Time Machine: Spit!!!
in [UK Mac]
|
From: Dorian Gray on 19 Nov 2009 07:18 In article <0001HW.C72AE2CF05762AF9B01029BF(a)news.individual.net>, Hugh Browton <useneth@**.not.uk> wrote: > On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 10:49:49 +0000, Sak Wathanasin wrote > (in article > <a5f17fd8-7d8a-4fdb-b311-bdf11116238b(a)j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>): > > > I use TM at home, where it's better than nothing, and Use Retrospect > > in the office, but that has its foibles too (the worst is that it > > won't wake the Mac up to do a backup). > > I use Personal Backup from Intego - simple enough and doesn't encrypt the > backup. Previous version (4) had best settings and interface - current > version (5) a bit more tricksie - why do they do that? I use SugarSync, takes a long time in the background the first time, but then keeps whatever you choose constantly remotely backed up, with versioning, and syncing across machines of arbitrary platforms. If you like, let me know if you want to sign up, if I send you an invite we both get some free space.
From: Chris Ridd on 19 Nov 2009 13:18 On 2009-11-19 18:02:21 +0000, David Sankey said: > Not TM, but my biggest surprise was that upgrading Tiger to Leopard > turns the firewall off. The two firewalls are rather different, so that was probably the safest and most compatible option. -- Chris
From: R on 19 Nov 2009 14:05 Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > Isn't that the thinking behind *everything* on Macs these days? > > Apple provides stuff for numpties and for the Gods - the rest of us can > go hang. If it did not already exist, would Apple invent AppleScript today?
From: T i m on 19 Nov 2009 15:33 On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 19:20:59 +0000, thewildrover(a)me.com (Andy Hewitt) wrote: >> > >> > I'm backing up my Mini (in fact only parts of it) to SWMBO's Mini using >> > TM. I've had no noticeable issues with it. >> >> Now that I'm emerging from upgrade from Tiger to Leopard I would say >> that Time Machine seems to be doing exactly what I want so far. > >Yes, similarly here. I agree it isn't without faults, but it does all I >need it too here. As I mentioned a bit back I'm using one of these: http://www.maplin.co.uk/module.aspx?moduleno=341961 Plug it into your PC/Mac and into yer USB drive and it does it all for you. I've been running it after every big batch of document scanning and the file count seems to reflect pretty accurately what I've been doing. Probably not expensive or unpredictable (or white) enough for most Mac users but that makes it perfect for me. ;-) Cheers, T i m
From: Andy Hewitt on 19 Nov 2009 16:47
T i m <news(a)spaced.me.uk> wrote: > On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 19:20:59 +0000, thewildrover(a)me.com (Andy Hewitt) > wrote: > > > >> > > >> > I'm backing up my Mini (in fact only parts of it) to SWMBO's Mini using > >> > TM. I've had no noticeable issues with it. > >> > >> Now that I'm emerging from upgrade from Tiger to Leopard I would say > >> that Time Machine seems to be doing exactly what I want so far. > > > >Yes, similarly here. I agree it isn't without faults, but it does all I > >need it too here. > > As I mentioned a bit back I'm using one of these: > > http://www.maplin.co.uk/module.aspx?moduleno=341961 But that's another �30 on top of a hard drive, and as far as I can see, doesn't really have any advantage over Time Machine. It also doesn't seem to have anyway to control what drives are backed up either (reading the FAQ answers) - I have four external volumes here, which I exclude from Time Machine, as they are for storage of large stuff, like scratch file, my Aperture Library, and the backup Vaults for that, as well as a Super Duper clone. You actually need to exclude the Aperture Library from live backups while Aperture is in use - that's more to do with how Aperture uses the library though. > Plug it into your PC/Mac and into yer USB drive and it does it all for > you. So does Time Machine if you leave it at default settings, which most probably will do. OK, so it's one click to say 'Yes' (or 'No') to using an external drive for Time Machine, but big deal. > I've been running it after every big batch of document scanning and > the file count seems to reflect pretty accurately what I've been > doing. > > Probably not expensive or unpredictable (or white) enough for most Mac > users but that makes it perfect for me. ;-) Erm, it's *more* expensive than my current Mac setup! Time Machine is included with the OS, and seems to work predictably enough on my system - at least as *I* expect it to work anyway :-). Possibly a good solution for those on older systems that don't have Time Machine though. -- Andy Hewitt <http://web.me.com/andrewhewitt1/> |