Are there Mac users who don't use Time Machine?

Discussion in 'iMac' started by onthecouchagain, Jun 8, 2011.

  1. onthecouchagain macrumors 604

    onthecouchagain

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2011
    #1
    I'm more curious than anything. I'd like to wait for when external HDs with TB connectivity becomes available and to see whether they're affordable (I'm thinking at least 1 TB, or as high as 2 TB).

    Then I started wondering, are there Mac users who choose not to use Time Machine? And if there are, just curious, why? Are there benefits to not relying on it? Do you prefer to update your stuff manually (for example, on my Windows PC, I'd update stuff by just simply dragging important folders/files into my external HD and letting it overwrite the previous ones and only did this when I felt I really had to)?

    Is using Time Machine that strongly advised?
     
  2. neko girl macrumors 6502a

    neko girl

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2011
    #2
    I use CrashPlan. I do this because Time Machine really slows a Mac down sometimes, and because CrashPlan backups are encrypted.
     
  3. WilliamBos macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2009
    Location:
    Innisfil, ON
    #3
    Is crashplan free??
     
  4. VPrime macrumors 68000

    VPrime

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2008
    Location:
    London Ontario
    #4
    I don't.
    Manually back up stuff to various hard drives, and use services like Dropbox.

    But my important stuff is pretty small. Text files, code, few 3D models. No pictures, no music.
     
  5. Apple OC macrumors 68040

    Apple OC

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2010
    Location:
    Hogtown
    #5
    Time Machine is worth it ... a cheap External HD is all you need ... back-up when you want ... I TM once a week
     
  6. simsaladimbamba

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2010
    Location:
    located
    #6
    I don't use TM anymore, I just use CarbonCopyCloner manually when I want to backup my photos or video footage, which is backed up twice, thus I have three copies of each on three HDDs (one HDD for photos, one HDD for video footage, one HDD with a backup of photos and video footage and another HDD with a backup of the photos and video footage).
    Text documents are saved on Dropbox and unimportant data (videos for entertainment and such) are not backed up.
    I haven't backed up my music and applications (installers - I don't like optical media anymore, though it is good to have to fall back onto) yet though. Some day I will I guess.
     
  7. 42streetsdown macrumors 6502a

    42streetsdown

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2011
    Location:
    Gallifrey, 5124
    #7
    i just barely started using it after having my current mac for four years.
     
  8. neko girl macrumors 6502a

    neko girl

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2011
    #8
    Free with embedded ads. I use their backup in the cloud, so that is ad-free. I used it with ads for a while and didn't find them intrusive. Carbon Copy Cloner has ads too, for example..

    I feel like CP is much more resource light than TM seems to be when it runs.

    Here's a chart:
    http://www.crashplan.com/consumer/compare.html

    I have to note that CP is not as "dead simple" as TM. You don't get to use a CP backup right when you are installing your OS, for example.. but it is as simple as installing the OS, installing CP, then adopting a backup..
     
  9. rkaufmann87 macrumors 68000

    rkaufmann87

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2009
    Location:
    Folsom, CA
    #9
    Time Machine is one backup strategy, some people choose not to use it due to using other strategies and some don't backup at all. The beauty of Time Machine is it's simplicity. However like any product or service it can fail for many reasons, that being said IMHO having a redundant backup strategy to protect your data is wise. As said TM is simple and it's free (save the cost of the EHD) however it isn't bootable and it's only one backup. After looking at different solutions what I decided on was using using TM and SuperDuper (CCC does the same thing.) Having both TM and SuperDuper offers the best of both worlds, quick and easy and bootable backup in the event of a catastrophe.

    Some months ago I was glad I did this, I decided for fun to do an re-format and re-install of Snow Leopard thinking I'd restore from TM only to find the TM backup was corrupt. It wasn't a real problem because I then just switched to my SuperDuper backup and was able to restore easily. Lesson learned, check your backups periodically and backup your backup!
     
  10. John T macrumors 68020

    John T

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2006
    Location:
    UK.
    #10
    I too use TM and SuperDuper. Speaking from experience, you can't have too many backups!
     
  11. MacHamster68 macrumors 68040

    MacHamster68

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2009
    #11
    i too use time machine and carbon copy cloner for backups on separate external hdd's and believe it or not still those shiny round disc's called dvd's :eek:
     
  12. aki macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2004
    Location:
    Japan
    #12
    I've used Carbon Copy Cloner for a long time just because of the bootable backup feature. If you need your machine usable immediately, it's very much worthwhile.

    Other than that though I don't know there really is a lot to choose between them.
     
  13. xUKHCx Administrator emeritus

    xUKHCx

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2006
    Location:
    The Kop
    #13
    I use SuperDuper for that exact reason. Time Machine needs to be able to create a bootable backup, then I would use it.
     
  14. bindle macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2008
    #14
    I don't use TM. I don't even use the home folder. I always keep my own partition where I store all my files. I have a script that auto backs up the keychain and a few selected system locations to it.
    Then I clone the partition once a week to external drives overnight. Important documents I keep in an encrypted image in my dropbox.
     
