Talk:Acronis True Image

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software (assessed as High-importance).
	This article is supported by Computer hardware task force (assessed as Low-importance).

This article was nominated for deletion on 17 May 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

Relevance

Does every product on the market get its own Wikipedia page? Poor poor --195.243.17.212 (talk) 12:42, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edited page to make less biased

Sorry I am 75.185.172.86. Billyoneal 02:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edited page to make less biased. Also obtained a list of filesystems instead of saying "Arconis supports most filesystems". 75.185.172.86 02:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While this page does look like a commercial, that doesn't mean that the article should be scrapped. Instead the article should be labeled as unbalanced. Then allow the community to fix it. 75.185.172.86 02:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This entry look like a commercial.

It replaced True Image Home with Server for Linux in the section regarding Universal Restore. The sentence states Acronis Enterprise versions, so the Home exception is implied. It is not compatable with Server for Linux, so I placed it within the brackets instead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.202.133.199 (talk) 06:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the nonclementure (?) used in the bottom section. It is Acronis True Image 9.1 Server for Windows, not Acronis True Image Server for Windows 9.1. Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.202.133.199 (talk) 06:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have also changed the wording in the Universal Restore section regarding how UR works. This whole article is fairly badly written. I think the introduction regarding its similarity to Norton Ghost is a bit off. It is more like Backup Exec if you want to choose a Symantec product to compare it to. Or BESR if you take the Universal Restore into account. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.202.133.199 (talk) 06:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the section on supported backup locations is un-necessary. I think it should be deleted. There is nothing exceptional about ATI's ability to backup through any of those methods. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.202.133.199 (talk) 07:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have cleaned up the Operation section, removing a reference to a comparision with True Image 7.0, which is now 4 versions old. Random110 23:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

This article seems to cover a non-notable piece of software. An editor has expressed the opinion it looks like a commercial.

Could someone provide cites to support the case that this article is notable in software terms, in order to prevent its deletion being considered? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the previous AFD. It's a product carried by major retailers such as J&R Music and Computer World [1], CompUSA in their brick & mortar stores, [2] and has been reviewed by CNET, PCWorld, etc. [3] --Aude (talk) 20:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PC Pro (a major UK PC magazine aimed at the professional rather than home market) has had it in its 'A List' (the 'best' available in a number of categories) for a long time. The review of version 10 is [4]: ".. it's so popular here that we nominated it in the Software of the Year category at last month's PC Pro Awards. Alas, backup remains a little too unfashionable for it to walk away with the prize, but if every PC had a copy of Acronis True Image 10 installed, the vital process would surely become second nature to all. .. there's just nothing else that comes close to matching it for power, speed and its do-it-all nature. True Image 10 offers extensive options plus the ability to image your entire PC, and this powerful combination puts it head and shoulders above the competition." Lovingboth 09:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it matter if it is a "non-notable piece of software"? I find it quite useful to check up on products here on wikipedia, and if it really is a non notable piece of kit then it's nice to be able to find out. Additionally, it could be mentioned that this software is useful to clone hard disks if you are upgrading your primay drive - this is how it has been recommended to me. See this section for a description of the procedure: http://forum.thinkpads.com/viewtopic.php?t=27721

HRS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.90.20.137 (talk) 01:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Open source components

Is this product based on any Open Source software? Like Partimage? If so it might be nice to mention which projects they use for this product... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.88.244.4 (talk) 09:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was written from scratch AFAIK. However, it may have taken some ideas from Paragon partition manager since Acronis was founded by former Paragon employees.

However, they do use open source components (and who doesn't? The epoch of IBM-all-in-one ended long ago). They use Fox toolkit GUI library (check it: all TI's windows have class FXWindow) for cross-platformity (i guess). They also use a PKZIP-compatible archiver to make installer packages. — Vano 17:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General Revision

I am going to start making a number of changes to most of the sections. I am going to try and seperate to some degree Acronis True Image Home from the Enterprise range, such as Workstation and Enterprise Server. I will try and keep a list in this section of the changes i have made, so if anyone disagrees we fix it. Cheers. Oh, I also added a screenshot. Random110 23:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to remove the Supported backup locations segment. This is all very standard, and i don't see the point of it. I am also going to edit the Offline Editing section. Apart from the fact that i don't like the title, i don't feel everything needs to be explained as a comparison to Norton Ghost and the like. Random110 23:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reads like a product brochure

