listens to its customers and decides accordingly.

It's of course difficult to satisfy all users and all use case scenarios, some users may feel left out, but that's democracy or whatever you want to call it.

But Acronis has yet to produce the numbers that indicate clearly that the majority of its users want a subscription plan and this "cyber protection" feature. In fact they are making this claim, but in the open discussions on this very forum, there are multiple topics/threads discussing and questioning how and where to purchase the perpetual license product. Open and transparent discussions and vote casting is true democracy, not making decisions behind closed doors and making claims.

But anyway... there is always Macrium Reflect and others we can turn to.

And yes, you're making a good point about normalcy. Everything is relative.

I just converted to MR and I'm still learning the ropes.  However, my impression is that it is a mature product with sophisticated features, excellent performance and robustness, as well as highly responsive support team (and an active user forum like this one).

I can testify that it's a good performer. Judging by the simple tests I have done and the short period I have been using it, I will say that it really does beat True Image in terms of performance. It is sophisticated as well, but this makes it difficult to use so for me this is a drawback. Because I don't want to spend too much time learning all the ins and outs (learning the ropes).

I accept that there will be a bit of a learning curve to retrain my brain to think about backup processes and procedures using the MR paradigm rather the one I am used to.  I don't think I will be fully able to appreciate whether the UX differences are drawbacks or improvements until I have worked with the software for a few months at least.

We can agree to disagree on the learning curve; I prefer not to invest my time in that. I am a bit conservative as a person, so I think it comes naturally to me that I don't adjust well to change (especially a change for worse from my point of view). I will agree that it's often easier to just live with a given product or software in this case, before you can fully appreciate its ups and downs.

Still, the good thing is that Macrium Reflect exists, so that people have a choice. Having a choice is everything, in life in general and when deciding what software to rely on or what company to invest our money and time in (align ourselves with).

Given the current situation with True Image... my biggest hope is that other software products will prosper! So hopefully, other vendors will see this as an opportunity to seize. Perhaps that GUI based file picker was not such a bad idea to implement in Macrium Reflect? If it means more True Image users will convert to Macrium Reflect, then by all means do it. Again, having choice is everything. What they could do is make it optional (so that old users don't have a reason to complain).

Looking for a perpetual license as well.  Came here to buy an upgrade, and found no option but subscriptions.  I know no one that "prefers" a continuous unmanageable expense of subscriptions.  Perpetual licenses allow home users and small businesses to manage their budgets on their own schedules, and we favor perpetual licenses and remain loyal to businesses that recognize that we need to manage our expenses rather than deferring that benefit to the businesses alone.  Also, this is one of those tools that is very much like a hammer.  We're buying it for stability of systems that we know need to endure and remain robust, and introducing the haggle and blockade of a subscription directly subtracts not only our ability to manage our expenses, but (if I'm understanding this right) our ability to restore our systems at the very time we need them unless we've paid the ransom subscription.

I completely agree with the first reaction, i don't know where you have the data that we prefer subscription, i hate subscription! I do like True Image so far, but if that gets in the way, yes there are plenty alternatives, so be happy to go on with your subscription, but not for me! :)

And btw all those cyber protection things, the first think i did turned them completely off, i do have better solutions for that and don't want to put extra load on mine machine. If so market it as an different product, but please do stay at what you excel, leave those things to the other pro's in the market, concentrate on the backup side of things, this makes the product heavier and buggier.

Michael Prescott  wrote:

introducing the haggle and blockade of a subscription directly subtracts not only our ability to manage our expenses, but (if I'm understanding this right) our ability to restore our systems at the very time we need them unless we've paid the ransom subscription.

This isn't 100% accurate, as my understanding is you retain the ability to restore using the rescue media.

nm5543  

And btw all those cyber protection things, the first think i did turned them completely off, i do have better solutions for that and don't want to put extra load on mine machine. 

Hate to break it to you, but although you may think you turned off the cyber protection (and any reasonable user would think that disabling a feature actually disables it!), disabling cyber protection in ATI actually leaves a dozen or so cyber protection services running in the background.  Steve Smith has done extensive testing of this, and if I recall correctly, some of these cyber protection background processes even download updates, despite the fact that the user has disabled cyber protection.

