By popular demand (and demand and demand and demand), here's a quick update on the status of SuperDuper!'s Leopard update (likely to be called 2.1.5). Sorry it's been a bit quiet here. I've been getting a lot of email, and it's hard to find the time to write posts. I'll try to update the blog with status a bit more often in the future.
SuperDuper! is working well in our internal tests and for our external testers. Right now, we're ensuring that some of the (currently) lesser-used features of the Leopard file system are being handled properly, from both a copying and status standpoint.
Some technical details
The details of all these things are more than a bit obscure: the issues we deal with are things that end users should never need to think about.
For example, Leopard allows applications to "hard link" folders, something that's never been allowed before. Time Machine relies on this capability, but it's available to any application. Proper handling of these hard linked folders is important, and has its own challenges, including how you handle the counts and sizes of files on the drive for the status display, etc.
Not all parts of Leopard handle these new on-disk structures consistently, and as such we're working through the issues bit-by-bit, making sure we're doing things as right as we can, and in a way that won't break when (or if) -- things change in the future. Or when a new, Leopard-specific application you install starts to make more use of this stuff...
Another obscure example
One thing we found during testing was that users with Bluetooth keyboards were having trouble. The keyboard wasn't maintaining its pairing relationship with the system when starting up from the copy.
This was not actually due to any kind of file or metadata copying problem (as we initially feared): everything was being copied as it should, so when we ran our various comparison/verification tools, things checked out fine. Instead, it was due to a change in the way Leopard recreates (or, in this case, no longer recreates) a standard system folder (specifically, /private/var/run), which is certainly not the first place you'd look for this kind of thing, and running down the problem (and verifying the fix) took time.
Timeframe
So, we're working hard to get things right. We want to make sure that when you make a copy of an HFS+/HFSX Leopard volume with SuperDuper!—regardless of what new features were used—the copy will be correct.
Of course, we keep being asked—with various level of politeness—for a "timeframe" for release. Again, we're not targeting a drop-dead release date. It all depends on how testing continues to go after each beta release, whether any bizarre things are found that weren't covered in our test suite, and how long those things—if found—take to research and handle properly. It's not going to be in the next few days: we're hoping within a few weeks. I'll keep you informed about our status here.
Waiting sucks
I know. Believe me, I know. Waiting sucks. I understand your frustration: it's frustrating on this end, too. Once again, thanks for your patience as we try to maintain the level of quality you expect from us.
16 Nov 2007 at 01:41 pm | #
Thanks very much for the update. I’m sure that all the SuperDupers out there can agree that it’s much better to release something that’s been fully tested and vetted rather than releasing something haphazardly, and with fingers crossed.
Because when it comes to backups, one needs to be damn sure that it 1) works, 2) is reliable, and 3) is verbatim and boots. There should be no room for error.
Please give us an update on your efforts whenever possible, even if its short. I applaud your efforts in making this upgrade/transition a successful one. Thanks again.
16 Nov 2007 at 02:04 pm | #
As always, thank you. When 10.5.1 came out I finally bit the bullet and upgraded, and I’ll rely on Time Machine as an interim solution, and keep my Leopard DVD handy.
One thing that would be appreciated for a future blog post is what exactly will break if you backup a Leopard installation using 2.1.4 and attempt to restore. Given that during this interim period it’s unlikely any applications or non-Time Machine volumes are making use of the new filesystem features, it would be useful to know what if anything will break.
16 Nov 2007 at 02:07 pm | #
Thanks very much for the update, Dave. Looking forward to the new release when it’s ready!
16 Nov 2007 at 10:06 pm | #
This update hit the points exactly. Well done and very helpful. thanks, ralph
17 Nov 2007 at 10:09 am | #
Thanks for the update. Keep up the great work. The testing you do of SuperDuper and in-depth knowledge you have of the filesystem is why I feel safe trusting SuperDuper 100% with my backups. Whatever time you need to ensure you keep to those same high standards is worth it.
17 Nov 2007 at 10:09 am | #
Thanks for the update!
Further to the question on what is the extent of the problems with the existing version on Leopard, I would like to know if it is still OK to use it for partial non-bootable backups? I use SuperDuper simply to maintain a backup of some of my user files using the ‘update a disk image’ method and am wondering if you think this is still OK to perform under Leopard with 2.1.4?
