Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Superduper vs. Carbon Copy Cloner
- Thread starter Sigi
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
There was more on this in the forums before, but here it is again...
CCC was said to have not been an adequate backup tool for Mac OSX because it did not copy metadata over. If you're a photographer this would raise alarm, if you care about the creation date of your documents or anything similar then this should also raise alarm. Interestingly enough the article published raised awareness with the CCC people and they wrote this article. Now, mileage may vary and I didn't read it through and through, but I am not sure if they addressed the metadata concern.
SD was said to have captured said metadata and therefore was used more often over CCC. Apparently SD was the best around but not free so somehow that was supposed to be a con. I understand the whole idea of not wanting to open your wallet, but I can't argue opportunity cost when it comes to backing up my data.
Check this thread out: SD vs CCC vs Time Machine? and also read this: The State of Backup and Cloning Tools under Mac OS X.
Yes, it's a lot to read but quite frankly, if you get it wrong and you sit idle thinking you're good to go you may be in for a rude awakening later on.
CCC was said to have not been an adequate backup tool for Mac OSX because it did not copy metadata over. If you're a photographer this would raise alarm, if you care about the creation date of your documents or anything similar then this should also raise alarm. Interestingly enough the article published raised awareness with the CCC people and they wrote this article. Now, mileage may vary and I didn't read it through and through, but I am not sure if they addressed the metadata concern.
SD was said to have captured said metadata and therefore was used more often over CCC. Apparently SD was the best around but not free so somehow that was supposed to be a con. I understand the whole idea of not wanting to open your wallet, but I can't argue opportunity cost when it comes to backing up my data.
Check this thread out: SD vs CCC vs Time Machine? and also read this: The State of Backup and Cloning Tools under Mac OS X.
Yes, it's a lot to read but quite frankly, if you get it wrong and you sit idle thinking you're good to go you may be in for a rude awakening later on.
I've used both, and I think I like CCC better. If you can live with the ads, it seems to work perfectly for incremental backups. I can't put my finger on why, but I never fully trusted superduper. It may just be the goofy name.
i have used both SD and CCC. the only reason i backup is to be able to bootup from the external FW drive.
the first time i backed up with SD everything worked fine and i booted from the FW drive just to make sure it worked. it started up just fine. so every since then i haven't been checking after backing up whether it boots from the FW drive or not. the other day just out of curiosity i tried booting from the FW drive and it couldn't startup.
i have since tried CCC and was able to boot from FW drive, so as of right now i am a CCC fan.
the first time i backed up with SD everything worked fine and i booted from the FW drive just to make sure it worked. it started up just fine. so every since then i haven't been checking after backing up whether it boots from the FW drive or not. the other day just out of curiosity i tried booting from the FW drive and it couldn't startup.
i have since tried CCC and was able to boot from FW drive, so as of right now i am a CCC fan.
Thinking of switching to SuperDuper
I've been using CCC for about 4 years now. I'll admit, it does a pretty good job of doing what it says it will do. On top of that, it's simple and free. However, the one gripe that I've always had with CCC, is that it doesn't completely backup everything. Yes it will make a bootable clone on to an external HDD, or an separate internal HDD, or even a partition. It will also allow you to copy that back to your main HDD. For all intent and purpose, your system will be running like it was when you backed it up. However, for some reason I still haven't figured out yet, certain things will not be backed up (application stuff), and will require you to reinstall certain softwares. ie. Adobe software and some Photoshop third party plugins. Although this isn't really a big deal, but it does take time to have to uninstall these software (you have to or else when you reinstall, it doesn't work properly, all previous files must be deleted). And then more time to reinstall. It takes the convenenience out of "convenient".
From what I've read, and please correct me if I'm wrong, SD will make an exact bootable copy. That when you copy back to your startup drive, your system will run exactly as it did before. With no reinstalling anything. If any one can confirm this, then I'm sold. I'd be willing to pay for a product that can do exactly what it was meant to do. If not, then why pay for something that another can do for free.
I've been using CCC for about 4 years now. I'll admit, it does a pretty good job of doing what it says it will do. On top of that, it's simple and free. However, the one gripe that I've always had with CCC, is that it doesn't completely backup everything. Yes it will make a bootable clone on to an external HDD, or an separate internal HDD, or even a partition. It will also allow you to copy that back to your main HDD. For all intent and purpose, your system will be running like it was when you backed it up. However, for some reason I still haven't figured out yet, certain things will not be backed up (application stuff), and will require you to reinstall certain softwares. ie. Adobe software and some Photoshop third party plugins. Although this isn't really a big deal, but it does take time to have to uninstall these software (you have to or else when you reinstall, it doesn't work properly, all previous files must be deleted). And then more time to reinstall. It takes the convenenience out of "convenient".