JK, 

Thanks for pointing that out about the protection, i was also thinking about that and thus doing a scan on mine Windows files, i will check manual, thanks :)

You know, it is all nice, nice software, but nowadays too much pricavy load, you really have to be alert, otherwise big brother will know everything about you...

I did check the log files when in case something is wrong to send to Acronis, in that i saw all the programs i have installed.....and who knows what more, things are getting to weird nowadays...you have to be an firewall expert these days to protect yourself...

btw i see cyber protection is off in services, but active protection is on, have to investigate what these are exactly etc....some homework to do :)

J K wrote:

Hate to break it to you, but although you may think you turned off the cyber protection (and any reasonable user would think that disabling a feature actually disables it!), disabling cyber protection in ATI actually leaves a dozen or so cyber protection services running in the background.  Steve Smith has done extensive testing of this, and if I recall correctly, some of these cyber protection background processes even download updates, despite the fact that the user has disabled cyber protection.

Wow. Really?!  

Anyone remember McAfee anti-virus?  This reminds me of the days when businesses used to get kick-backs or incentives to bundle all sorts of infectious, malware-like, tracking apps with their tools.  It always seemed like a last, desperate tactic or way to collect lots of information and share profiles of their users.  Is this what Acronis has become?  Surely not.  This is the opposite of cyber protection and more like shifting invasive apps from hackers to businesses.

I've found another tool to replace TruImage for the moment, but I'm still disappointed. I had money in hand and ready to buy but landed here looking for answers instead. I tend to stick with good companies and products, but I simply cannot support that tactic or the inability to purchase a perpetual license.

Michael, you're not wrong in stating that it's a "tactic". This is not happening by accident, it's well thought out (with less emphasis on "well").

Honestly, I think the very best disk image backup solution for Windows at the moment is still True Image. Unless another player steps in and can fully outperform and outshine True Image, or one of the existing players steps up their game, the very best solution perhaps would be to step away from True Image and Windows altogether. Climb up the abstraction layer and virtualize your Windows installation! Then you can allow the virtual machine snapshots to do the job of True Image, effectively replacing your scheduled disk image backups with virtual machine snapshots and eliminating the need for a separate backup solution like True Image. Running a type 1 hypervisor would offer the maximum flexibility.

It's only for file level backups that you would still need to run a backup software within the virtual machine to make those backups. But who does file level backups today? I haven't done that in years. I only did a file backup of some of the folders within my AppData folder using True Image last week, before I reinstalled Windows. This is a very limited use case and it was horribly slow! It was way, way slower than it would be to just do a system backup. The restoration process was equally slow, if not even slower. Maybe it was slow because it has to compress and decompress thousands of small configuration files. But I have a 6 core, 12 thread processor and lots of available RAM, plus a speedy NVMe SSD disk, it should not be taking this long. Whatever the reason, it was painfully slow.

I normally don't work with file level backups, and I will think twice before I make another. We're talking about spending about 45 minutes on restoring 1.86 GB in 37850 files and 22540 folders. Doing a simple file copy from one location to another takes about 10 minutes.

Even restoring files from the True Image disk image backup takes an immense amount of time! Because file backup and restoration was so slow, I ended up ditching that and using the system disk image that I already have instead, and then restoring the files of interest from that after reinstalling Windows. I restored my entire user folder from C:\Users and I just checked the numbers, it took me more than 5 hours to restore 173 GB in 183339 files and 45227 folders. From a mechanical WD My Passport USB 3.0 external hard drive to an internal Samsung NVMe 970 EVO Plus disk. Compare 5 hours or 300 minutes to the 20 minutes or so it takes to restore the entire disk content using disk image backup using the bootable recovery media.

I won't go as far as saying file level backups are useless, but with the advent of disk image backups, they have become less common, and given what I just said you better have a good reason to do file level backups rather than a disk image backup. As soon as you start having many files and folders, True Image can't create these file level backups in a timely fashion. It turns into a marathon and a long waiting game.

I do remember McAfee, but I remember Norton even more so. You could not get rid of that program because it gets so deeply infested in the system, your only option becomes to reformat the disk and reinstall Windows. I also remember other major software like RealPlayer, and Nero, and PowerDVD, and many more. As soon as they start loading up their software with boatloads of unwanted "features" you know the end is near. This was long before the "app" craze started and newer "apps" started replacing legendary old "programs". I don't know if True Image will follow the same fate, but it certainly doesn't look good when they start to bundle "Cyber Protection" and "Active Protection" and stuff like that, and you can't even turn it off fully and completely. Then they tell you Internet is a dangerous place and that these features are there to protect you. Sure... just look at me. I am dangerously derailing this discussion board.

