Macrium Free vs Macrium Pay

[bigmck]

I am using the free version. I have visited the site and read what the pay version does. As far as I can tell the incremental backups is really the only thing that seems worthwhile. I was just curious if anyone has tried the pay version and found a feature that made it worth paying for. Thanks,

 

[Lady Fitzgerald]

I bought the Pro version because, at the time, I was using just my new notebook that was using the C: partition for both the OS, programs, and data. I didn't want to mess around with the HDD on my sole working computer so being able to do incremental images of a HDD with over 300GB on it was really attractive. One additional feature of the Pro version was it can install an image onto dissimilar hardware, such as an image from one MOBO to another MOBO, by finding incompatible drivers on the new installation and replacing them with compatible drivers.

Now that I have two working computers, I was able to take my notebook back to the factory state and resize the partitions so I could keep my OS/programs separate from my data. The data I don't worry much about backing up since it's all taken from my desktop rig which is backed up to the teeth. Imaging the boot partition takes only a dozen minutes or so so I don't really need incremental imaging anymore.

Being able to install an image from one MOBO to another one is attractive but I do not feel that alone is worth the cost of the upgrade since one can always do a clean install. The tech support that comes with the paid versions can be had here.

I don't regret getting the Pro version because it met a need I had at the time but, when the next version comes out, I'll probably go with the free one or stay with what I have since it should still work for me.

 

[whs]

I use free Macrium since years and never felt a need for the pro version. I find incremental or even differential images to be of little value (especially in light of today's cheap HDD space) and make only full images that are much easier to manage and less risky. And the extra time it takes for a full image does not bother me either because I run my images in the background whilst I am doing other work.

 

[kado897]

I bought the pay version two years back with version 4. The reasons.

1. PE recovery disk. The Linux one was a bit iffy.
2. Incremental/differential backups
3. File and folder backups.

Not sure if I would again. There are good free alternatives that do that.

 

[Lady Fitzgerald]

I bought the pay version two years back with version 4. The reasons.

1. PE recovery disk. The Linux one was a bit iffy.
2. Incremental/differential backups
3. File and folder backups.

Not sure if I would again. There are good free alternatives that do that.

According to Macrium's feature comparison chart, the free version also has the PE recovery disk.

 

[fireberd]

I bought Macrium. I had been using Aconis and after Acronis failed me in restoring (the third time) I looked for another backup program. I tried the free version and liked it so I decided to buy it and support them.

If we don't support people/companies that provide free software eventually there will either not be any free version or the software will be gone completely.

 

[kado897]

I bought the pay version two years back with version 4. The reasons.

1. PE recovery disk. The Linux one was a bit iffy.
2. Incremental/differential backups
3. File and folder backups.

Not sure if I would again. There are good free alternatives that do that.

According to Macrium's feature comparison chart, the free version also has the PE recovery disk.

We are talking version 4 here and I don't think the Windows PE disk was available with the free version then.

 

[Lady Fitzgerald]

I bought the pay version two years back with version 4. The reasons.

1. PE recovery disk. The Linux one was a bit iffy.
2. Incremental/differential backups
3. File and folder backups.

Not sure if I would again. There are good free alternatives that do that.

According to Macrium's feature comparison chart, the free version also has the PE recovery disk.

We are talking version 4 here and I don't think the Windows PE disk was available with the free version then.

I stand corrected...no...wait...I'm sitting...I sit corrected.

 

[bigmck]

If we don't support people/companies that provide free software eventually there will either not be any free version or the software will be gone completely.

That is one point that is easily forgotten and needs to be stated. == Thanks to everyone for your info on the pay version.

 

[Mark Phelps]

For a comparison of the features, see the following link: Macrium Reflect FREE Edition - Information and download

I upgraded to the Pro version for the "restore to dissimilar hardware" feature -- which, to me, was worth the price difference over Standard.

 

[SIW2]

I upgraded to the Pro version for the "restore to dissimilar hardware" feature -- which, to me, was worth the price difference over Standard.