17 Nov 2007 at 10:25 am | #
We won’t hurt anything on the source, but the destination will possibly have incorrect ownership and almost certainly won’t boot (if a full copy).
17 Nov 2007 at 04:06 pm | #
Thanks for the update Dave! Much appreciated. Hopefully you aren’t getting too many rude inquiries, but even if so, I’m sure a lot of us appreciate that you’re doing this *correctly*, rather than trying to rush it.
TimeMachine is cool and all, but the functionality I want is in SuperDuper!, and it’s posts like this that let me know the reliability I want is also in SuperDuper!.
17 Nov 2007 at 08:37 pm | #
Thanks for the update. I’m anxiously waiting, since Time Machine has decided that isn’t going to work at all. Period. It will copy anywhere from 1k to 2 or 3 gigs before totally stalling out. I’ve tried different drives, restarting, etc.. no go.
I’m running without a backup now, so I’m waiting with bated breath for SuperDuper! to be updated.
Time Machine feels like a Microsoft product at this point.
18 Nov 2007 at 11:07 am | #
Thanks for working so hard on this. I can tell you that with the 10.5.1 update I found out how important regular backups are. I was able to boot via my SD copy which was amazing.
The other thing I never realized about Time Machine is that it’s NOT a bootable copy. To me this is EXTREMELY important. I don’t want to have to boot the OS/X cd, mirror the drive and THEN boot.
18 Nov 2007 at 12:11 pm | #
I love your product and always recommend it to others. Thanks for the update - I hadn’t realized all the issues that went into being Leopard-ready.
Good luck with your work!
18 Nov 2007 at 12:32 pm | #
I’ll wait with the Leopard upgrade until your product is ready for it.
Out of curiosity why couldn’t you test it before the release of Leopard? To many different systems out there?
18 Nov 2007 at 02:31 pm | #
We did test it before the release of Leopard, with pre-release Leopards. We’ve been working through things that were different in release Leopard, and—as we broaden our testing with more external sites—with things that are showing up in “real world” situations.
19 Nov 2007 at 02:54 am | #
I like many others have come to rely exclusively on SD, but i fail to understand why Apple would not give an actual release version to developers before the public. Surely it is in Apple’s interests to do this isn’t it?
19 Nov 2007 at 12:10 pm | #
any news?
i need a clean reinstallation of leopard and don’t trust any backup software other than super duper!
cheers,
marcus
19 Nov 2007 at 02:55 pm | #
Marcus, I just posted this two days ago...!
19 Nov 2007 at 10:49 pm | #
Dave:
A couple of comments:
1. We all love SD, and have to come to depend on it to the degree that living without it just makes us nuts. Please excuse our rants as frustration with the situation, not you.
2. It might make your life a little easier if you didn’t spend so much time responding to emails and forum posts, and shared more information about the progress of SD.
3. I would suggest that you find ONE place to post information about the progress of SD and make that location VERY prominent on the website homepage, the SD homepage, and the forum homepage. It wasn’t until I read through most of the SD homepage, and 5 pages of one forum thread that I found your post pointing to your blog. (Slap my forehead) In your blog, you gave me enough information to begin to truly understand what you’re up against, and the care and concern you and the testers are putting in to make sure that SD remains a solution and not a problem. That said, by the time I found that blog entry, I was already at a slow simmer.
4. Do not go to bed at night without putting something in your blog (or whatever) indicating the progress (even backwards) of the day. I check your website daily as, I bet, many others do. We’ll give you time you need, please give us the information we need/want.
5. If you need more testers who are willing to give time and expertise, just ask. We’re here for you.
Thanks!
Chris Altwegg
20 Nov 2007 at 04:06 am | #
dave: sorry. should read before write … :D
20 Nov 2007 at 02:03 pm | #
Thanks for the update. Anxiously awaiting SD. Although I’m using Time Machine, I’m really dreading having to do a restore. I’m keeping my last Tiger backup handy just in case.
20 Nov 2007 at 03:42 pm | #
Dave,
I sympathize with the other posters who eagerly await a Leopard-compatible version of SD. I’ve become so comfortable with SD that I now feel naked and vulnerable without it. For now, I use .Mac and Backup.app to protect vital files while I await the fruits of your labors.
Don
22 Nov 2007 at 08:46 am | #
You are the most responsive and responsible developer I’ve ever dealt with, so thank you! I am happy to wait with my install half done until SD is ready!
