Carbon Copy Cloner Vs SuperDuper

[jsgrabo]

Just wanted to hear some thoughts. One necessarily better than the other?

 

[blodwyn]

Just wanted to hear some thoughts. One necessarily better than the other?

Probably a personal preference, so I'm sure you'll get votes for both.

I've never had a problem with SuperDuper. And I also like the way the developers stood their ground on holding off on releasing their Leopard version until it was absolutely rock solid. IMHO they were absolutely correct in doing that rather than caving in to an early release that may have had some corner case bugs concerning Time Machine.

They're both free to try so you could judge for yourself which one you feel most comfortable with

 

[ksmith80209]

My only experience is with SuperDuper. I CAN tell you that, after a client dumped 20oz of water into my keyboard destroying my MBP, I restored a new MBP from SuperDuper in about 45 min and the restore was so good I couldn't tell it was a different machine. EVERYTHING was identical. Amazing...

 

[danny_w]

Another vote for SuperDuper! I have used both, but just "trust" SD! more for some reason. It always seemed to me that CCC copied files unnecessarily, and sometimes produced unbootable clones. It also scared me how the author claimed from the beginning that CCC was compatible with Leopard, but the SD! developer wouldn't release a Leopard version until he KNEW it was right. I guess I just have far more faith in the SD! developer. And the paid version of SD! has more features than CCC as well, and to me they are well worth the small price asked.