I've read a handful of previous threads in regards to whether to use time machine, superduper, or both as far as your backup plans go. With the availability of Lion Recovery, is there a reason to choose superduper over time machine now? In previous threads, it mentioned that time machine doesn't always do a full clone and that with superduper it would be quicker to get back up in running. Is that still the case?
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.
Need for Superduper w/ Lion Recovery?
- Thread starter Mind18
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
A clone is always faster than Lion Recovery plus Time Machine. The clone simply boots, no hassle.
I use SuperDuper instead of CCC, but they are very similar. I have SuperDuper clones of each of my systems.
I use SuperDuper instead of CCC, but they are very similar. I have SuperDuper clones of each of my systems.
Good point. And to restore, it's as simple as booting from the clone and then going into disk utility to copy over the partition to the new drive?
Just boot from the clone drive and use SuperDuper to copy the image back to your mac. It will reformat the mac and handle everything for you.
An added advantage of a SuperDuper or CCC clone is when you decide to run software updates. Make a copy before you update, then if the update leaves a mess, you can easily revert to pre-update.
I use both Time Machine and SuperDuper! to back up my data. I use SuperDuper! to do nightly clones of my drives and rely on Time Machine to do backups hourly.
Best of both worlds since I have two full backups yet easy access to files.
S-
Best of both worlds since I have two full backups yet easy access to files.
S-
TM offers version history that you can scroll back through. CCC and SD offer archiving of versions, but not in the same "scroll back" GUI. CCC and SD offer bootable clones, which TM doesn't. Both offer periodic updates to backups. The only thing that TM offers that the others don't is the fancy roll-back GUI.
In other words, as I said in my previous post, neither one offers what Time Machine does....jeez.
S-
If you're referring to the fancy GUI, that's a very minor point compared to the more important function of backups. Of greater impact is the fact that CCC and SD can create bootable clones, making recovery from a failed drive as quick as booting up. TM's fancy roll-back interface is a poor consolation compared to that.
I never said that Time Machine does everything SuperDuper! does, did I? That's why I use both.
Time Machine does things SuperDuper! does not and SuperDuper! does things Time Machine does not.
Pretty simple, huh?
S-
SD does everything TM does, as far as function. It looks different, but it does the same thing.
That is not a correct statement. Time Machines offers access to many versions of a file from the past. SuperDuper! does not have that feature. SuperDuper! does full backups...it does not do "incremental" or differential" backups.
You are losing and digging a deeper hole...stop before it is too late.
S-
Yes, it does, in the paid version. Super Duper and incremental backups
CCC does this in the free version, which is why I prefer it over SD and TM. Use what you want, but don't make inaccurate and misleading claims about other products.
There is no paid version of CCC, so calling it the "free version" is inaccurate and misleading, which is what you don't want others to do.
Also, TM handles archiving of older versions very differently from the way CCC or SD do. TM uses hard links (a pain when trying to estimate disk size) which has the benefit of simply having a structure that appears exactly like a snapshot of the time the backup was made, making manually browsing a TM backup (not using the TM UI) super easy. SD and CCC don't do incremental backups this way.
TM is also required for the Versions feature of Lion, so here it most certainly does something that CCC and SD don't.
SD, CCC, and TM all accomplish the function of backing up your Mac. SD and CCC also allow you to create bootable clones. However, claiming that SD and CCC do everything that TM does is simply not true. And you know it isn't true, you've admitted that TM has a flashy UI and CCC/SD don't, and TM handles multiple versions of files differently. That alone is enough to make the statement "TM does things that CCC and SD don't" true. You may not care, and that's all well and good. But the statement is not false, inaccurate, or misleading.
CCC is a free version, so it's not misleading.
What's misleading is the impression given that TM can do incremental backups and CCC or SD can't, which is false. The fact that the interface is different does not affect the fact that incremental backups are possible with all 3 apps.
Appending the word "version" to the end of something implies that there are other versions. You wouldn't say you had the paid version of Photoshop because there isn't any other version of Photoshop. You only use the word version to differentiate and in the case of CCC, there's nothing to differentiate.
If I had a car that only ever came in the color blue, why would I say I got the "blue version"?
It's obvious that sidewinder was unaware that CCC and SD offered incremental backups with archiving of previous versions. You could have simply informed sidewinder of this or clarified if sidewinder knew, instead of making an argument out of it. Regardless, you contested the statement that TM and CCC/SD do different things, which is a true statement.
That's still not misleading. The point is that to get incremental backups with CCC there is no cost. To get incremental backups with SD, you have to pay. The statement and the intent of the statement is factual and accurate.
They do the same things (incremental backups). They simply do them in different ways.
Yes, but why call it the "free version" when there is no other version? It definitely has to potential to be confusing. I use CCC myself on a daily basis and I STILL went to the site to double-check there was no paid version that had come out since I last visited based on your terminology. Sounds misleading to me.
Granted, it's not misleading as far as the features go, but it most definitely implies that there's a paid version when there isn't. Implying that something exists when it doesn't exist is misleading.
I see nothing in the SuperDuper! docs that suggest it does incremental or differential backups.
I have not said anything about Carbon Copy Cloner....
S-
I have not said anything about Carbon Copy Cloner....
S-
Last edited:
Time machine saves multiple incremental backups, a useful feature if you need to revert to an older version - as was my case when an itunes backup of her iphone became corrupted. We were able to find earlier backups in Time machine and pick one that made sense. Superduper copies don't allow for that - or if they do it is not as easily done. But superduper is much faster when you need your whole disk cloned or restored.
No, that is not an incremental backup. It replaces the files on the backup if the source files have changed. So you can't go back and get an old version of a file. "Smart Update" is just a smart and fast image backup....
S-
I used TM on Lion for a full system restore on my Macbook 2 days ago.
I haven't experienced any problems since and everything is present and correct.
I connected my external drive, booted into Lion Recovery via Command + R, selected a backup that was a day before my system 'accident'
and off it went.Half hour later I was back online.
It was quite an impressive experience, especially not having to boot from disk.
I will just mention that I always let TM do full backups with no exclusions so maybe that helped things along.
As impressed as I am with Time Machine I have been looking at other utilities to use for making a clone backup, it's no joke when your system does get messed up and if you have the storage space it seems like a good idea to have a couple of different methods of restoring it.