For that reason I also use CCC. Frequent updates and never had a problem with it. When it comes to backups saving you in the event of a meltdown, trust is essential. I get that from CCC.
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.
Why I now prefer SuperDuper over Carbon Copy Cloner.
- Thread starter manny88
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
For that reason I also use CCC. Frequent updates and never had a problem with it. When it comes to backups saving you in the event of a meltdown, trust is essential. I get that from CCC.
Yeah, I've also owned SuperDuper! for a number of years, and what is also positive is that Shirt Pocket software has NEVER charged for an update. Also, except for when a new version of the Mac OS has been released, very few additional updates are issued for SD. Definitely a stable product.
But I am not going to knock CCC. It's an excellent product, and I know folks who are very happy with it. One can't go wrong with either one.
[automerge]1588442880[/automerge]
SuperDuper is NOT free, and it also has a large user base. Also, there are no where as many updates for SuperDuper as there are for CCC. Seems SuperDuper is more stable.
And SD is definitely reliable! It is certainly "saved my bacon" in more than one instance.
Again, am not knocking CCC, but folks need to be accurate when they make statements. Don't rely on fake news!
But I am not going to knock CCC. It's an excellent product, and I know folks who are very happy with it. One can't go wrong with either one.
[automerge]1588442880[/automerge]
SuperDuper is NOT free, and it also has a large user base. Also, there are no where as many updates for SuperDuper as there are for CCC. Seems SuperDuper is more stable.
And SD is definitely reliable! It is certainly "saved my bacon" in more than one instance.
Again, am not knocking CCC, but folks need to be accurate when they make statements. Don't rely on fake news!
Last edited:
MSastre
macrumors 6502a
SuperDuper does have a free version without all the "bells & whistles" of the full featured paid version. Still works fine for making a clone of your HD if that is all you want to do. I have been using the paid version for many many years and highly recommend it.
But that does not mean that it is deficient. I actually upgraded to the paid version after using the free one for about a year, and I did notice a speed increase. My backup needs are simple enough: just clone the contents of my HD. It works flawlessly.
chinchillas
macrumors regular
1 TB / 9 hours = 30 MB/sec. That's about as fast as you can get on a USB 2 connection.
chinchillas
macrumors regular
Spudlicious
macrumors 6502a
I've used CCC for five years, I find it fast, easy to understand and - much more importantly - utterly reliable. So I've had no reason to try any alternative, especially one with such a silly name. Carbon Copy Cloner = does exactly that. Super Duper = what? Try a web search.
Last edited by a moderator:
chinchillas
macrumors regular
👆Lol. Yes, other users have stated that software won't transfer file permissions and other restorative system functions or whatever is needed in case your HD dies.
Anyway: this went smoothly while I went to bed:
My files and media got copied but not Time Machine (CCC can't copy proprietary Apple stuff -- if copied it would've been more than 3 TB). If system settings got copied, I have no idea where they are or how I would restore them.
What I'd like to do now, because I need to keep wasting time, is to do a Time Machine on disc 2 (where the new backup is), then erase/partition disc 1 so that Time Machine doesn't take so much space, copy all my stuff from 2 to 1 like last night and encrypt both discs. Do you think it's a good idea to limit Time Machine like that? If it is, I'll just keep living with horrible TM on both discs.
Anyway: this went smoothly while I went to bed:
My files and media got copied but not Time Machine (CCC can't copy proprietary Apple stuff -- if copied it would've been more than 3 TB). If system settings got copied, I have no idea where they are or how I would restore them.
What I'd like to do now, because I need to keep wasting time, is to do a Time Machine on disc 2 (where the new backup is), then erase/partition disc 1 so that Time Machine doesn't take so much space, copy all my stuff from 2 to 1 like last night and encrypt both discs. Do you think it's a good idea to limit Time Machine like that? If it is, I'll just keep living with horrible TM on both discs.
