Acronis, Ghost, or what?

What do readers here recommend for Backup software?

I heard that the Backup app in Windows 7 is much better than in earlier Windows versions. Do people find it sufficient, or better to use a third party backup app?

How do the latest versions of Acronis True Image and Norton Ghost compare with one another? Any other competitors in that field?

One thing I didnt like when I had an older Acronis version installed before, is that it had background services and drivers running all the time, even when not in use. Is that necessary? (For instance, I would not do any automatic backups, but only when I choose to.)

I like that the disc imaging apps create an image, that can totally restore a failed system, to what it was at the time of the backup. One disadvantage though, if I recall correctly, is that if one has done a disk defrag, and then does the type of backup (I forget what it is called) where only new and changed files are backed up, that since the disk imaging apps backup sectors rather than files, that since files are moved in a defrag, it ends up backing up much more than necessary, due to the sectors having been changed. Also, due to slack, backing up sectors ends up taking up more space than backing up files. I am not sure about that though. Can someone explain--are the disadvantages I described above for image backup correct?

Which app do people find works best for them for backup, and why?

 

I use Windows 7's backup to make system image once it is stabalized(i.e. necessary programs installed and SP1 applied). Then nightly automatic backup of user data.

Meet my needs and simple to setup.

 

Ive used acronis. And my western digital that came with the acer had three partitions. was able to clone all partitions the same size on another drive and delete all 3 partitions on the western digital so I can use all of it, was very simple and easy.

 

Using acronis free (10.2?), it's simple and effective. It doesn't run any background services or whatever, the compression levels are decent (~35% compression) and it is able to restore individual partitions, boot off a recovery disc ect.

Win7's backup feature is much better than previous versions, but it just doesn't do the comprehensive stuff like MBR backups, differential partitions and so on. It's probably enough for an average home user, but I already have acronis so what the hell.

 

I like Acronis, never tried Ghost.
There was a nice deal recently @newegg on Acronis 2011 (Home Edition) for around $9.99 AR.

 

acronis does have a few background processes if your running the everyday version... when I didn't feel like updating my version of acronis to whatever the lastest version was that works with 7 I started to use Easus Todo backup... works perfectly for me

 

I use the built in backup of Windows 7 and I've only come across one odd issues where it wouldn't backup anything at all (never did find a fix for it). It's saved my behind quite a few times when I've had to use it, although I don't do daily backups... from a personal standpoint it's a bit much.

If you don't need 9001 features and just want a simple Image Restore, it work's perfectly fine.

 

...the easeus programs, Free Data Recovery Software, Backup Software and Partition Manager Freeware in Windows and Linux - EASEUS , they've got excellent tools for partitioning, cloning & backup. & even the free versions are doing a 1st class job.

 

Does the Windows 7 backup do differential and incremental, or just a full backup?

I didn't know that there was a free Acronis. What is it missing from the full version?

 

I use Drive Snapshot. It does not even need to be installed anywhere and is completely stand-alone. It is not as simple to use as Acronis though. That is the trade of for the lack of bloatware and no background processes or installs.

 

the issue with windows 7 backup is that it doesnt do a very good job compressing the backup so you will have a huge backup depending on the size of your drive

 

Win7 is just a straight up full image - your options are either to back up "everything" (all your data + os, doesn't record MBR), or back up only core files (the os). It's compression is poor/mediocre (a core only backup for mine generated an 8gb file, never tried a full backup).

Paragon Backup & Recovery (Advanced) Free - Free software downloads and software reviews - CNET Download.com

I'm not sure what is missing/the difference is between paid and free, I see no services or bloat running, the compression is good... perhaps the paid version is a little bit faster? It does take a long time (~15 hrs at maximum compression level) to backup ~1.6tb of stuff, so obviously I leave it on overnight.

edit: ok, here is the main difference I see - it doesn't support "automated backups", by which it means it won't backup your computer silently, daily, while you are using it. If you've ever had a WD external that came with their crapware (forget the name), this is what the paid version does, and apparently it does it poorly (just like WD!). You can still schedule backups with the free one, and this explains why I've never seen processes/services running in the background with mine.

