Time Machine: Spit!!!
in [UK Mac]
|
From: T i m on 21 Nov 2009 11:02 On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 14:46:29 +0000, thewildrover(a)me.com (Andy Hewitt) wrote: >From an ease of use, and a 'I want to backup the most important stuff' >perspective, I see little difference between the two solutions. That's not bad then, considering it's a unit for dummy's etc. ;-) > >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? Good question. I'll have to try it. ;-) > >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. Well I copied some stuff onto my PC yesterday (just as a stepping stone) then did some scanning then a backup and noticed it also backed up the stuff I put on there temporarily (someone's 'My Docs' I was holding for them). I'll stick them on DVD then delete them from my PC and do another backup and let you know. ;-) > >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. Understood. > > >> 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? I think it will do every file it can see / get at. Exactly what that means under (say) XP I don't know but I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be enough for any hope of a full system restore. But then that's not what it's designed for. > >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. Even if many of them had the option. (not 10.5 > yet etc). ;-( > > >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). No indeed (all points). Cheers, T i m
From: Bruce Horrocks on 21 Nov 2009 11:39 Rowland McDonnell wrote: > R <me32(a)privacy.net> wrote: > >> 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? > > Christ knows. AppleScript is appalling. > > But - well, I'd like to learn to program my Mac using *SOMETHING* so > that I can perform simple automated jobs like I could on my BBC Micro > back in the early 1980s. I've got this super Mac, but in some ways a > BBC Micro is more use to me- simply because a Mac won't let me automate > it. What sort of jobs? (And feel free to contact me off line if you'd prefer) I quite like AppleScript (having scripted in virtually every OS and language over the years). The biggest problem I find is where the app doesn't support AppleScript fully so the promise is tantalising but the reality less so. That said, if something can't be scripted in AppleScript then it is unlikely to be scriptable in Bash or Perl on the Mac either. -- Bruce Horrocks Surrey England (bruce at scorecrow dot com)
From: Andy Hewitt on 21 Nov 2009 12:34 T i m <news(a)spaced.me.uk> wrote: > On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 14:46:29 +0000, thewildrover(a)me.com (Andy Hewitt) > wrote: [..] > >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? > > Good question. I'll have to try it. ;-) Er, yes, it could be worth knowing about :-) > >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. > > Well I copied some stuff onto my PC yesterday (just as a stepping > stone) then did some scanning then a backup and noticed it also backed > up the stuff I put on there temporarily (someone's 'My Docs' I was > holding for them). I'll stick them on DVD then delete them from my PC > and do another backup and let you know. ;-) Righto. -- Andy Hewitt <http://web.me.com/andrewhewitt1/>
From: T i m on 21 Nov 2009 15:10 On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 17:34:12 +0000, thewildrover(a)me.com (Andy Hewitt) wrote: >> >> Well I copied some stuff onto my PC yesterday (just as a stepping >> stone) then did some scanning then a backup and noticed it also backed >> up the stuff I put on there temporarily (someone's 'My Docs' I was >> holding for them). I'll stick them on DVD then delete them from my PC >> and do another backup and let you know. ;-) > Erm, well, it seemed to leave the copies of the files deleted on the hdd, on the backup, sorta what I expected to happen (is that right)? Modifying a test file leaves the last version on the backup. Not as sophisticated as TM I know but better than nuffink. ;-) T i m
From: Andy Hewitt on 21 Nov 2009 17:11
T i m <news(a)spaced.me.uk> wrote: > On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 17:34:12 +0000, thewildrover(a)me.com (Andy Hewitt) > wrote: > >> > >> Well I copied some stuff onto my PC yesterday (just as a stepping > >> stone) then did some scanning then a backup and noticed it also backed > >> up the stuff I put on there temporarily (someone's 'My Docs' I was > >> holding for them). I'll stick them on DVD then delete them from my PC > >> and do another backup and let you know. ;-) > > > Erm, well, it seemed to leave the copies of the files deleted on the > hdd, on the backup, sorta what I expected to happen (is that right)? > > Modifying a test file leaves the last version on the backup. Yes, that's a pretty standard backup. > Not as sophisticated as TM I know but better than nuffink. ;-) Not really, it's 'different'. I think that's the bit that many don't get with TM, it is different to most other backup solutions. It's kind of a hybrid between an archival backup, and a clone of your current system. There's nothing wrong with running TM *and* something like SuperDuper together, indeed, it can be desirable. One thing to consider as a possibility is the chance of copying a corrupt file into a backup. With the types that overwrite existing files, this is a very high possibility, and means you could easily copy a corrupt file at the time of an imminent system failure. I had this happen years ago when I worked off floppies, and copied the disks each session, so I had a duplicate. This worked fine, until I opened a file to find it had corrupted, but found that I'd backed up the corrupt file too. That's why I like TM, you have a chance to retrieve an earlier version of any file, as it keeps a complete history of the changes. I also keep a clone copy, using SuperDuper's "Smart Update", so I have a bootable system I could get working quickly, and maybe use to recover the main disk. It can be handy to have a non-current backup when you run a major update. -- Andy Hewitt <http://web.me.com/andrewhewitt1/> |