Time Machine: Spit!!!
in [UK Mac]
|
From: zoara on 21 Nov 2009 05:57 T i m <news(a)spaced.me.uk> wrote: [Non-TM backup system] > it does it all for you. > > I've been running it If you have to run it, then it isn't doing it all for you. -zoara- -- email: nettid1 at fastmail dot fm
From: T i m on 21 Nov 2009 06:18 On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 10:34:23 +0000, thewildrover(a)me.com (Andy Hewitt) wrote: >> But not truly automated. > >Huh! Apart from clicking on 'Use this drive', it is. Ok, for OSX 10.5 - agreed. ;-) I wonder what percentage of Macs out there are running 10.5? Out of interest, are the files on a TM backup accessible from a Mac that doesn't have TM? > >> The software from the dongle offers scheduling and more. I didn't >> mention it because within the constraints of it's use for the people >> I'm talking about it would never be used. > >Quite possibly. Quite definitely! If you couldn't get them to do a backup that didn't involve any more than just plugging summat in you won't get them configuring anything! ;-) > >> Oh I have no doubts there are 'better' and better vfm options out >> there but as you say, none so easy to set up. > >Super Duper isn't so bad. Maybe my 'Mac backup' experience is tainted by the time I tried to duplicate the internal drive onto an external drive (with your assistance if I remember) and just ended up with corrupted drives and millions of permissions errors. I've done the same process probably hundreds of times on Windows (and Novell) stuff with rarely an issue. I'm sure it was just me or the particular hardware I was using but as I don't have any background or real exposure to Mac's outside what I've got here it wasn't very encouraging. > >I'm not so sure it's really a case of which is the easier to use, it's >getting them to understand the importance of a backup in the first >place. Oh indeed, and the grist of my point with this. Easy whilst being competent. > > >> Np. It's not often that I find a gadget that I believe would / could >> really make peoples lives that much easier but I think this is one of >> them. > >I agree, it's a real shame it won't work with older Mac OSs, otherwise I >may have been keener :-) Oh, fully understood and I didn't realise how limited it's Mac support was until you mentioned. I should have known I guess. <ducks> > � It would actually have some value for those >of my family that haven't got Time Machine. Yup, shame. A bit American and 'sales' but he does cover the key points and their products. No good for you gurus but think of the great unwashed. The viewer and restore features are nearly as easy as the backup (as I'm sure they would be under TM, if you had it etc). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7yimoD9IoA >Nice setup. I gave up on DVD backups a while back. I think I'd need a >pack of 50 for every backup (assuming a full backup, rather than >incremental). Doh! Cheers, T i m
From: Andy Hewitt on 21 Nov 2009 08:05 T i m <news(a)spaced.me.uk> wrote: > On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 10:34:23 +0000, thewildrover(a)me.com (Andy Hewitt) > wrote: > > >> But not truly automated. > > > >Huh! Apart from clicking on 'Use this drive', it is. > > Ok, for OSX 10.5 - agreed. ;-) I wonder what percentage of Macs out > there are running 10.5? Quite a lot I suspect. IIRC 10.5 was the fastest selling OS from Apple so far. One article I found says 18% of Mac users for 10.6 in the first month. It might be possible that there's proportionally more Mac users on the latest OS than there are with Windows - IYSWIM? > Out of interest, are the files on a TM backup accessible from a Mac > that doesn't have TM? Yes, they're just stored in a standard folder structure. A 'sparsebundle' if it's on a network, which is still openable on any Mac. > >> The software from the dongle offers scheduling and more. I didn't > >> mention it because within the constraints of it's use for the people > >> I'm talking about it would never be used. > > > >Quite possibly. > > Quite definitely! If you couldn't get them to do a backup that didn't > involve any more than just plugging summat in you won't get them > configuring anything! ;-) Well, yes, there is that. I tend to find it's more a 'afraid to break something', than ' can't be arsed'. > >> Oh I have no doubts there are 'better' and better vfm options out > >> there but as you say, none so easy to set up. > > > >Super Duper isn't so bad. > > Maybe my 'Mac backup' experience is tainted by the time I tried to > duplicate the internal drive onto an external drive (with your > assistance if I remember) and just ended up with corrupted drives and > millions of permissions errors. I've done the same process probably > hundreds of times on Windows (and Novell) stuff with rarely an issue. > I'm sure it was just me or the particular hardware I was using but as > I don't have any background or real exposure to Mac's outside what > I've got here it wasn't very encouraging. Hmm, no idea what you did there, my experiene is exactly the opposite. > >I'm not so sure it's really a case of which is the easier to use, it's > >getting them to understand the importance of a backup in the first > >place. > > Oh indeed, and the grist of my point with this. Easy whilst being > competent. > > >> Np. It's not often that I find a gadget that I believe would / could > >> really make peoples lives that much easier but I think this is one of > >> them. > > > >I agree, it's a real shame it won't work with older Mac OSs, otherwise I > >may have been keener :-) > > Oh, fully understood and I didn't realise how limited it's Mac support > was until you mentioned. I should have known I guess. <ducks> That's got nowt to do with this case. Here we have a supported device, which actually has no point, as it's only duplicating what's already available to all users of Mac OS 10.5>, but at extra cost. > > ˜ It would actually have some