From what I've read, and please correct me if I'm wrong, SD will make an exact bootable copy. That when you copy back to your startup drive, your system will run exactly as it did before. With no reinstalling anything. If any one can confirm this, then I'm sold. I'd be willing to pay for a product that can do exactly what it was meant to do. If not, then why pay for something that another can do for free.
That is interesting- and I have to ask what version of CCC are you running? I am not doubting that you have experienced the difficulties you have with CCC but I found it interesting in light of the fact that I just recently cloned my boot drive to a Velociraptor and have not experienced any difficulties at all with any of the Adobe apps or filter sets that were installed on the original drive, so I wondering what could have been the difference in the CCC run as there are so few options when using CCC. Hmmmm- most curious!
That is interesting- and I have to ask what version of CCC are you running? I am not doubting that you have experienced the difficulties you have with CCC but I found it interesting in light of the fact that I just recently cloned my boot drive to a Velociraptor and have not experienced any difficulties at all with any of the Adobe apps or filter sets that were installed on the original drive, so I wondering what could have been the difference in the CCC run as there are so few options when using CCC. Hmmmm- most curious!
I'm currently using 3.1.3, but since Adobe CS2, and pre 2008 versions of Alien Skin plugins, it requires me to reinstall these for it to work again. So pretty much even the older versions weren't working well with these apps. I'm sure it's Adobe's and Alien Skin's way of copy protecting their products. I've read that the files (more specifically for Adobe) that contain the license/registration/serial info is locked and cannot be copied from drive to drive. Which would make sense to prevent piracy. I'm just surprised that with the ability of CCC, in how it can clone pretty much everything else, including invisible, and other locked files, that a handful of files can prevent itself from being cloned properly. Yes, I've checked all the files that Adobe installed, and they are all in the clone. But for some reason, it just fails to work when I clone back. I've even tried wiping the main HDD, and doing a clean install of the clone.
I'm wondering if SuperDuper has found a way around this on their end.
I'm curious, what version of Adobe software are you using? If it's pre CS, that could be the reason why you have no issues. I didn't have any either till I upgraded to CS2 (I skipped CS altogether due to bad experiences from others).
Yeah, it gets more curious by the moment that is for sure! I have the full CS3 Design Suite so really have no clue as to the result discrepancy that is for sure!
I am going to do another couple of clones tonight (CCC and SD) to some spare drives to see if my results were just a fluke or what as this subject is quite interesting.
I am going to do another couple of clones tonight (CCC and SD) to some spare drives to see if my results were just a fluke or what as this subject is quite interesting.
I've using both (CCC in a USB portable drive and SD in a FW desktop drive). I haven't noticed problems or differences between them. Every app work's flawlessly when booting from the external drives in both.
As for HD with Adobe CS3 cloning, in my experience with SD, it worked without a glitch. 3 months ago I cloned my iMac HD and used the clone and Migration Assistant to bring my apps to my new MBP. Adobe lets you install the CS3 in both desktop and laptop (as long as they're not used simultaneously). Much to my surprise it worked, saving me the trouble to reinstall. The only apps that needed reinstalling were the Apple Pro apps (Logic and Final Cut).
If anyone can list some of the differences between SD and CCC, please share.
As for HD with Adobe CS3 cloning, in my experience with SD, it worked without a glitch. 3 months ago I cloned my iMac HD and used the clone and Migration Assistant to bring my apps to my new MBP. Adobe lets you install the CS3 in both desktop and laptop (as long as they're not used simultaneously). Much to my surprise it worked, saving me the trouble to reinstall. The only apps that needed reinstalling were the Apple Pro apps (Logic and Final Cut).
If anyone can list some of the differences between SD and CCC, please share.
Some interesting thoughts here. I'm planning on testing out SuperDuper tonight to back up my startup drive on to an external USB 2.0 drive. I've optimized, repaired permissions, scanned for virus (all clean), scanned and repaired volume directories (with DiskWarrior), I also ran TechTool Pro for safe measure. Don't want to be cloning any bad blocks or virii. Then I plan on cloning the clone onto another internal HDD on my system to see if it everything will run smoothly. I'll report back my findings.
Sickmacdoc, did you clone back the backup to your startup drive? Another person here mentioned he ran the backup from the external drive he cloned his startup drive to. 1. That maybe a reason for it to work. Perhaps cloning a clone may not always be a good thing. If it runs under the same principal as actual cloning. As in degredation of information. Then again I can be totally way off base here. lol 2. I didn't realize you can run a clone system (from SD) off of an external drive.