Samir  

Honestly, I think the very best disk image backup solution for Windows at the moment is still True Image. 

Clearly not the "very best" in terms of performance (by your own admission).  You apparently have other criteria (maybe familiarity with the UI, price, compatibility with existing backup archives, etc.) by which you are judging ATI vs. the available competition, which is fine.  But when making statements about superiority of one product, it would be helpful if you are explicit about the criteria you are using to judge, the methods you have used for testing, as well as the specific products that you have evaluated.

And if you are willing to share these details, it would make a fine post for the topic Reflecting on a Post-ATI World!

You're absolutely right J K, and thank you for pointing that out. I really should do a proper research, analysis, testing and comparison of various products, and different aspects like ease of use, maybe even do user surveys, etc. and then come to some kind of conclusion and present my results. As much as I would love to do that, that means a lot of work and I don't really have time for that. (That's not to say I won't do it at a later time.)

I will say there is more than one reason why many of us keep coming back to this software, myself included. I am by no means happy about Acronis' decision to scrap the perpetual license model and force everyone onto the subscription bandwagon.

Even without this change in licensing, I am not happy about the performance of True Image, for example. I don't hide this. I have openly attacked and criticized True Image over its shortcomings and bugs and whatnot. I don't proud myself with this, I would rather not having this discussion about licensing, but I was first to start talking about the lack of ability to purchase a perpetual license. Despite all this, I am biased toward True Image and I favor it over other backup software. I admit that I have not given the competing backup software proper testing.

On another note, if Acronis is forcefully pushing for a subscription only model, I want to see more return on my investment. I have used True Image on a subscription plan for about two years, and I have not seen major improvements in the core backup software. Instead, I suspect, Acronis has used this money to enter new markets like the anti-virus market or "Cyber Protection" as they like to call it.

Come to think of it, True Image reminds me of Windows itself... can't live with it, can't live without it. Many threaten to abandon it over this and that, but at the end of the day they stick to it. As I recall it, there is a popular term for this behavior when consumers threaten to abandon a product but they never do... I can't recollect what it is.

People who are against rentware should vote with their wallets and go elsewhere (or use an older version of the product like I use True Image 2019) as I absolutely don't like software that is rentware and like someone else said it really does come across like the user is being held to ransom (especially you can't backup your computer after x date).

The downfall of True Image for me was not only the extreme anti-virus, cyber protection system hogging, multiple process running mess of a program but the introduction of the .tibx file format in 2020 was unneeded and unnecessary but any excuse for a cash grab.

True Image used to be an amazing piece of software that I would have recommended to anyone.

Maria Belinskaya,

Adding to the list of people who would agree that subscription models are not preferred.

You're reply is dated 21 March 2021, but yet this Acronis page dated 21 August 2021 says otherwise:

https://kb.acronis.com/content/65253

Acronis has not discontinued perpetual license sales.

Most in here have stated that they want a backup solution only. They bought a backup solution and Aconis seems hell bent on raming "protection" down their throats. There should be an option/way to install the backup portion only.

 

Enchantech wrote:

Steve,

So your core objection then is that these services although disabled remain in the application, show up in Task Manager, and periodically show minute bits of activity correct?  Oh, and I forgot, you object to the fact that protection is even a part of the product as well.

Are you aware that even if you have Protection disabled that the Vulnerability scan still runs on a daily basis? 

It is obvious that the Protection components of the application remain installed even though Protection as a service is disabled.  So when behaviors and processes occur on the system and the Protection components respond briefly to these occurrences you object to those happening?

So your solution here would be to uninstall the protection components to eliminate these processes which intern defeats the purpose of the products goal of a complete data protection package?

If the above are correct then is it fair to say that you object to integrated products that offer more than one feature or serve more than one purpose?

 

This move to subscription only is, and I really tried to find a better word, nonsense from a customer perspective.

We have other systems in place to protect against criminal threats, so a subscription adds absolutely no benefit. It's obvious that Acronis is aiming for all the business or no business. For us the result is no business with Acronis.