value for those > >of my family that haven't got Time Machine. > > Yup, shame. > > A bit American and 'sales' but he does cover the key points and their > products. No good for you gurus but think of the great unwashed. The > viewer and restore features are nearly as easy as the backup (as I'm > sure they would be under TM, if you had it etc). > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7yimoD9IoA Hmm, yes, much clearer actually, and I think clear it isn't in fact a direct replacement for Time Machine. As I read it, from what he was saying, it searches and finds specific files on the source drive, such as photos, music, documents, etc. It does not appear to copy *everything*, so you couldn't, for example' restore to recreate a bootable system disk again (the QA at Maplins confirms this too). Time Machine actually does make a copy of the entire drive, so you can recreate a complete bootable copy of your original system disk, or any disks attached. Still, it does at least enable restoration of the most important files, it is better than no backup, as you say. Cheers. -- Andy Hewitt <http://web.me.com/andrewhewitt1/>
From: T i m on 21 Nov 2009 09:04 On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 13:05:01 +0000, thewildrover(a)me.com (Andy Hewitt) wrote: >> Ok, for OSX 10.5 - agreed. ;-) I wonder what percentage of Macs out >> there are running 10.5? > >Quite a lot I suspect. IIRC 10.5 was the fastest selling OS from Apple >so far. One article I found says 18% of Mac users for 10.6 in the first >month. Quite good as you say. > >It might be possible that there's proportionally more Mac users on the >latest OS than there are with Windows - IYSWIM? You are probably right again. I wonder if proportionally more Mac users are 'interested' in such things? > >> Out of interest, are the files on a TM backup accessible from a Mac >> that doesn't have TM? > >Yes, they're just stored in a standard folder structure. Ok good. > A >'sparsebundle' if it's on a network, which is still openable on any Mac. OK. > > >Well, yes, there is that. I tend to find it's more a 'afraid to break >something', than ' can't be arsed'. Oh, ok. > >> >> Oh I have no doubts there are 'better' and better vfm options out >> >> there but as you say, none so easy to set up. >> > >> >Super Duper isn't so bad. >> >> Maybe my 'Mac backup' experience is tainted by the time I tried to >> duplicate the internal drive onto an external drive (with your >> assistance if I remember) and just ended up with corrupted drives and >> millions of permissions errors. I've done the same process probably >> hundreds of times on Windows (and Novell) stuff with rarely an issue. >> I'm sure it was just me or the particular hardware I was using but as >> I don't have any background or real exposure to Mac's outside what >> I've got here it wasn't very encouraging. > >Hmm, no idea what you did there, You did, you talked me though it, several times / ways! ;-) > my experiene is exactly the opposite. I thought it was going to be really easy and the actual procedure was .... just that it didn't actually work and I ended up just fitting the new drive internally and re-installing OSX from scratch. The old internal drive still works happily in the same external enclosure though. > >> >I agree, it's a real shame it won't work with older Mac OSs, otherwise I >> >may have been keener :-) >> >> Oh, fully understood and I didn't realise how limited it's Mac support >> was until you mentioned. I should have known I guess. <ducks> > >That's got nowt to do with this case. This case as in your case or as we are talking now? > Here we have a supported device, >which actually has no point, as it's only duplicating what's already >available to all users of Mac OS 10.5>, but at extra cost. Indeed, but I was including older versions of OSX in the 'limited' case, it supports Windows back as far as 2000. And it isn't duplicating what 'all users of 10.5> have' as 10.5> doesn't also come with an external drive does it, so what are folk going TM onto if they only have one machine? So they could buy the ClickFree 'Drive'. Except as you say, there is no point over a basic drive (bigger for less etc) if you have and like TM. > >> >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7yimoD9IoA > >Hmm, yes, much clearer actually, and I think clear it isn't in fact a >direct replacement for Time Machine. As I read it, from what he was >saying, it searches and finds specific files on the source drive, such >as photos, music, documents, etc. It does not appear to copy >*everything*, so you couldn't, for example' restore to recreate a >bootable system disk again (the QA at Maplins confirms this too). Absolutely. I have said all along 'data' (although it will back up an entire machine, not I suspect a disk image). > >Time Machine actually does make a copy of the entire drive, so you can >recreate a complete bootable copy of your original system disk, or any >disks attached. I wasn't trying to suggest is was as good as TM. I was suggesting it might be better than TM for those people who didn't like TM or hadn't got it and wanted a hands off backup solution with drive. ;-) > >Still, it does at least enable restoration of the most important files, >it is better than no backup, as you say. Zakly. ;-) Cheers, T i m p.s. I originally posted about this in the hope it might be of use to those who also have some input to friends / family with (primarily) Windows machines and that it might give said an easy solution for at least their data. I mentioned it here because at the time I thought it 'also did Mac's'. It turns out (when you mentioned and I looked into it. I had no data to back up on a Mac so didn't try it up to then) that support is less than it could have been (<< fact not dig). I mean, it would have been so much nicer had it even worked on 10.4 for example (and I don't know that it won't, just they don't say that it will).
