Re: We Need Backup!

"Dan Johnson" <danieljohnson@xxxxxxxxxxxx> stated in post
13548338g9l4i8a@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on 5/21/07 3:42 PM:

"Snit" <CSMA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:C2770D79.81D7A%CSMA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Dan Johnson" <danieljohnson@xxxxxxxxxxxx> stated in post
1352qb88skk587@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on 5/21/07 2:41 AM:

Sandman has kindly suggested that I'd troll better if I didn't focus so
much
on technical issues.

I am surprised he did not just suggest you make unsupported accusations,
claim people are evading, snip in absurd ways, and outright lie - but maybe
he fears people competing with his schtick.

He need have no fear. I can't compete! :D

Fair enough!

[snip- Summary of Vista backup tools]

Sounds decent.

They are reasonably useful tools.

In neither case do you get much choice about what to back up. You always
back up whole disks; you can choose file- types in a very coarse grained way
(for the file backup), but that's it. You can't even select which
directories to include.

Yuk... that is pretty bad.

It is not what you might call enterprise-level backup.

But it is very simple to use. No clue required, really.

Lack of directory selection is a pretty big weakness...

So Vista represents an evolution towards more features, but also more
simplicity and less flexibility. You might say Vista's becoming more
Mac-like that way, but I'm not sure it's that simple.

I do not know of a backup solution for the Mac that does not let you selevt
folders!

Very early versions of the .Mac Backup program were like that. I was struck by
the similarity when I first used the Vista file backup tool.

Ok, never used either.

[snip- .Mac backup]
Perhaps it had to. It's part of .Mac, not OS X, so it's something you have
to pay an annual fee for. A very simple fixed-function backup is not
competitive, not if it's as expensive as .Mac.

Above you stated OS X had no solution... now you include the .Mac
solution... which I have no experience with, being that I do not pay for
.Mac.

I did, but don't now. It's not worth it. And that means .Mac Backup
won't work for me anymore. :/

But I include .Mac Backup (and Time Machine later on) because
you really must have something to bash if your gonna troll. If you don't,
it's like bunching a balloon.

I also believe in reaching as far as I can; a prudent, speculation-free
troll is just too boring to work. That's another reason to widen the
field by bringing in these other past and future Apple products.

The problem with talking about the future products is Apple is very
secretive.

[snip]
It's much simpler than the Vista backup tools; you plug in an external
drive,
tell it to do the Time Machine thing, and that's it.

That is not it. It also allows users to view data based on applications, not
just folders. This is, as far as I know, different from *anything* else out
there - and, for many users, I suspect it will be vastly better.

That's the *restore* part. I meant the backup part. The backup part
is, from Apple's descriptions, very simple. Not quite as simple as
"Previous Versions", but simpler than Vista's file backup.

That it isn't as simple as "Previous Verisons"- which is just always
on and you don't have to do anything to make it work- is another example
of how combing versioning and backup into one tool like this leads to
compromise.

Assuming it is as you describe...

But it's also even *less* flexible. It backs up nearly everything, omitting
(I read) only cache directories and the like. It's not quite as complete as
an image backup, but it's close. You can't select file types or directories
or anything like that. But that's okay, for a simple bundled backup. Ease of
use is king.

<http://www.apple.com/macosx/leopard/timemachine.html>
-----
Do Not Backup: By default, Time Machine backs up your entire
system. But you can also select items you¹d rather not back
up.
-----

Almost surely that includes directories you do not want backed up.

Also remember that all we have seen is an early beta... who knows what else
has been added? We shall know, it seems, next month.

Well, yes. But I need something to dump on, and real information
about Time Machine is not easy to get. I know only what I've seen
leaked, and it didn't include that.

So, naturally, I assume the worst. :D

Well, if you want to know more than what has been "leaked", read Apple's
official page on it... linked to above.

[snip]
What's not so okay is that you can't back up to CD or DVD. You must use a
hard disk (or something equivalent to it). There's little compression done,
and all your backups go onto the same drive. Time Machine removes old ones
automatically, when it needs disk space. So this is an expensive way to back
up, and you don't get keep your oldest backups around.

Again, we do not know that for certain, but no CD or DVD backups have been
announced as far as I know... nor selection of what backup times to keep.
Fair enough.

I am going on surmise here, but I am fairly sure of this. My reasons are
technical, and I'm trying not to be technical this time, so I'll leave it at
that.

I would be curious as to what your technical reasons are.

The issue is that Time Machine is supposed to be versioning, too. You can
use it to roll back to yesterdays version of a file, and they've put a lot
of effort into a slick restore UI- normally something you never want to use.

More than just a slick UI, it offers the ability to work on the application
level... from a user perspective they are restoring an image, not a "file",
for example. Very cool.

That's a versioning feature, though. That's what I mean: this isn't just a
backup program. It's a versioning tool as well.

Fair enough.

I think this compromises their design. You get a versioning system that
requires extra hardware to work, and only takes a new version once a day.
You get a backup that can't write to cheap media, and deletes old backups
without notice.

Again: we do not know details.

Well, what we do know is that whatever it is, it's not available yet. :D

If only I had a Time Machine...


--
? Different viruses are still different even if in the same "family"
? Dreamweaver and GoLive are professional web development applications
? Dreamweaver, being the #1 pro web design tool, is used by many pros





.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Does anyone know the theory behind the time machine...???
    ... backup that you want to keep, ... Time Machine backup just before installing a system update, ... This hard link only requires a relatively small amount of storage in the ... original file is deleted, the alias won't work any more, unless you put ...
    (comp.sys.mac.system)
  • Re: Please Comment On My Backup Plan
    ... Cable modem connected to saucer airport extreme. ... network connections. ... Proposed backup methodology. ... Connect the external drive to the Imac and run time machine. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.system)
  • Re: Start Time Machine from Scratch ?
    ... Time Machine handles this fine, ... After I delete and cleaned things up the backup was 3.5GB or there ... know about C. or CPlan. ... in your example you talk about backing up 21GB instead of 3.5GB. ...
    (uk.comp.sys.mac)
  • Re: How Apple Won Our Mini Enterprise Contract
    ... at as a commercial grade backup solution, ... I did not suggest Time Machine as the *only* backup ... You keep saying things like this, but one Xserve is not more reliable ... a mini, and you're not even getting that with your used hardware. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: Start Time Machine from Scratch ?
    ... Time Machine handles this fine, ... After I delete and cleaned things up the backup was 3.5GB or there ... Why are you backing up a backup? ... I'm just surprised you thought that might be a reason; ...
    (uk.comp.sys.mac)