"I've used CCC for five years, I find it fast, easy to understand and - much more importantly - utterly reliable. So I've had no reason to try any alternative, especially one with such a silly name. Carbon Copy Cloner = does exactly that. Super Duper = what? Try a web search."
Did not want to repeat all those crappy pictures, but what a narrow minded post! I've been using SuperDuper! for over 5 years, and it has NEVER, NEVER failed me! It has been one of the most reliable programs I use (and I use all third party software).
Also, I have never, never said anything bad about CCC. I have always praised it. But I guess there are folks who do the opposite, even though it is uncalled for.
Did not want to repeat all those crappy pictures, but what a narrow minded post! I've been using SuperDuper! for over 5 years, and it has NEVER, NEVER failed me! It has been one of the most reliable programs I use (and I use all third party software).
Also, I have never, never said anything bad about CCC. I have always praised it. But I guess there are folks who do the opposite, even though it is uncalled for.
Thanks. Cannot understand why that individual above would make such an uninformed post. As I stated, I have never, never said a bad thing about CCC, and in fact have praised it (and still do).
MacBH928
macrumors G3
Why do you want to run Time Machine if you have CCC? Time Machine is better if you want to go back in history and retrieve a file you have lost. I think its good too if you want to transfer from one system to the other, so backup to TM, open new computer and restore from that TM backup.
CCC is better if you want to have a complete replica 1:1 copy of your system, You literally can remove your built in storage, install the CCC backup storage, and restarter your mac like nothing was changed. It says what it name means a "Carbon Copy".
chinchillas
macrumors regular
I’m getting used to it, plus I may not be able to test its functionalities during the 30 day test deal because I'm having trouble with both my EHDs. After cloning them, I tried to encrypt the newest one... it was taking forever. Right now I'm decrypting and it's the same. I can't fully erase it until this stupid decryption thing is over, which make take DAYS.
MacBH928
macrumors G3
My understanding is that encryption always takes a long time no matter what except if you have one of those new T2 chip Macs...so I have been told. If you ask on the CCC forums or contact their support they pretty helpful and responsive.
jdw13
macrumors regular
I use Time Machine to have full backup, and CCC to do nightly and weekly copies of selected Users accounts over a LAN to a remote disk.
I also use CCC 'Tasks' (scripts) to copy selected directories of 'vital' information to appropriate locations on an external USB disk to use with a laptop while I travel for extended times.
There are probably many other reasons to use CCC (or SuperDuper if it allows selection and scheduling) in addition to TimeMachine.
chinchillas
macrumors regular
I need to sync specific folders. I have the paid version but can't figure out how. Is this possible?
There is a very important difference between CCCloner and Superduper that I find almost no one EVER mentions.
Superduper will clone (free) or copy (paid version) time machine backups. TM backups to save space use a lot of linked files. Only finder and Superduper will copy those, and finder often with large TM backups, will halt with an error somewhere in the middle. So if you are moving large TM backups to a different disk and need to copy, it is extremely frustrating to spend 3+ days copying and then failing in finder. Superduper works flawlessly and it is faster than finder.
CCCloner states that it doesnt work with TM Backups. That said, I find that CCCloner has a simpler interface, although CCC 6 is more complex than 5. CCC 5 did not need to read the manual whereas 6 is no longer self explanatory. So I use both.
Superduper will clone (free) or copy (paid version) time machine backups. TM backups to save space use a lot of linked files. Only finder and Superduper will copy those, and finder often with large TM backups, will halt with an error somewhere in the middle. So if you are moving large TM backups to a different disk and need to copy, it is extremely frustrating to spend 3+ days copying and then failing in finder. Superduper works flawlessly and it is faster than finder.
CCCloner states that it doesnt work with TM Backups. That said, I find that CCCloner has a simpler interface, although CCC 6 is more complex than 5. CCC 5 did not need to read the manual whereas 6 is no longer self explanatory. So I use both.