I was about to renew my SuperDuper licence, which I haven't had reason to use for a while, and started wondering about Carbon Copy Cloner, which I've never used, but have heard plenty of good things about. However, it's now more than twice the price of SD, so would need to be impressive..
I'd be particularly interested in whether either is better at networked backups.
In article <[email protected]>, TimH <[email protected]d> wrote:
I was about to renew my SuperDuper licence, which I haven't had reason to use
for a while, and started wondering about Carbon Copy Cloner, which I've never
used, but have heard plenty of good things about. However, it's now more than
twice the price of SD, so would need to be impressive..
it is impressive.
the higher price is because it does a *lot* more and well worth it.
*highly* recommended.
I'd be particularly interested in whether either is better at networked
backups.
carbon copy cloner is much better at pretty much everything, especially networked backups, with very flexible scheduling options, wake/shut
down if needed, and much more.
it has a 30 day trial, so you can decide for yourself if it fits your
needs.
In article <qZPNL.1468982$[email protected]>, David Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
Is there really any point in having the product nowadays, when all
important documents and photographs may be stored in the Apple iCloud at
very modest cost?
yes, and the cost for icloud is *not* modest for large data sets, nor
is it even sufficient.
One's Mac can be wiped clean and the macOS re-installed via Internet
Recovery in no more than a couple of hours.
backup is for more than just mac os.
Is there really any point in having the product nowadays, when all
important documents and photographs may be stored in the Apple iCloud at
very modest cost?
One's Mac can be wiped clean and the macOS re-installed via Internet
Recovery in no more than a couple of hours.
Is there really any point in having the product nowadays, when all
important documents and photographs may be stored in the Apple iCloud at >> very modest cost?
yes, and the cost for icloud is *not* modest for large data sets, nor
is it even sufficient.
I suspect that those folk with LARGE data sets will NOT be using CCC.
One's Mac can be wiped clean and the macOS re-installed via Internet
Recovery in no more than a couple of hours.
backup is for more than just mac os.
The iCloud can hold it all. :-D
In article <[email protected]>, TimH <[email protected]d> wrote:
I was about to renew my SuperDuper licence, which I haven't had reason to use
for a while, and started wondering about Carbon Copy Cloner, which I've never
used, but have heard plenty of good things about. However, it's now more than
twice the price of SD, so would need to be impressive..
it is impressive.
the higher price is because it does a *lot* more and well worth it.
*highly* recommended.
I'd be particularly interested in whether either is better at networked
backups.
carbon copy cloner is much better at pretty much everything, especially networked backups, with very flexible scheduling options, wake/shut
down if needed, and much more.
it has a 30 day trial, so you can decide for yourself if it fits your
needs.
In article <qZPNL.1468982$[email protected]>, David Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
Is there really any point in having the product nowadays, when all
important documents and photographs may be stored in the Apple iCloud at
very modest cost?
yes, and the cost for icloud is *not* modest for large data sets, nor
is it even sufficient.
I was about to renew my SuperDuper licence, which I haven't had reason to use for a while, and started wondering about Carbon Copy Cloner, which I've never used, but have heard plenty of good things about. However, it's now more than twice the price of SD, so would need to be impressive..
I'd be particularly interested in whether either is better at networked backups.
Any opinions gratefully received. Well, almost any.
In article <qZPNL.1468982$[email protected]>, David Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
Is there really any point in having the product nowadays, when all
important documents and photographs may be stored in the Apple iCloud at
very modest cost?
yes, and the cost for icloud is *not* modest for large data sets, nor
is it even sufficient.
One's Mac can be wiped clean and the macOS re-installed via Internet
Recovery in no more than a couple of hours.
backup is for more than just mac os.
Seems to be my week for soliciting software reviews..
I was about to renew my SuperDuper licence, which I haven't had reason to use for a while, and started wondering about Carbon Copy Cloner, which I've never used, but have heard plenty of good things about. However, it's now more than twice the price of SD, so would need to be impressive..
I'd be particularly interested in whether either is better at networked backups.
Any opinions gratefully received. Well, almost any.
In article <NaQNL.1047739$[email protected]>, David Brooks
The iCloud can hold it all. :-D
no it can't.
the largest icloud plan is 2tb.
the largest *internal* ssd for a macbook pro is currently 8tb, and
multiple external drives of any capacity can be added.
Am 07.03.23 um 23:16 schrieb TimH:
Seems to be my week for soliciting software reviews..
I was about to renew my SuperDuper licence, which I haven't had reason to use
for a while, and started wondering about Carbon Copy Cloner, which I've never
used, but have heard plenty of good things about. However, it's now more than
twice the price of SD, so would need to be impressive..
I'd be particularly interested in whether either is better at networked
backups.
Any opinions gratefully received. Well, almost any.
Use the best in the Macworld which is in fact part of the OS: *Time Machine*
On 7. Mar 2023 at 23:16:46 CET, "TimH" <[email protected]d>
wrote:
I was about to renew my SuperDuper licence, which I haven't had reason to use
for a while, and started wondering about Carbon Copy Cloner, which I've never
used, but have heard plenty of good things about. However, it's now more than
twice the price of SD, so would need to be impressive..