We only need backup, and I would never trust something as important as a backup to a subscription. What happens if I need to do something with the backups 10 years from now? There is no guarantee Acronis is still around. Perpetual license is the only responsible licensing model for backups.

This is indeed bad news that forces us to look elsewhere for a backup solution.

IanL-S wrote:

John, I had a cyber attack of some sort just short of two weeks ago. ATI stopped it before it could do any significant damage. Only 4 files were encrypted, 3 of which were recovered. I suspect there was some other damage to the OS, which I overcame by installing a backup made the prior day.

In this case ATI picked up the problem before Norton 360.

There is always someone somewhere who supposedly benefited from something.

Anyway. The only thing more aggravating than Acronis apologists is their forum massaging. No wonder the company lives in the "customers now overwhelmingly prefer subscriptions" fantasy.

FYI...

Not that I want to give Acronis any more $$ to support their "everyone wants subscription" view of the world, but I did find a perpetual version of 2020 on Amazon. Be careful to read the details to make sure you KNOW what you are getting before you buy. 

Just in case there is some confusion on my position, I make it known that I think Acronis has made two mistakes, the first in bundling the Cyber Protection modules with the backup modules - you should be able to install just the backup. Second, in making the move to subscription only model. For a pure backup solution, a subscription model does not make any sense to me.

If I want a combination of backup, cyber protection and Cloud storage then a subscription model makes sense for both the user and the provider.

Ian

I don't have much to add to this discussion, other than some observations and opinions. This thread has turned into a perpetual discussion about imperpetual licenses. This I think shows that people have strong feelings about Acronis' recent business move. But with everything said and done, I think it's time that we all move on and find a solution that works for us, whatever that may be. Why waste energy on these endless discussions about pros and cons about this and that license model, and on a product and a company that has no ear for what we are saying?

On the grand scheme of things, when generally speaking about software, I realize that I have increasingly less and less reason to stick to proprietary software. I say that as a Windows guy – no, I'm not a windows cleaner, I just work with windows – as someone who believes in conformity and having a fairly large enterprise or other entity as a steward. I was never able to adjust to having a GNU/Linux distro as my main OS. I started playing around with Linux in early 2000. The whole ecosystem seemed erratic and too diversified to make any sense of it, there was no right or wrong way of doing things, many were home brewing their own distros and so on. But also, I am a visual guy, and a perfectionist, so I could not get past the imperfections in the graphical UI of Linux distros at the time. Not to mention errors that would cause the entire desktop environment to implode and drop you at a blinking command prompt, and having you look like a question mark. But I never lost touch with Linux, I kept coming back to it whenever I encountered a problem that could not be fixed using Windows, usually for very specific and niche use cases. I know this is the story of many professionals and users of Windows.

My longest running Linux installation is that on my laptop, a 5 year old "ultrabook" that started to choke on Windows 10 just 2 years after it was purchased, even though it came with Windows 10 preinstalled, which was supposed to be able to handle the "last version of Windows" (I knew already back then that this was a big lie). I have effectively extended the life of my laptop by 3 years by installing Linux on it. I should get a Thank You card from Greenpeace or something like that. Things have changed quite dramatically since early 2000! The shift towards open source and free software is evident in all walks of life. Even Windows includes Linux nowadays. Astounding! Impossible and unthinkable just a decade ago!

Most importantly, as software and code projects its roots deeper into all aspects of society and government, it's of utmost importance that we have access to software that's free for everyone to change, adjust and adapt to their own needs, at an individual level as well as at a local government level. Software is what runs the world. Our freedom and democracy depends on it. It can be a force of change like no other, creating democracy where there is none, or preserving democracy where democracy is at stake. It can be a force of good or a force of evil, it's up to us how we use it, just like it's up to us to use our freedom of speech responsibly or if we passively choose not to voice our opinion in matters of importance like casting a vote in general elections. Just like free choice and free expression, software needs to be free. At a grand scheme of things, proprietary software has played out its role and the "fairly large enterprise" knows this and is therefore enticing us by flirting with open source projects.

If it's not apparent from my long exposition, I think we need to seek alternatives for True Image in the realm of the free and open source software. As it often is the case with such software, there are many different solutions, some of which are better or more elegant than others, all depending on your needs and preferences. The important thing is that you get what you want, so that you can compute the way you want, not how some company decides for you.

