Backup software
in [Mac Systems]
|
From: Daniel Cohen on 4 Oct 2007 10:39 The New Guy <replytogroup(a)here.thanks> wrote: > Well there's only one user. Me. The end. I hate the way Apple has > the Users stuff. So needless for most of us. Fine if you have > multiple people on it. But unless you're dead broke, buy another > computer for the other person. The computer is such a tool - I can't > imagine waiting to use it. Even for daily use, I prefer not to run as an admin user. So that means two users at least. Makes for slightly more hassle, but safer. -- http://www.decohen.com Send e-mail to the Reply-To address; mail to the From address is never read
From: Jim Gibson on 4 Oct 2007 13:01 In article <replytogroup-8691A1.21041003102007(a)news.lga.highwinds-media.com>, The New Guy <replytogroup(a)here.thanks> wrote: > > > > J.J writes: [instructions for backing up a single folder in Retrospect] > > Yes - you got that right. It would be smart to design it for the type > of backup right from the start so a beginner like me doesn't get > distracted with irrelevant stuff. This is vital actually as this is > a perfect example of why many other beginners don't backup their stuff > more often. Because most people want to (and should) back up their entire disk. > It should be brain dead easy right off the bat. Retrospect is not designed for the computer illiterate. Super Duper! and Silverkeeper are pretty dead easy. However, Retrospect is designed for more complex installations. As such it has power and flexibility, which come with complications. Pick your tool: powerful and complex, simple and easy. > Also, it > should ask the size that's going to be backed up so then it can give > destination options. If its over 9gb optical discs are out of the > question. I haven't used it this way, but I am sure that Retrospect, when it fills any type of removable disk (floppy, optical) will ask you to remove the full disk and insert another, empty disk, then proceed. > Almost nobody uses tape anymore so external hard drives are > the natural choice. Options like zip and floppy seem to be crazy in > this day and age. And what is a "removable disk"? Is that a hot > swappable hard drive? The disk is removable, not the drive. See <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Removable_media> > I thought a disc is a DVD or CD and a disk is a > hard drive. That is correct. > Why not say hard drive? Because not everybody is using a hard drive. > And since 99% of users will use > an external hard drive with a USB, Firewire or eSata connection, why > not just say External Hard Drive? I back up to an "internal hard drive (ATA)". There are millions of computer systems out there, very few alike. You can't expect a vendor to cater to your system and the unique way you use it. You need to put in a little effort to understand the software you are trying to use. > Wording is very important. So is comprehension. -- Jim Gibson Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services ---------------------------------------------------------- ** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY ** ---------------------------------------------------------- http://www.usenet.com
From: TaliesinSoft on 4 Oct 2007 13:04 On Thu, 4 Oct 2007 09:39:09 -0500, Daniel Cohen wrote (in article <1i5gjmp.1092ckoqg49aN%danspam(a)f2s.com>): > By the way, though I currently use SuperDuper for cloning, I amy move to > Carbon Copy Cloner now the new version is out. Works with Tiger (I think > the old one didn't) and has a few advantages over SuperDuper. Would you elaborate on what those advantages are. -- James Leo Ryan ..... Austin, Texas ..... taliesinsoft(a)mac.com
From: The New Guy on 4 Oct 2007 15:55 > > Yes - you got that right. It would be smart to design it for the type > > of backup right from the start so a beginner like me doesn't get > > distracted with irrelevant stuff. This is vital actually as this is > > a perfect example of why many other beginners don't backup their stuff > > more often. > > Because most people want to (and should) back up their entire disk. But that takes a lot of time for most of us. So we don't do it enough especially as its a resource hog. Especially if some of us don't leave the machine on 24/7. So backing up frequently used files more frequently makes a lot of sense. I don't need to back up 50+gbs of programs as often as email and documents I'm modifying hourly. What would be interesting is to see a computer case with all the drives in some sort of fire/theft proof safe. You could have 10k whiners in there and not hear a thing. Just figure a way to ventilate the thing. > > It should be brain dead easy right off the bat. > > Retrospect is not designed for the computer illiterate. Super Duper! > and Silverkeeper are pretty dead easy. However, Retrospect is designed > for more complex installations. As such it has power and flexibility, > which come with complications. Pick your tool: powerful and complex, > simple and easy. Yes - I'm realizing that. > > Also, it > > should ask the size that's going to be backed up so then it can give > > destination options. If its over 9gb optical discs are out of the > > question. > > I haven't used it this way, but I am sure that Retrospect, when it > fills any type of removable disk (floppy, optical) will ask you to > remove the full disk and insert another, empty disk, then proceed. Right. > > I thought a disc is a DVD or CD and a disk is a > > hard drive. > > That is correct. > > > Why not say hard drive? > > Because not everybody is using a hard drive. I guess, but for probably 99% of home users an external, hot swappable hard drive is the perfect backup choice. As long as its stored away from the main computer in case the main computer gets stolen. I would venture to guess that often they just leave it sitting right beside the main computer most of the time. A wireless setup would be cool. Wireless right to that safe! :) > > And since 99% of users will use > > an external hard drive with a USB, Firewire or eSata connection, why > > not just say External Hard Drive? > > I back up to an "internal hard drive (ATA)". There are millions of > computer systems out there, very few alike. You can't expect a vendor > to cater to your system and the unique way you use it. You need to put > in a little effort to understand the software you are trying to use. > > > Wording is very important. > > So is comprehension. Lol....you got me there! :)
From: =?ISO-8859-9?Q?Kir=E1ly?= on 4 Oct 2007 16:54
The New Guy <replytogroup(a)here.thanks> wrote: > Sorry - I despise the Dock. Never found it useful for anything. I > have hundreds of folders, thousands of files and pages of > Applications. I try to fill each column from top to bottom so I don't > have to scroll down. Also I have to frequently reorganize folders. > The less column hopping the better. You don't need to use the Dock. Whatever method you are using to open your boot drive right now can be configured to open your home folder. Do you Double click a desktop icon? Control-option-command-drag your home folder to the desktop. You now have a double-clickable alias that will get you right to your home folder. You can then configure your folders inside your home folder the same way you organize them now, with no difference to the amount of Finder clicking or scrolling you need to do compared to what you do now. > Well there's only one user. Me. The end. I hate the way Apple has > the Users stuff. So needless for most of us. Fine if you have > multiple people on it. But unless you're dead broke, buy another > computer for the other person. The computer is such a tool - I can't > imagine waiting to use it. There are all sorts of reasons to have more than one user account even if you are the only user. First of all, if an app starts to misbehave (it crashes on launch, etc) logging in to a second user account and trying the app there is step one for troubleshooting. Also, sometimes user accounts can get corrupted and you can't log in to them. Having a spare user account around for emergency use can make troubleshooting and recovery a whole lot easier. Finally, having a spare admin account allows you to run your regular user account as a non-admin account. Apple recommends doing exactly this, for security reasons. > Spotlight is great if I don't know where it is. And its kind of cool > spelling the first few letters to arrive at something. But with all > my files and folders there are going to many times where I have to > still scroll down lists of similar names to arrive at the right one. > Might as well use Finder. Or Pathfinder. Or Macintosh Explorer. All > have their advantages and disadvantages. I have my files and folders organized into subfolders too. But Spotlight can find any of them in a fraction of the time it would take mouse clicking and Finder to find the same file. Try it yourself. Once I discovered how much of a timesaver Spotlight is for opening files/apps, I quickly abandoned mousing around with Finder for these tasks. > No. Need to find software that listens to the user. Or you could just invest a few minutes and learn to use the system efficiently as it was intended, instead of trying to fight with it. -- K. Lang may your lum reek. |