Acronis TrueImage vs IBM Rescue and Recovery

[Leon]

I use Acronis TrueImage for my external backups (IMHO, the best backup program). However, I like to have a "local" backup on my hard disk for possible emergencies on the road. My question is this:

IBM Rescue and Recovery is slower, and makes larger size backup files than Acronis TrueImage. Is there any advantage to making my "local" backup with IBM R&R?

[ibmuser]

Keep in mind the rather large file is not just bloat.
You can access the net and e-mail from within the recovery process with R&R. This means you can get files online if your system screws up - rather handy for a local backup program. Acronis is great, but rather more limited.

[s0larian]

What I didn't like about Acronis is the missing feature to exclude certain parts of your harddrive for the backup, what is easily possible within R&R.

R&R is very slow compared to Acronis, but I like the Rescue environment. It already helped me out to transfer important files to my network drive when XP was unable to start anymore. Acronis has a similiar feature, but as far as I remember not as strong.

The most important feature of R&R: It is the only Backup Program that can handle fully encrypted harddrives (at least with Safeguard Easy encrypted). Since I am using SGE I had to switch back from Acronis to R&R, but now I am happy with that solution, even when R&R is much slower.