Yes that feature is worth having.

Paragon has the same kind of thing - it is better imo as it can get any system booting, even if restored by a different imaging program. You can point it at the drive after a restore. As far as I know, the others only work during their own restore process. It also has a handy feature to reset the os drive letter, sometimes other imaging programs don't correct that properly, also useful after copying one os partition to another.

 

[spencer1]

I use free Macrium since years and never felt a need for the pro version. I find incremental or even differential images to be of little value (especially in light of today's cheap HDD space) and make only full images that are much easier to manage and less risky. And the extra time it takes for a full image does not bother me either because I run my images in the background whilst I am doing other work.

I vaguely remember reading that incremental & differential backups may ruin the integrity of the image (or something along those lines). Does this have any truth to it?

 

[kado897]

No. The base image is not touched. The problem, if any, lies in there being more than one image file involved in any restore which can reduce the integrity. In this respect incremental images are more problematic than differential because there are more files involved. A problem with any one of them makes later elements in the incremental chain useless. A differential has only two files reducing the exposure to corruption.

 

[Lady Fitzgerald]

I use free Macrium since years and never felt a need for the pro version. I find incremental or even differential images to be of little value (especially in light of today's cheap HDD space) and make only full images that are much easier to manage and less risky. And the extra time it takes for a full image does not bother me either because I run my images in the background whilst I am doing other work.

I vaguely remember reading that incremental & differential backups may ruin the integrity of the image (or something along those lines). Does this have any truth to it?

No. The base image is not touched. The problem, if any, lies in there being more than one image file involved in any restore which can reduce the integrity. In this respect incremental images are more problematic than differential because there are more files involved. A problem with any one of them makes later elements in the incremental chain useless. A differential has only two files reducing the exposure to corruption.

To expand on kado897's response, an even bigger danger than corruption with multiple files is having a file get lost. With differential images, all one needs is the last full image and the latest differential image of the last full image to ensure a successful restoration. With incremental images, one must have the last full image and every incremental image made after the last full image to be able to do a successful restoration. The more incremental images between the last full image, the higher the likelihood of one getting lost (or corrupted, as kado897 pointed out).

Differential images are of all the changes in data—additions, deletions, modifications—made since the last full image was made. The advantage of differential images is they are faster to make since they only include the data that has changed since the last full image was made and one only needs the last full image and one differential image to restore a drive to the date of that differential image. The disadvantage is each new differential image takes longer to make than previous differential image since all changes in data since the last full image are being included in the differential image.

Incremental images are of all the changes made since the last image was made, be it the last full image or the last incremental image. The advantage of incremental images are each one is faster to make since it only includes the latest data changes and will not keep increasing in size and the time to make them. This can be a huge savings in time and storage space if one has a very large drive being imaged. The disadvantage of incremental images is you have to have every image between the last full image and the incremental image being restored to have a successful restoration. This can become a nightmare if one goes very long between full images.

 

[bigmck]

To expand on kado897's response, an even bigger danger than corruption with multiple files is having a file get lost. With differential images, all one needs is the last full image and the latest differential image of the last full image to ensure a successful restoration. With incremental images, one must have the last full image and every incremental image made after the last full image to be able to do a successful restoration. The more incremental images between the last full image, the higher the likelihood of one getting lost (or corrupted, as kado897 pointed out).

Differential images are of all the changes in data—additions, deletions, modifications—made since the last full image was made. The advantage of differential images is they are faster to make since they only include the data that has changed since the last full image was made and one only needs the last full image and one differential image to restore a drive to the date of that differential image. The disadvantage is each new differential image takes longer to make than previous differential image since all changes in data since the last full image are being included in the differential image.

Incremental images are of all the changes made since the last image was made, be it the last full image or the last incremental image. The advantage of incremental images are each one is faster to make since it only includes the latest data changes and will not keep increasing in size and the time to make them. This can be a huge savings in time and storage space if one has a very large drive being imaged. The disadvantage of incremental images is you have to have every image between the last full image and the incremental image being restored to have a successful restoration. This can become a nightmare if one goes very long between full images.