Whatever solution you arrive at, make sure it's a solution you have arrived at by your own choice and not something you have been forced into. I wish you all happy holidays and a happy new year! Stay safe!

Maria Belinskaya wrote:

Hello Andrew,

thank you for posting this question on Acronis forums!

Acronis discontinues perpetual license sales.

The majority of our customers now overwhelmingly prefer subscriptions for procuring critical technologies – particularly since subscriptions ensure they have up-to-the-minute protection against the latest cyberthreats. Many also report benefiting from a lower total cost of ownership and the ability to manage their environments more effectively. Given this clear customer preference, Acronis has decided to only sell our solutions by subscription, allowing us to concentrate on delivering superior cyber protection in near real-time.

If you still wish to purchase a perpetual license we advise searching on resellers platforms online.

 

Bit late to the game and I'm sure it has already been covered, but this boiler-plate corporate garbage makes me shudder. Please provide the data that indicates there is an overwhelming surge towards subscriptions? Oh that's right, it will be conveniently confidential.

Let's be honest - customers are holding onto older versions of their products for longer, this displeases the bean counters, meetings occur, strategies are formed and BS public announcements are written. Good-bye Acronis.

Richard Hall wrote:

Maria Belinskaya wrote:

Hello Andrew,

thank you for posting this question on Acronis forums!

Acronis discontinues perpetual license sales.

The majority of our customers now overwhelmingly prefer subscriptions for procuring critical technologies – particularly since subscriptions ensure they have up-to-the-minute protection against the latest cyberthreats. Many also report benefiting from a lower total cost of ownership and the ability to manage their environments more effectively. Given this clear customer preference, Acronis has decided to only sell our solutions by subscription, allowing us to concentrate on delivering superior cyber protection in near real-time.

If you still wish to purchase a perpetual license we advise searching on resellers platforms online.

 

Bit late to the game and I'm sure it has already been covered, but this boiler-plate corporate garbage makes me shudder. Please provide the data that indicates there is an overwhelming surge towards subscriptions? Oh that's right, it will be conveniently confidential.

Let's be honest - customers are holding onto older versions of their products for longer, this displeases the bean counters, meetings occur, strategies are formed and BS public announcements are written. Good-bye Acronis.

 Yes, this is sad. Acronis is obviously using select statistics from those customers who wants the cyber security product and ignores the customers who wants a backup solution.

They no longer have any long term goal of providing products their old customers wants. They are now controlled by the goals of venture capital investors that have destroyed so many good companies in the past. Their only goal now is short term profit leading up to an IPO.

From that perspective, betraying their old customers does not matter to them.

Acronis used to be one of the good guys, but no longer I'm afraid. I'm now forced to strongly advice all my clients against using Acronis products. It does not matter if the product is good, if you can not trust the company behind it. It makes me a bit sad. 

It's very hidden, but you can find the perpetual license for True Image 2021 here:

https://store.acronis.com/882/purl-consumer-standard-US?cart=s7834:2265…

I saw someone mentioning that there won't be any support though.

I did get the subscription when it was at a discount a year ago or so. I thought, even though I hated the entire concept, I'd give it a fair try for a year. That was a mistake. After 6 month I uninstalled it. I give up. The "cyber protect" features are terrible and makes all even remotely real time uses (like VR, video and audio) of the PCs practically impossible without latency issues.

The old perpetual licensed True Image worked so much better. No issues like this at all.

I would not use Cyber Protect if it was free. I'm not even using it when I paid for it.

DBa wrote:

I did get the subscription when it was at a discount a year ago or so. I thought, even though I hated the entire concept, I'd give it a fair try for a year. That was a mistake. After 6 month I uninstalled it. I give up. The "cyber protect" features are terrible and makes all even remotely real time uses (like VR, video and audio) of the PCs practically impossible without latency issues.

The old perpetual licensed True Image worked so much better. No issues like this at all.

I would not use Cyber Protect if it was free. I'm not even using it when I paid for it.

 

Hello!

We take all feedback seriously, whether it's positive or negative. While it's always nice to hear from satisfied customers, negative feedback is just as valuable, as it helps us identify areas where we can improve and make our products better for all users.

So thank you again for taking the time to share your experience with us. We'll take your feedback on board as we continue to refine and improve our products. If you have any further comments or suggestions, please don't hesitate to let us know. We're always here to listen and help.