Everything in this article might be true (and probably is; I have read a ton of positive comments about True Image) but it does not have the feel of an encyclopedia article. It reads more like an advertisement. I don't think one lavishes praise on anyone or anything in an encyclopedia, no matter how wonderful a particular person, place or thing may happen to be. "Just the facts, m'am." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dratman (talk • contribs) 21:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

Resolved

– I've finally gotten around to actually merging the content, which required the copying and pasting of exactly one line. TIB (file format) now redirects here. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:46, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I've proposed that the article TIB (file format) be merged into this article. I had previously PRODed the article as it does not appear to have sufficient notability for its own article. While this was apparently premature on my part, I still feel the subject lacks sufficient notability independent of this program to merit its own article. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

It is a good idea ti add TIB file format with this article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.126.120.42 (talk) 19:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is not a bad idea to have an article about the .tib format, it as some notability, and besides, it will not clutter this article... SF007 (talk) 03:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean; there's almost no content in the article on .tib that isn't really a discussion of this article's subject. The section "Compatibility" is actually a discussion of True Image, while the one-liner on compatibility with VMware is the only tidbit of information that could be viewed as being specific to the file format, though really it could be easily and simply added to this article, likely in the "Limitations" section. A blurb saying "True Image's proprietary file format, .tib, is not well supported, with the only third-party application providing support being VMware". —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-added the merge notice; this merger is listed on the proposed mergers board. Please don't go and remove it when there is no consensus to do so. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not from wikipedia, and I don't know the rules here, but I think it was better to have separated articles... one about the software, and other about the file format (that can be used with other software)... It would make wikipedia more organized (just my opinion!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.241.113.32 (talk) 21:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well what can be easily done is put the info from .tib and put it in a section of this article, then make a redirect so that whenever someone searches for .tib they'll be pointed to the section on the file format. I think that's entirely reasonable considering the notability of the file format independent of the program can be summed up in one or two sentences. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still think having separated articles would be much more "cleaner"... I just don't see the point of merging articles based on "notability issues"... it would make a better wikipedia, isn't that what matters? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.241.113.32 (talk) 22:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think merging TIB is appropriate, since it is a format orginated by Acronis for True Image. Can link to separate detail within the article to elucidate on TIB, if desired.--24.118.74.154 (talk) 21:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that a merge/edit is appropriate as this format is application specific and proprietory. If there is a detailed & comprehensive article on file formats now or in the future then the TIB format should be included in it - I agree with links through 01:33:PM GMT 30 November 2008

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

ATI 2009 new/fixed features

Have ATI 12 come to support dynamic disks? How buggy is it compared to the previous version? It's worth adding some world 'bout that — Vano 17:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Acronis Universal Restore purpose?

doesnt this universal restore do exactly the same as the conventional windows repair installation which is available during setup booting from any xp cd by pressing R? so whats the point of it?!

Consumer Reaction

The software upon its release and continuing into 2010 was widely criticized in consumer-written product reviews, for perceived comprehension issues and interface shortcomings. (A Wikipedia editor with faster citation skills might cite PC Magazine / download.com for this.) Mydogtrouble (talk) 16:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added "and mixed" to "positive reviews." This leads me to wonder, since almost all reviews are mixed, of whether the statement is needed at all. Without me doing deep research on multiple sites, the reviews MAY be mostly positive. Suggestions? Mydogtrouble (talk) 16:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clobber the "positive" sentence (in fact, the entire thing about the user interface needs clobbered - it isn't simple to use... I'm a computer engineer and I found the interface to be rather poorly designed to the point that is was difficult to figure out how to do things(i.e. convert to a vhd)). But, as this is wikipedia we need external sources so bam: http://download.cnet.com/Acronis-True-Image-Home/3640-2242_4-11104699.html for lots of cnet reviews about the program. Some positive and some negative. One even mentions the interface being garbage. Aaron Myles Landwehr (talk) 03:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have found the word "image" a bit too "computer-ese" lingo, so added a clumsy link, first paragraph, to Wikipedia's "Disk image."

Mydogtrouble (talk) 14:03, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons for 2010-focused sections?

