Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

edubfromktown

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Sep 14, 2010
1,061
1,077
East Coast, USA
Once again, Carbon Copy Cloner has brought (yet another) one of my systems back to life (because I backup locally/periodically).

Intel or silicon... this is "the way" imo.

I've also done a number of Time Machine restores for others and it takes far longer in my experience.

I have no affiliation with the organization whatsoever.
 
I had an SSD fail on me about a year ago. I make local daily backups to my NAS and weekly off-site backups to Dropbox. And the Mac with the failed SSD was running Sonoma with OCLP.

It was an easy matter of using another Mac to clone from the local NAS backup to a new SSD using CCC. Then, all I had to do was reinstall Sonoma using my OCLP/Sonoma USB stick and I picked up right where I left off.

So, right there with you. I've never used TM for a restore - always been CCC.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Patrice Brousseau
I’ve never had an issue restoring using TM. I’ve even restored an Intel backup to new M1. But then I use TrueNAS SCALE which has TM support. And the price is exactly right.
 
I had an SSD fail on me about a year ago. I make local daily backups to my NAS and weekly off-site backups to Dropbox. And the Mac with the failed SSD was running Sonoma with OCLP.

It was an easy matter of using another Mac to clone from the local NAS backup to a new SSD using CCC. Then, all I had to do was reinstall Sonoma using my OCLP/Sonoma USB stick and I picked up right where I left off.

So, right there with you. I've never used TM for a restore - always been CCC.

If you have the time to watch glaciers build or melt, ok...

CCC has been far more efficient in countless restores of both over a couple of decades.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Patrice Brousseau
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.