Talk:Acronis True Image

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

[edit] 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)

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)
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)

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)

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] 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)

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)