Apple Releases Backup 3.1.2

Gibbons

macrumors member
Jul 17, 2007
90
0
it was a nice surprise, seeing this so quickly. Backup wasn't working right and now it is. Excellent. :)
 

NAG

macrumors 68030
Aug 6, 2003
2,821
0
/usr/local/apps/nag
At this point Backup is relegated to the occasional remote storage. Good thing too since the automatic part of it almost never worked.
 

Doctor Q

Administrator
Staff member
Sep 19, 2002
37,722
3,829
Los Angeles
I mean... why?
To say a bit more...

In addition to local backup, it's wise to have offsite backup. That means media you can take or send elsewhere (e.g., DVDs), a removable disk drive you can store away from your computer (except when backing up files to it), or uploading your data to an online service.

Time Machine is designed to use a full-time connected drive. If a natural disaster strikes (fire, flood, etc.), or your equipment is stolen, your Time Machine backup may be gone too.
 

SeaFox

macrumors 68030
Jul 22, 2003
2,542
806
Somewhere Else
Time Machine is designed to use a full-time connected drive. If a natural disaster strikes (fire, flood, etc.), or your equipment is stolen, your Time Machine backup may be gone too.
Wouldn't it make more sense just to add remote functionality (for the "once a week" scheduling) to Time Machine instead? The two products might as well be combined at this point.
 

Doctor Q

Administrator
Staff member
Sep 19, 2002
37,722
3,829
Los Angeles
Wouldn't it make more sense just to add remote functionality (for the "once a week" scheduling) to Time Machine instead? The two products might as well be combined at this point.
Excellent idea. Time Machine should have settings to upload data in the background gradually/continuously, or on a schedule.
 

DaLazernet

macrumors newbie
Oct 23, 2004
12
0
Excellent idea. Time Machine should have settings to upload data in the background gradually/continuously, or on a schedule.
It should, but then how would apple ever manage to sell .Mac subscriptions? The backup program is a "perk" for having a membership ;-)...

- Eric
 

SeaFox

macrumors 68030
Jul 22, 2003
2,542
806
Somewhere Else
It should, but then how would apple ever manage to sell .Mac subscriptions? The backup program is a "perk" for having a membership
Not to pull this thread off-topic, but as a .Mac subscriber who has been thinking of leaving the last couple years, the first thing they could do is make .Mac more accessible from outside iLife, and allow PHP/SQL on webpages. I'd like to start a blog, but I don't want to use Apple's blogging software. But I can't install most blogging software without higher level services on Apple's web hosting. I'm paying for this service, the fact it says .mac in the URL should advertising enough without limiting my choice of authoring abilities. The online Homepage creator has been abandoned by Apple.

They could also give users subdomains (user.mac.com) instead of these unwieldy, amateur ones we have to give people now. And maintain the index page of a site as the index.html page, instead of having index.html refer to a different page that changes name if you edit your index (this screws up bookmarks that aren't manually entered).
 

alexm13

macrumors member
Jul 3, 2007
35
0
San Francisco, CA
the funny thing is i've never really fully understood Back Up. I never was able to figue out how to unarchive the files once they were backed up, to me, it would make much more sense if it was just a scheduled copy of your data.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.