 

There are TWO features in W7 backup. System Imaging which I only do once(so I can restore to reasonable baseline status for installed program etc.)

Then there is the regular backup(file level) which is incremental and periodically would do a full. So it is like on 1/1/2011 it is a full backup then incremental through 2/28/2011. Then on 3/1/2011 another full set started and it goes on. You can delete the old sets if space is a concern.

It is builtin, it is free and the interface is simple.

EDIT:

and it supports scheduled backup(again we are talking about file level user data, not system image and I simply don't see why I need periodic backup of system image).

 

I prefer TrueImage to Ghost. The Universal Restore option has saved my butt a few times.

 

I don't care about any kind of automated backup, nor schedled backup. I jpreer to do it only manually, with nothing else running on the computer.

Interesting that you write that Win 7 does do incremental backups, but another poster wrote that it only does full backups. Is it that you cannot choose full or incremental, that the app decides itself when to do a new full backup? (If so, that could cause a problem, no, if one wanted to delete some backup files, not knowing which go together in an incremental set, etc.?)

 

I don't know what you mean by Acronis Free?

I looked on the Acronis site, and the only free thing there is a free trial, whiich of course is not free, other than 30 days or so. Did you mean a different free app , such as Paragon or Easeus Free?

 

Windows 7's backup set cleanly identify its date range. like this :

1. 1/1/2011 - 2/28/2011
2. 3/1/2011 - 3/15/2011

then you can choose to delete which set. you can only delete the full set, no dangling possible.

 

What do people think of what I surmised in the OP, that if one always uses drive imaging for backup, including if one usually does incremental, with fulll compression, that it might use up a lot more space than if one used full backup? (Reasons given in OP.) Is that the case? (If not, I don't know why anyone would use file backup instead, as otherwise, there are advantages to disk imagine?)

No one here has tried Ghost (recent version), to compare with Acronis?

 

Why would one want to do incremental block level differential backup periodically ? It takes up more space, is very hard to restore. But each of their own.

 

No, ghost is dead.

Seriously, the general rule is to not use software by Symantec, period. Other than that, take your pick. You could take a look at Paragon's software as well.

 

Calling bull on that... symantec is fine... for making clones of flash drives ghost is perfect and fast... for system drives it does take a while but it works just fine but the compression does leave something to be desired

 

PING, if you know what you're doing (basic familiarity with Linux shell scripts & command lines will help you make the most of it)

Macrium Reflect Free is pretty idiot-proof if you don't.

Edit: note that this is in response to the request for drive imaging software, rather than a reply to the more general conversation about backup that the thread seemed to turn into.

 

yup, if one is not afraid of linux and command line, just 'man dd' and that is all one would need. Afterall, all these things like Acronis etc. are just putting up a GUI wrap around dd.

 

Well, I think there is an advantage to the disk-imaging type of backup, as it will return your computer fully to the state before the backup.

If one uses disk imaging for backup, then it certainly makes sense usually to do incrementals, and not a full backup each time, which would take up much more space.

I don't see how it would be hard to restore. I have done it before with Acronis. No different from restoring with any other backup program.I am concerned about whether it takes up more space. Is that definite?

 

If it is a full indenpendent backup, of course it is easy. Now if it is incremental, you would need a pretty big backup device to store the 'root' then the various 'diffs' in order to reconstruct the full image.

Beside, how would the backup program know which sector has been changed since the last backup ?

I don't know how those sector level differential backup work but that sounds cumbersome to me(to program anyway). And anything that sounds cumbersome, I want to avoid. But as I said, each of their own.

 

I don't know how it works, but Acronis does do incremental and differential backups, just like other backup software. I don't know if all disk imaging software does that.

 

I also use Drive Snapshot.
I also integrated it in the WinRescuePE project to be able to restore the OS partition.