After reading your excellent post, it seems to me that doing a full image each time is preferable for me. I have them done once a week while I sleep and delete the older ones every once in a while and keep only the three latest ones. Thanks,

 

[fireberd]

I only do full backups. Where I worked, before retirement, on our file servers, we initially did a full backup Monday night and then incrementals, Tuesday through Friday nights. If a server needed to be restored it took a relatively long time and the person (usually a tech) had to be careful that the incremental restores were done correctly in the proper order. After evaluating the procedure, it was changed to a full backup every night. That resulted in (1) a quicker restore and (2) with only one backup there wasn't any chance for a mix up.

In my own case, I have two hard drives that I use for backups, and I alternate the drives when backing up. If a backup hard drive would fail (Murphy's law) I still have the other.

 

[Lady Fitzgerald]

I only do full backups. Where I worked, before retirement, on our file servers, we initially did a full backup Monday night and then incrementals, Tuesday through Friday nights. If a server needed to be restored it took a relatively long time and the person (usually a tech) had to be careful that the incremental restores were done correctly in the proper order. After evaluating the procedure, it was changed to a full backup every night. That resulted in (1) a quicker restore and (2) with only one backup there wasn't any chance for a mix up.

In my own case, I have two hard drives that I use for backups, and I alternate the drives when backing up. If a backup hard drive would fail (Murphy's law) I still have the other.

That all is pretty much what I have done. the only significant difference is I have two local HDDs I use for backups but, instead of alternating them, I do a full weekly backup (more often if I have dumped a lot of data on them in a short period of time or the data is critical) on both of them, one right after the other (I clone my data drives to make access the data eaiser and run the backups overnight so I don't care how long it takes; I image the boot drive which gets saved to the main data drive and that gets backed up). 'Tis a bit more hassle but it would be my luck (curse Murphy and his stupid law, anyway) that the more recent drive—the one with the most recent data—would be the one to die. Having two local backups (I also keep a third in a safe deposit box at my credit union which, depending on the amount of data added since the last swap, I swap out no less than once a month) means, if a data drive dies in my computer, I can plug one of the backups into the 3.5" hot swap bay in my computer and use it to access and add data until I can get and install a replacement HDD for the one that died and still have a backup HDD that I'm not using actively, subjecting it to an increased chance of data corruption or loss.

 

[dsperber]

For me, two major features which prompted me to "pay the highly qualified software vendor for its excellent software and ongoing maintenance" are:

(1) support for (including email assistance) and ongoing product maintenance and development, which in all honesty really does need to be paid for and should not be expected to be provided "for free".

(2) "space management", meaning automatic self-maintaining deletion of older backup versions once a user-specified generation limit is reached. This guarantees a self-maintained automatic maximum number of generations, both for image backups as well as for folder/file backups. No manual attention or "pruning" is required as is the case with the FREE version.

Years back, there was a serious problem with the free version (standalone Linux restore of an "image"). Theoretically, Macrium doesn't provide support for the free version. But in light of the significance of the issue I was reporting to them (and the detrimental consequences of that bug on my hard drives) they obviously felt "parental" and provided me with complete advice for resolution, as well as a new updated/fixed version of the RESTORE function within a day... even though this was the FREE version.

I have been a thankful and loyal Macrium STANDARD (non-free) user ever since, installing the paid version on every machine I build out for friends and family. This is a terrific group of software developers of a terrific product (I use the WinPE standalone CD in an emergency as well as the Boot Manager recovery option for the few real world disaster situations I've faced), and they deserve to be paid for their work.

 

[whs]

After reading your excellent post, it seems to me that doing a full image each time is preferable for me

I absolutely agree. Full images are the easiest to manage and the safest too.

 

[kado897]

I do full images weekly and fill in the gap with daily differentials. This means that I have very little data loss in the event I need to restore. It also means that I am more likely to restore than spend hours undoing changes.