Sickmacdoc, did you clone back the backup to your startup drive? Another person here mentioned he ran the backup from the external drive he cloned his startup drive to. 1. That maybe a reason for it to work. Perhaps cloning a clone may not always be a good thing. If it runs under the same principal as actual cloning. As in degredation of information. Then again I can be totally way off base here. lol 2. I didn't realize you can run a clone system (from SD) off of an external drive.
Well no, I had no need to clone the backup to my original boot drive as the drive I was cloning to is my new boot drive in this particular case. But I will say that both the original and the CCC clone both boot fine and the Adobe CS3 apps work fine from either- used either internally or booted from in an external enclosure. Theoretically there should be no degradation since we are dealing with digital information.
As far as your #2, you can run off an external cloned by either SD or CCC equally well.
Before I started using SD, I decided to clone my startup drive onto another SATA external using CCC, only because I'm more familiar and comfortable with it. To my surprise, when I tested it by booting from the external, everything worked as the original, including all Adobe, plugins, and other apps that never did before. Perhaps they fixed that with the latest version of CCC (the last time I backed up my startup drive I was using the older version).
So with that out of the way, I proceeded to back up my startup drive with SD. But to my dismay, there was no option to select individual folders to backup, like you can in CCC. There were some files on my desktop that I didn't want cloned. I only wanted the main drive cloned. Since the external SATA I wanted to clone my startup drive to already had saved files, and the fact that SD would be deleting the external before backing up, as well as not being able to choose what I wanted backed up, I opted to go with the latest version of CCC. After the clone, I booted from the second external, and just like the first external, all worked as it should.
Sorry SD, had you worked more like CCC, I would've switched. Especially with certain features SD had that CCC doesn't, namely speed, and updating only files that are newer (which I could live without). I'll be sticking with CCC for now.
So with that out of the way, I proceeded to back up my startup drive with SD. But to my dismay, there was no option to select individual folders to backup, like you can in CCC. There were some files on my desktop that I didn't want cloned. I only wanted the main drive cloned. Since the external SATA I wanted to clone my startup drive to already had saved files, and the fact that SD would be deleting the external before backing up, as well as not being able to choose what I wanted backed up, I opted to go with the latest version of CCC. After the clone, I booted from the second external, and just like the first external, all worked as it should.
Sorry SD, had you worked more like CCC, I would've switched. Especially with certain features SD had that CCC doesn't, namely speed, and updating only files that are newer (which I could live without). I'll be sticking with CCC for now.
According to the 60 page PDF guide you can exclude folders...
Check page 20 in http://homepage.mac.com/dnanian/SuperDuper/SuperDuper.pdf for the steps how.
Hi Jessica,
It's important to note that the article:
http://blog.plasticsfuture.org/2006/03/05/the-state-of-backup-and-cloning-tools-under-mac-os-x/
is from '06 and there are many corrections and revisions to it that only appear after the article. It's an interesting read and with good information, but there are some errors/outdated info. It would be good if the blogger updated it to where things stand in '09, as I know many photographers who use CCC with no ill effect to the their exif data.
Best,
s
"So with that out of the way, I proceeded to back up my startup drive with SD. But to my dismay, there was no option to select individual folders to backup, like you can in CCC. There were some files on my desktop that I didn't want cloned. I only wanted the main drive cloned. Since the external SATA I wanted to clone my startup drive to already had saved files, and the fact that SD would be deleting the external before backing up, as well as not being able to choose what I wanted backed up, I opted to go with the latest version of CCC. After the clone, I booted from the second external, and just like the first external, all worked as it should.
Sorry SD, had you worked more like CCC, I would've switched. Especially with certain features SD had that CCC doesn't, namely speed, and updating only files that are newer (which I could live without). I'll be sticking with CCC for now."
I think you'll find that if you have a registered (i.e., paid for) version of SD, you can selectively back up just the folders that you want to back up. Also, CCC absolutely does the equivalent of "Smart Update". It's called Incremental Backup. Only backs up new or modified files since the last backup. Also has a nice feature that retains old or modified files on the target drive in a time-stamped folder, just in case you delte an important file but don't realize it until AFTER your last backup.
Sorry SD, had you worked more like CCC, I would've switched. Especially with certain features SD had that CCC doesn't, namely speed, and updating only files that are newer (which I could live without). I'll be sticking with CCC for now."
I think you'll find that if you have a registered (i.e., paid for) version of SD, you can selectively back up just the folders that you want to back up. Also, CCC absolutely does the equivalent of "Smart Update". It's called Incremental Backup. Only backs up new or modified files since the last backup. Also has a nice feature that retains old or modified files on the target drive in a time-stamped folder, just in case you delte an important file but don't realize it until AFTER your last backup.