Leopard is Great!

[swindmill]

My understanding is that Time Machine is primarily aimed at saving files at various points in time so that overwritten/deleted files can be accessed. This wouldn't require a second HD or partition. That is what the demo seemed to be showing.

 

[Killyp]

My understanding is that Time Machine is primarily aimed at saving files at various points in time so that overwritten/deleted files can be accessed. This wouldn't require a second HD or partition. That is what the demo seemed to be showing.

Stevie McJobs also said you can restore the entire hard drive.

Considering I've used 40 GB on my 80 gb MBP drive (that's after the clearout), I seriously doubt TimeMachine is going to be a lot of use to me...

 

[Chundles]

My understanding is that Time Machine is primarily aimed at saving files at various points in time so that overwritten/deleted files can be accessed. This wouldn't require a second HD or partition. That is what the demo seemed to be showing.

It does a full back up of your system, then, at regular intervals it save the changes that have been made. So it's one big backup at the start, then much smaller, incremental backups along the way - that way it's not making a full back up of your system every day and requiring you to have a 365 x *your HDD size* external drive hooked up to your Mac just to store a year's worth of backups.

You will need one though, might as well get as big as you can.

 

[Sdashiki]

For Backup Purposes:

BestBuy is selling 250GB ATA/IDE and SATA drives.

$99 after instant rebate.

might have to order online, or check the website for store availability.

Damn good deal not to pass up.


It WAS 320GB on Saturday and Sunday, but they musta run out. Those are $150.

 

[Platform]

If anybody is really curious how Time Machine works sign up for the trial of .Mac and download Apple's Backup application. Should work EXACTLY the same way albeit different UI and system level as opposed to .Mac level (Backup backups to external drives too)

But a bit differnt though...can't really compare Backup 3 and Time Machine.

 

[Littleodie914]

Of course, but you're feeding right back into my point. 99% of users don't have an external drive.

</snip>

Yikes! 99% might be a bit high... Maybe 70-80% I'd say. They're more common than you'd think these days.

 

[HGW]

or a separate partition.

But why the hell wouldn't you use an external HD. It is for backups and why do backups on the same HD. It crashes and your backup is gone too

so that if you get errors you can go back to the time before the problem,

so that if you like to restore your machine you can have everything deleted,

& the machine will restore to a way in which you configured it,

and of course why the hell not, the stuff is there anyway

 

[mkrishnan]

Yikes! 99% might be a bit high... Maybe 70-80% I'd say. They're more common than you'd think these days.

I think it's probably closer to my number than yours. I wouldn't be surprised if more than 30% of MR users have external drives. But I seriously doubt that more than a few percent of the unwashed have them....

 

[freebooter]

I think it's probably closer to my number than yours. I wouldn't be surprised if more than 30% of MR users have external drives. But I seriously doubt that more than a few percent of the unwashed have them....

I wouldn't think being a M. R. user is an indication either washed or unwashed status.
Anyhoo, I've got two external drives, and at first glance I don't understand this eternal backup thing. I see it as more of a security hazard than a safety measure. If I want something backed up, I do it.

 

[mkrishnan]

I wouldn't think being a M. R. user is an indication either washed or unwashed status.

Well, I think there's an over-representation of the "digerati" on MR. What is the penetration of home computers into homes in your country or mine? It's very high. It's those average users who do not go to tech forums that I am saying don't have external drives.

As far as the security hazard, I think it's a valid point on the surface, but Apple has filevault and all other manner of technologies to make it practically a non-issue. The crackability of something using AES and a strong password is close enough to zero to just call it a day for most individuals....

That being said, I'm not 100% sure that I'll use this feature, either. Perhaps if I get a Leopard notebook, and it is technically feasible to do so, I will set it up to store its backup content on the main system drive of my iMac... That would be nice.

 

[Krevnik]

It does a full back up of your system, then, at regular intervals it save the changes that have been made. So it's one big backup at the start, then much smaller, incremental backups along the way - that way it's not making a full back up of your system every day and requiring you to have a 365 x *your HDD size* external drive hooked up to your Mac just to store a year's worth of backups.

Yup, which is the way it should be. It is a fairly unusual backup system, from what I have seen though, it is using some hard/soft link magic to make each backup /appear/ to be complete, so that a restore is a simple matter of doing a deep copy, following links.