  15. philipma1957 macrumors 603

    philipma1957

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2010
    Location:
    Howell, New Jersey
    #15
    I paid for superduper plus. I make scheduled copies with it.

    one every night
    one every week
    one every month

    cost for the program is 28 dollars
    I have this attached to the imac

    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...m_re=sans_digital_usb-_-16-111-159R-_-Product

    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...m_re=sans_digital_usb-_-16-111-159R-_-Product


    it is set on JBOD has 4 hdds in it 1 tb each my imac has a 1 tb hdd.

    low cost and mindless it also allows for booting. I am waiting to see if the t-bolt units that come out work like this one. Then I will get an 2011 iMac
     
  16. bizzle macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2008
    #16
    I don't use it because I don't back up. I don't do any real work on my machine so it would be a waste of time and money.
     
  17. mrkramer macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #17
    I don't use it, I just copy important files to an external drive, and everything else I don't backup as I can just replace it easily in the event of a crash.
     
  18. willieva macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2010
    #18
    Thunderbolt is not necessary for a backup system. Any decent backup system, i.e time machine, super duper, will be doing incremental backups after the first one. If you keep the backups happening an a semi regular basis they don't take long, even at USB speeds.

    If you're worried about being able to retrieve deleted files then time machine is a decent solution. If you're more worried about recovering from catastrophic disk failure then something like super duper is a better solution.
     
  19. Georgio macrumors 6502

    Georgio

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2008
    Location:
    Essex, UK
    #19
    I use TM and lately with having three iMacs in as many weeks go bad on me it's been a lifesaver.
    The option to restore from a TM back-up on the initial start-up of a new machine is just pure genius; two hours and I have a machine identical to my previous one.
    The only mistake I made was not to de-activate my Creative suite software, so even though it transferred ok, it went into demo-mode.
    But a quick call to adobe and that was sorted.

    I like the ability to be able to restore either a single file, a folder or the whole hard disk, very neat.
    Using mine with a 1TB fire-wire external and it's very quick and efficient.
     
  20. ChristianJapan macrumors 601

    ChristianJapan

    Joined:
    May 10, 2010
    Location:
    日本
    #20
    Have some bad experience with TimeCapsule so Time Machine also goes down the river.
    have my stuff now mainly outside Mac stored on a NAS which get a regular backup via rsync on eSATA. Easy and simple.
     
  21. Sodner, Jun 9, 2011
    Last edited: Jun 9, 2011

    Sodner macrumors 68020

    Sodner

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2011
    Location:
    Pittsburgh, PA
    #21
    I use it!

    I use Time Machine on our 3 Mac's to my 1TB time capsule but am running out of space. I did modify the schedule to backup only once a day on my iMac and once a week on my Air and the families iMac. Perhaps if the rumored refresh of the TC line is true I will pick up a larger one.

    Since the TC disk has no fault tollerance I recently purchased a 1TB Western Digital RAID 1 NAS which I backup my iTunes library and iPhoto library to as well.

    FYI.. My TC is going on 12 months with ZERO problems so we shall see how it goes as it approaches the rumored 18 month death zone.
     
  22. firedownunder macrumors regular

    Joined:
    May 5, 2011
    #22
    SuperDuper for boot drive; music and video collection on external raid boxes.
     
  23. daneoni macrumors G4

    daneoni

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2006
  24. Flynnstone macrumors 65816

    Flynnstone

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Location:
    Cold beer land
    #24
    I don't know any reason wait for TB for backups. USB 2 is good enough.
    I use TimeMachine for backs AND SuperDuper for offsite backups.
    Hard drives are so cheap!
     
  25. Fishrrman macrumors G3

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2009
    #25
    I've never used Time Machine.
    I never will.

    TM is a flawed concept that lulls users -- particularly newer, unsophisticated users -- into a false sense of security about backing up.

    The impression one gets from TM is that "backing up is now so easy!" -- just plug in a drive, turn on TM, and don't worry.

    It seems true on its face -- the "backing up" part of the equation does seem easy. It's the "getting your data back" in a "moment of EXTREME NEED" that trips up Time Machine.

    I'm going to guess that a near-majority (or greater) of cases in which an "average user" needs to reach for the backup volume is when he/she tries to boot up and...... the Mac won't boot. They may try to start up from their TM backup and... what next?

    Since a TM backup isn't bootable, you can't just "boot from your backup" and get going again if your "main drive" won't give you a boot.

    And TM doesn't store files on the drive in POFF (plain ol' finder format). You can't just "copy over a file" you need in an emergency.

    How do you accomplish such things easily when you can't get booted from [usually] the only bootable drive you have (the one that is damaged)?

    Time and time and time again, I've seen postings here on MacRumors from users asking for help with TM. Typically, they've had some kind of failure and they're trying to access their TM backup and can't get to it.

    If they had had a "bootable clone backup" from an app like CarbonCopyCloner or SuperDuper, they'd be up and running again in a matter of a couple of minutes.

    Yes, I know the response you're going to type next:
    "TM and CCC are designed to do different things", etc.

    That may be true, and I can see instances where having a TM backup may be worthwhile to someone who is just trying to recover an earlier version of a document they were working on (it should be mentioned that CCC can now "archive" older versions of files that are normally removed during an incremental "clone").

    But usually, folks are trying to recover from a crashed drive, a mis-initialized drive, a corrupted partition, or the trashing of an entire folder full of data. In these cases, a bootable backup -- even if the files aren't "current" to the last several hours or even days -- is far preferable to a "last minute backup" that can't be booted from.

    This may change a bit with Lion's "protected recovery partition", but even that has limitations in that it contains only a few things to get booted from, and I doubt that you'll be able to add anything to it.

    NOTHING beats having a relatively recent, bootable clone of your internal drive with everything on it.
     

Share This Page