What makes the 2010 edition of Acronis special enough to deserve two sections (Acronis True Image 2010 and Compatibility) dedicated to it? It doesn't appear to be more significant than the other versions listed. Soren121 (talk) 19:35, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good question! Fleet Command (talk) 04:48, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it can be renamed to prominent features? Looks like the section is probably more of an advertisement than anything so it can probably be clobbered though. snaphat (talk) 00:12, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename article?

When this article was started Acronis True Image (TI) was a line of packages, TI Home, TI Enterprise, TI Corporate, etc. Now "TI" (not TI Home) is the home version; there is Acronis Backup, etc. for business use (see first para, modified moments ago). I suggest that the article should be renamed "Acronis backup software" (lower case, "Acronis Backup" is a particular package), or something similar, rather than spawning lots of sub-articles "Acronis Snap Deploy" etc. Pol098 (talk) 14:09, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.

Looks like Acronis has dropped "Home" and is now calling it "Acronis True Image" only. Its family seem to consist of "Acronis True Image for PC", "Acronis True Image for Mac" and "Acronis True Image Unlimited". So, I guess the current name is spot on.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 01:23, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that in the past "True Image" was a family of backup software with the same basic function but supporting a range of scales on the same platform family (mainly or entirely Windows/Windows Server), with TI Enterprise, TI Corporate, etc. etc. as well as TI Home. This article covered them all (e.g. there are specific mentions of True Image Echo Workstation and True Image Echo Enterprise Server in the article; what I would call the current versions are no longer called "TI" at all); after package renaming by Acronis it only covers the home versions. Now TI is only the home version, supplied for different platforms. Some current and older versions are named here. So either the article needs renaming as I suggested (or to some other name, but "Acronis backup software" seems to include everything), or we need additional articles "Acronis Backup" (now a package name in its own right; it didn't exist in the past), "Acronis Snap Deploy", etc. The business packages were, but are no longer, named "True Image >something<". And where do we discuss "Acronis Backup & Recovery 11", the successor to "Acronis True Image Echo >something< 9.x" I believe, in "True Image", "Acronis Backup" (capital B), "Acronis Backup & Recovery" (capital B, R), or in several places? I have used various versions of Acronis backup (small b) software on home machines and network servers and workstations since about TIv6, and the name change is very noticeable. Pol098 (talk) 12:13, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again

I do get your point. Let me quote you: You say there once was a whole family of different editions of Acronis. "Was" is enough. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and therefore cares a lot about history, i.e. how things once were. In addition, as I showed, currently there is "Acronis True Image >something< where >something< can be "for PC", "for Mac", for PC & Mac" and "Unlimited". So, although I understand your reasoning perfectly, I can't see how it entails a move.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 03:17, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that this article used to cover all Acronis Backup software, all of which was named True Image. Now it doesn't cover True Image Backup, Snap Server Deploy, Backup & Recovery, etc. So we either need to make one or more new articles for them, or include them in this article. It makes more sense, in my opinion, to include them here - they're fundamentally the same, with different details. We could add extra articles (VMware, VMware Player, VMware Server, VMware Workstation, VMware VMFS, VMware Fusion, VMware vSphere, VMware ESX, VMware ESXi, vCloud, VMware Horizon View, red- or relinked VMware NSX, vMotion Storage, VMware Converter). That seems mad to me, more marketing than encyclopaedia.

There are a few options:

do nothing to this article, covering only TI (now home software), together with old, but not new, professional backup software. Add lots of new articles, Acronis Snap Server Deploy, etc.
make no title change, but silently incorporate the new, non-True Image, packages in the article, leaving, e.g., True Image Echo Server here with the home software, and not including it in the new Acronis Backup Software (name, not description), its natural descendant.
rename this article so that it continues to encompass professional and home software. I see that as the preferred option; it does not change the spirit or content of this article. This last is my suggestion.

The essential change that has occurred is that "Acronis True Image" used to encompass all Acronis backup software, but no longer does. I would describe myself as a reductionist, and try to choose the approach which leads to least proliferation of articles with largely duplicated content, so prefer to keep it all in a single article. I'm very glad that Code Lisa has engaged here, but wish for a wider discussion (so I'm not wording this as a dialogue between two people!)

If I wanted to write about what was sold as "Acronis Backup & Recovery 11" (I don't), which is Acronis True Image Home with network support and live database backup more or less, and a descendant of TI Echo I think, where do I put it?

Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 11:30, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]