I'd be particularly interested in whether either is better at networked
backups.
Any opinions gratefully received. Well, almost any.
I´ve used SuperDuper some years ago and liked it.
Unfortunately with some systemupdate Apple changed a lot under the hood so that both SuperDuper and CCC were no longer working.
Mike Bombich was faster while SuperDuper was struggling a loooong time to adapt to the new system, so I switched to CCC.
They are both good.
I guess in your situation I would just stick with SuperDuper.
Seems to be my week for soliciting software reviews..
I was about to renew my SuperDuper licence, which I haven't had reason to use for a while, and started wondering about Carbon Copy Cloner, which I've never used, but have heard plenty of good things about. However, it's now more than twice the price of SD, so would need to be impressive..
I'd be particularly interested in whether either is better at networked backups.
Any opinions gratefully received. Well, almost any.
Seems to be my week for soliciting software reviews..
I was about to renew my SuperDuper licence, which I haven't had reason to use for a while, and started wondering about Carbon Copy Cloner, which I've never used, but have heard plenty of good things about. However, it's now more than twice the price of SD, so would need to be impressive..
I'd be particularly interested in whether either is better at networked backups.
Any opinions gratefully received. Well, almost any.
Am 07.03.23 um 23:16 schrieb TimH:
Seems to be my week for soliciting software reviews..
I was about to renew my SuperDuper licence, which I haven't had reason
to use for a while, and started wondering about Carbon Copy Cloner,
which I've never used, but have heard plenty of good things about.
However, it's now more than twice the price of SD, so would need to be impressive..
I'd be particularly interested in whether either is better at networked backups.
Any opinions gratefully received. Well, almost any.
Use the best in the Macworld which is in fact part of the OS: *Time Machine*
Joerg Lorenz <[email protected]> wrote:
Use the best in the Macworld which is in fact part of the OS: *Time Machine*
Nosense. SD and CCC on one hand,
and Time machine otoh do quite different things,
suitable for diffferent purposes.
In particular, Time Machine is not suitable for disks
that are used for a great many intermediate scratch files
that you will never want to see again.
Those files clutter up the Time Machine volume and waste disk space.
Jan
In article <1q79u4c.twkn15jgj89eN%[email protected]>,
J. J. Lodder <[email protected]> wrote:
In particular, Time Machine is not suitable for disks
that are used for a great many intermediate scratch files
that you will never want to see again.
It's easy to exclude directories from Time Machine.
-- Richard
In particular, Time Machine is not suitable for disks
that are used for a great many intermediate scratch files
that you will never want to see again.
On 2023-03-07 22:16:46 +0000, TimH said:
Seems to be my week for soliciting software reviews..
I was about to renew my SuperDuper licence, which I haven't had reason
to use
for a while, and started wondering about Carbon Copy Cloner, which
I've never
used, but have heard plenty of good things about. However, it's now
more than
twice the price of SD, so would need to be impressive..
I'd be particularly interested in whether either is better at networked
backups.
Any opinions gratefully received. Well, almost any.
You can download a trial version of CCC to test it out. And, should you
wish to do so, you can continually download trial versions of CCC after
they run out and they will 'pick up where they left off', if you need
more time to assess it.
Am 08.03.23 um 00:52 schrieb nospam:
In article <qZPNL.1468982$[email protected]>, David Brooks
<[email protected]> wrote:
Is there really any point in having the product nowadays, when all
important documents and photographs may be stored in the Apple iCloud at >>> very modest cost?
yes, and the cost for icloud is *not* modest for large data sets, nor
is it even sufficient.
One's Mac can be wiped clean and the macOS re-installed via Internet
Recovery in no more than a couple of hours.
backup is for more than just mac os.
This is no answer to David's correct statement because all data will be accessible after connecting to the Apple-account again.
Nevertheless a regular backup to Time Machine makes sense. Clouds ar not really a data backup.
In article <qZPNL.1468982$[email protected]>, David Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
Is there really any point in having the product nowadays, when all
important documents and photographs may be stored in the Apple iCloud at >> very modest cost?
yes, and the cost for icloud is *not* modest for large data sets, nor
is it even sufficient.
One's Mac can be wiped clean and the macOS re-installed via Internet
Recovery in no more than a couple of hours.
backup is for more than just mac os.
This is no answer to David's correct statement because all data will be accessible after connecting to the Apple-account again.
Nevertheless a regular backup to Time Machine makes sense.
Clouds ar not
really a data backup.
In article <qZPNL.1468982$[email protected]>, David Brooks
<[email protected]> wrote:
Is there really any point in having the product nowadays, when all
important documents and photographs may be stored in the Apple iCloud at >>> very modest cost?
I've been running Time Machine back-ups since I first bought an iMac in
2009.
In article <mi_NL.194090$[email protected]>, David Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
In article <qZPNL.1468982$[email protected]>, David Brooks
<[email protected]> wrote:
Is there really any point in having the product nowadays, when all
important documents and photographs may be stored in the Apple iCloud at >>>>> very modest cost?
...
