Acronis says that it is taking market share away from the established players like Symantec as server virtualisation changes prompt customers to re-evaluate backup and recovery products. It's not that customers migrate backup data sets from, for example, BackupExec to Acronis. Instead the legacy backup software gets left behind …
You should read some threads on the Acronis forum
To get a feel for how long term and current customers feel about the product and the lack of attention/response to customers.
symantec vs acronis
i gave up on symantec since they decided to piss on its existing customers and dumped the old norton ghost when they bought the crappy PowerQuest DriveImage and re-labeled it as the new Ghost (Ghost v9)
Ghost v11.5 was the last version that i bought, because it still had the updated old dos mode ghost utility. Everything after that is pure crappy DriveImage code that cannot even READ OR RESTORE FROM the old .gho image format
I still use the dos mode Ghost when i need to make dos-bootable dvd disks that contain both the recovery tool and the disk image on the same disk. Saves a lot of time for re-imaging computers, i don't have to juggle two different disks and it even works with sata ahci disks or raid arrays :D
PLEASE for the love of [deity]
Somebody save us from the train wreck that is Symantec Backup Exec.
Seriously - you thought their catch phrase* spawning anti-virus was bad; you haven't seen anything. One would be forgiven for suspecting that Symantec's true mission in life is to quietly balls up all aspects of IT from the inside in some form of data in'terror'grity attack.
Relying on Backup Exec is like finding out the psycho-ex has been in your house while you were away on holiday. Things might look ok on the surface but better buy a new toothbrush just in case.
*The words responsible for 99% of system fixes: 'Have you tried uninstalling Norton?'
Used to love Acronis stuff
Many moons ago before switching from Windows to Mac, the two products I bought that were worth every penny were Acronis ones. Disk Director and True Image were worth their weight in gold and saved a couple of my family's machines on more than one occasion. I hope they maintain the high quality, unlike Symantec who're just interested in raking in the cash and bundling out dross.
Acronis needs to support users
I agree with AC - Acronis treat customers like carp. The user interface is unfathomable and not being able to recover from network backups is a serious gap in functionality.
Acronis Backup & Restore has "Symantec'ed" True Image
ATI and ADD were awesome, then someone decided to bring the Vista compatability and look, and now AB&R runs like pus.
Seriously, a backend code revamp was all that was needed for Vista/Win7/2008 compatibility, but no, they went all pretty graphics and forced the use of their flaky licensing server on everyone (even for a one license AB&R machine)
Definitely following in Symantec's footsteps :(
Currently trying Acronis True Image Home on windows 7, the user interface is misleading and confusing.
Sent a support call to query the inconsistencies (with screen shots) which would lead you to believe things are being backed up when they are not and all I got was a we've passed it on to the appropriate department, then I just get an email every couple of days asking if they have solved my query and if they can close it.
Product itself seems to work (once you have figured the issues) but the support appears very poor which is why I'll not be buying it.
Not so much snatching, more Symmantec loosing it
I don't if Acronis are really snatching market share; people are deserting Symmantec and Acronis are one of the companies picking up.
There are a whole bunch of new players now that are enjoying the demise of Symmantec. Acronis is a pretty basic product but had some neat features like their disaster recovery module.
But other companies are now are offering more than Acronis for less money.
For instance R1Soft have a CDP as part of their offering. Something that Acronis doesnt offer.
Then there is Cofio's AIMstor. That also has a really good disaster recovery offering plus the ability to mix realtime CDP and scheduled backups with de-duplication. Has probably the most innovative interface i've seen.
For Virtual environments, Veeam is probably the best product on the market. But its completely limited to Virtual so you might end up requiring another product so might not work for everyone.
OK product, very average support
Agree with most of the posters.
I use Acronis for my personal computers as well as those for my small business. Initial setup (and the occasional tweak when needed) is a bit arcane. And yes, support is minimal. One time I had a fairly terminal issue, and their belated response was install the latest version. It worked, mind you, but the speed and comprehensiveness of response did not inspire confidence.
Have never had to recover yet (touch wood) so cannot vouch for whole of cycle integrity. But in the end, *anything* is better than Norton/Symantec.
every article involving Symantec end up being a load of people slagging off Norton - when we are talking about backup?
From my experience most bad experiences are a result of bad installs, misperception and/or bad training - classic case in point a well known Integrator was complaining that NetBackup wasn't working properly and lacked the functionality and wanted to replace it with Commvault.
Turns out after doing some on site work they hadn't updated the software in ages and weren't aware of the newer features that would address their issues that they were entitled to. 6 months on and they are a very happy user. Its very easy to point the finger at the vendor, but we need to also take more responsibility for our own shortcomings!