From: Andy Hewitt on 21 Nov 2009 09:46
T i m <news(a)spaced.me.uk> wrote: > On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 13:05:01 +0000, thewildrover(a)me.com (Andy Hewitt) > wrote: [..] > >Hmm, no idea what you did there, > > You did, you talked me though it, several times / ways! ;-) Ah yes! [..] > >That's got nowt to do with this case. > > This case as in your case or as we are talking now? I think I misunderstood your use of 'support'.... > > Here we have a supported device, > >which actually has no point, as it's only duplicating what's already > >available to all users of Mac OS 10.5>, but at extra cost. > > Indeed, but I was including older versions of OSX in the 'limited' > case, it supports Windows back as far as 2000. And it isn't > duplicating what 'all users of 10.5> have' as 10.5> doesn't also come > with an external drive does it, so what are folk going TM onto if they > only have one machine? So they could buy the ClickFree 'Drive'. > Except as you say, there is no point over a basic drive (bigger for > less etc) if you have and like TM. ....obviously I did. I understand now, and yes, you're right. From an ease of use, and a 'I want to backup the most important stuff' perspective, I see little difference between the two solutions. One thing also not clear about the Clickfree box, and touching slightly on an earlier issue, what happens with files deleted off the source? Is this a true 'incremental' backup, so that the backup will match the source at all times, including removing files no longer existing on the source. Or does it keep all files regardless, in the same manner as Time Machine, so that you have a rolling history? Which brings me back to the earlier 'warning dialogue' issue that came up. AFAIK, with some incremental backups you don't get any more warnings about files being deleted after the initial 'this backup will delete files to match the original disk' during setup. Just something that may be worth checking. I know with SuperDuper, for example, I can set a 'Smart Update', that matches the backup with the source, or it can just add files that have changed, causing the backup to grow in size. > >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7yimoD9IoA > > > >Hmm, yes, much clearer actually, and I think clear it isn't in fact a > >direct replacement for Time Machine. As I read it, from what he was > >saying, it searches and finds specific files on the source drive, such > >as photos, music, documents, etc. It does not appear to copy > >*everything*, so you couldn't, for example' restore to recreate a > >bootable system disk again (the QA at Maplins confirms this too). > > Absolutely. I have said all along 'data' (although it will back up an > entire machine, not I suspect a disk image). What about the System files? > >Time Machine actually does make a copy of the entire drive, so you can > >recreate a complete bootable copy of your original system disk, or any > >disks attached. > > I wasn't trying to suggest is was as good as TM. I was suggesting it > might be better than TM for those people who didn't like TM or hadn't > got it and wanted a hands off backup solution with drive. ;-) For sure. I wasn't really trying to say either was better, indeed I reckon there's probably little difference in many ways. It just seems unecessary for Mac users, that's all. > >Still, it does at least enable restoration of the most important files, > >it is better than no backup, as you say. > > Zakly. ;-) > > Cheers, T i m > > p.s. I originally posted about this in the hope it might be of use to > those who also have some input to friends / family with (primarily) > Windows machines and that it might give said an easy solution for at > least their data. I mentioned it here because at the time I thought it > 'also did Mac's'. It turns out (when you mentioned and I looked into > it. I had no data to back up on a Mac so didn't try it up to then) > that support is less than it could have been (<< fact not dig). I > mean, it would have been so much nicer had it even worked on 10.4 for > example (and I don't know that it won't, just they don't say that it > will). Hmm, it does quite often turn out that some of these things will actually work on older systems, it's just that they may have not tested it, so can't guarantee reliability (in which case you probably don't want to be using it as a sole backup method). -- Andy Hewitt <http://web.me.com/andrewhewitt1/> |