I've been running Time Machine back-ups since I first bought an iMac in
2009.
not to icloud, you haven't.
In article <qZPNL.1468982$[email protected]>, David Brooks
<[email protected]> wrote:
Is there really any point in having the product nowadays, when all >>>>> important documents and photographs may be stored in the Apple iCloud at
very modest cost?
...
I've been running Time Machine back-ups since I first bought an iMac in
2009.
not to icloud, you haven't.
Huh? Why mention the cloud in relation to TM?
My Time Machine back-ups are made to my Western Digital 2TB 'My Book' external hard drive.
In article <tu9dfs$1obbv$[email protected]>, Joerg Lorenz <[email protected]>
wrote:
Is there really any point in having the product nowadays, when all
important documents and photographs may be stored in the Apple iCloud at >>>> very modest cost?
yes, and the cost for icloud is *not* modest for large data sets, nor
is it even sufficient.
Whether the cost are modest or not is beyond your judgement.
it's not a question of judgement. it's basic math.
In article <h80OL.1011690$[email protected]>, David Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
In article <qZPNL.1468982$[email protected]>, David Brooks
<[email protected]> wrote:
Is there really any point in having the product nowadays, when all >>>>>>> important documents and photographs may be stored in the Apple iCloud at
very modest cost?
...
I've been running Time Machine back-ups since I first bought an iMac in >>>> 2009.
not to icloud, you haven't.
Huh? Why mention the cloud in relation to TM?
*you* mentioned the cloud, then moved the goalposts to time machine.
My Time Machine back-ups are made to my Western Digital 2TB 'My Book'
external hard drive.
nobody cares.
In article <1q79u4c.twkn15jgj89eN%[email protected]>,
J. J. Lodder <[email protected]> wrote:
In particular, Time Machine is not suitable for disks
that are used for a great many intermediate scratch files
that you will never want to see again.
It's easy to exclude directories from Time Machine.
The obvious (to me) point
is that SD and CCC are quite different from Time Machine,
suitable for different purposes, and that one shouldn't proclaim
a 'one kind fits all' for back-up purposes,
Any opinions gratefully received. Well, almost any.
In particular, Time Machine is not suitable for disks
that are used for a great many intermediate scratch files
that you will never want to see again.
Bernd Froehlich <[email protected]> wrote:
On 8. Mar 2023 at 11:30:32 CET, "J. J. Lodder" <J. J. Lodder> wrote:
In particular, Time Machine is not suitable for disks
that are used for a great many intermediate scratch files
that you will never want to see again.
Same goes for SD and CCC.
In all three of them you can set exceptions.
The original idea, and order to his programmers,
by Steve Jobs was that they should create a back-up solution
that wouldn't require looking after.
SD and CCC can do that, Time Machine less so.
But again, these are different solutions,
and they do very different things,
On 8. Mar 2023 at 11:30:32 CET, "J. J. Lodder" <J. J. Lodder> wrote:
In particular, Time Machine is not suitable for disks
that are used for a great many intermediate scratch files
that you will never want to see again.
Same goes for SD and CCC.
In all three of them you can set exceptions.
Seems to be my week for soliciting software reviews..
I was about to renew my SuperDuper licence, which I haven't had reason to use for a while, and started wondering about Carbon Copy Cloner, which I've never used, but have heard plenty of good things about. However, it's now more than twice the price of SD, so would need to be impressive..
I'd be particularly interested in whether either is better at networked backups.
Any opinions gratefully received. Well, almost any.
On 7 Mar 2023 at 22:16:46 GMT, "TimH" <[email protected]d> wrote:
Seems to be my week for soliciting software reviews..
I was about to renew my SuperDuper licence, which I haven't had reason to use
for a while, and started wondering about Carbon Copy Cloner, which I've never
used, but have heard plenty of good things about. However, it's now more than
twice the price of SD, so would need to be impressive..
I'd be particularly interested in whether either is better at networked backups.
Any opinions gratefully received. Well, almost any.I've used Carbon Copy Cloner for years, so I'm pretty used to it. Not that I use it in any particularly complicated way.
I have three Tasks set up. Two clone my entire user data to separate volumes on an external SSD, fortnightly on alternate weeks. One does the same to a second, bootable, SSD once a month.
All three alert me to when it's time to mount the appropriate drive, and run on command - I could set them to run automatically on drive mount but choose not to.
Since they they are set to update new, changed or deleted files only, and I'm not that heavy a user these days, each backup takes 2 to 3 minutes.
It works for me.
John.
--
Classic computing: Computers do what you tell them to do, not what you want them to do.
Modern computing: Computers do what they want to do, no matter what you tell them to do.
Seems to be my week for soliciting software reviews..
I was about to renew my SuperDuper licence, which I haven't had reason to use for a while, and started wondering about Carbon Copy Cloner, which I've never used, but have heard plenty of good things about. However, it's now more than twice the price of SD, so would need to be impressive..
I'd be particularly interested in whether either is better at networked backups.
Any opinions gratefully received. Well, almost any.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 159:05:43 |
| Calls: | 12,094 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 15,000 |
| Messages: | 6,517,759 |