Acronis vs XXClone

[-pops-]

I appreciate that the two programs are not the same but, the same result should be able to be obtained from both - a restoration of your computer to the same state they were before disaster struck.

As I reported some days ago here Acronis Disk Clone failed to do the job it was designed for.

Any failing software, but especially software that fails in an important function does not inspire confidence in me at all so I have now reconsidered my backing up routine to exclude Acronis. Note that the normal imaging or backup process has not let me down, just the disk cloning but, considering the procedure I have adopted now, I find this one easier and more convenient. This won't be for everyone and I'm not suggesting that a normal domestic (or many office) machines will need it but, the contents of my hard drive, on this machine at least, is very important to me and I want at least one extra copy that I can rely on. I realise nothing in computers can be 100% reliable but I hope this new procedure goes a good way towards that.

This machine has a removable rack in one of its drive bays which I've used in the past for experimental work (swapping drives and suchlike). I am now using this rack to hold a hard drive on to which I put a clone of the "C" (system) disk. Using XXClone this takes about 45 minutes. Note that this is an exact copy of my "C" drive and I could do a straight swap-over and carry on. This takes a couple of minutes to swap the drives over and I am up and running again. When the clone is made, I shut the rack down and remove the tray (with cloned drive) to keep in a safe place. As hard drives are so reasonably priced now, I have another tray for the rack with a second drive ready to be cloned. This way I am working on a "father/son" basis much as I used to with Acronis but with the knowledge that there is no unpacking of files and re-converting to a usable form as there is with the usual backup method methods that rely on a compressed image.

The clone can be made on external drives as well provided that you use a caddy and put your own drive in (so that it can be used to replace the incumbent "C" drive, when/if necessary). Note the connection system for both drives must be the same (SATA/IDE/whatever) for this to work to the best advantage.

Timewise, on this machine an Acronis full backup at normal compression takes about 45 minutes and a reinstall from the image takes about an hour. With the XXClone method, the clone takes about 55 minutes and the reinstall takes just the time to shut the machine down, swap the drive and boot up again ?5 minutes?

As I stated above, this won't be for everyone but is ideal for me and all done with FREE software. There is a paid-for version with extras like scheduling on but I don't need that yet but, I am thinking of shelling out anyway because I like to encourage makers of good software.

BTW, when I tried to format the old drive which I cloned from, it died completely with the message that "Windows is unable to format this disk" so it appears that I was just in time in swapping it. I now have a replacement drive under the manufacturers warranty scheme.

[andsome]

Sounds like a sensible solution for you, as data is important. However, in my case it is only the inconvenience of having to reinstall that matters to me. I have my Acronis back up on TWO external drives, and also on my D drive. All my photos are on TWO memory sticks, as are all my downloaded programs. So Acronis suits me fine. I have used the mirror image on several occasions, even for a brand new C drive on my last computer. Surely the clone operation only does the same job, or am I wrong? :D

[AndyXS]

I use Acronis TrueImage, but the CD linux bootable version.

Works for me everytime, well worth it.