If Apple had been this careful we wouldn’t be having some of the problems that leopard is rife with. But Apple is getting more like MS, rushing unfinished work to market, leaving the good deveopers to uphold the old Apple traditions.
22 Nov 2007 at 04:23 pm | #
Dave,
Greetings from rainy Holland. keep up the good work. A good, reliable product needs time. It’s good that you waited for the official Leopard release for final development & testing. No-one is helped with a product that “almost always” works, especially a backup/restore product.
Many of the winers over here IMHO opinion made one simple mistake: install Leopard right after the day it was released. Why all that haste...? Just because it’s new? I like Leopard (by the looks of it; didn’t install yet; waiting for SD), but Tiger isn’t bad either, so what’s the actual problem in waiting 1-2 months before all 3rd party developers have adapted their products..? E.g. VMware Fusion was also only ready a good week ago or so. So to all overly hasty “rapid installers” I say: if you like to run safe, as in: with good, easy, fast, reliable SD backups at hand: just wait a few months before jumping on the Leopard. A Tiger is still a good transport vehicle…
Dave: take your time, do a good job, take the necesary rest to enjoy life & wife, and I’ll happily watch this space to find out when I can safely upgrade to the spooted beast!!
Ciao,
Tino.
22 Nov 2007 at 05:30 pm | #
Hey, this app is one of my faves, I use it every day to SmartUpdate my external FWHD clone. It has always worked for me with no issues. Just today I had some flakiness happening on my internal HD and I just fired up SuperDuper! and ran a SmartUpdate from my external FWHD which had been freshly updated this morning according to schedule. So useful, this app. Can’t say enough.
Anyway, I’m going to be sticking with 10.4.11 for quite some time, likely until Leopard hits 10.5.4 or so. I don’t like what I have been reading about Leopard at this point. So waiting for a Leopard update for SuperDuper! is no biggie for me. And I am pleased to hear that 10.4 users aren’t going to be left behind, that development of SuperDuper! will continue to support 10.4 users.
22 Nov 2007 at 07:01 pm | #
These updates do mean a lot for us as customers. I’m a software engineer and fully understand where you’re coming from.
I agree that SD! fills a vital role. TM addresses a problem that IMHO is more a convenience than a backup. As an example of backup, SD! saved us on an older PPC iMac that went south when we tried to update with Leopard. The roll-back via the SD! external HD was FLAWLESS. Thanks a million!
We’ve since rolled back all machines except one.
We rely on VMware Fusion daily for production work. Time Machine trashes Fusion instances. Very bad mojo! Even though SD! doesn’t produce 100% correct backups, we still use it on the one Leopard machine since the user data appears to be copied just fine.
As to doing backups when hard links are involved… yeah… not easy! They really change the equation, don’t they?
Anyhow, keep up the good efforts. As users communication goes a long ways, and the majority of us keep our rabies shots up to date. *grin*
22 Nov 2007 at 11:21 pm | #
I just finished an hour at my local Apple store for a “Intro to Leopard” session. Although I have upgraded my mini to Leopard, I haven’t yet upgraded my primary machine, my 17” MacBook Pro.
The Apple line for performing restorations from disk disasters is now, “Just re-install the OS from your original copy, and use Time Machine...”
I couldn’t get the Apple rep to budge a bit on what I have been doing with SuperDuper: painlessly creating a bootable backup weekly in case disaster strikes.
Anyway - I know *I* will be upgrading to SuperDuper’s new release - no matter the cost involved. But SuperDuper is not going to be as highly recommended by Apple folks as it was before Leopard hit. Personally, I like having my bootable backup ready to go in one “restore” step - and will continue to support and support SuperDuper.
Clint Bradford, Riverside CA
909-241-7666
23 Nov 2007 at 06:41 pm | #
Looking forward to Leopard compatibility. SuperDuper! is awesome and I used it everyday in Tiger. Keep up the hard work.
23 Nov 2007 at 09:00 pm | #
Dave,
Please take your time to make sure that SD is operating 100% correctly. Backup software is our safety net and I for one don’t want any holes. I have only installed Leopard on my Laptop and a file server we have. I rely on SD for my backup of my critical Email server and web server. Those will stay on Tiger for the moment. SD is a brilliant product and has saved my workflow on more than one occasion. I often tell people that for the price of a drive and SD it is very very cheap insurance. If something goes wrong you can be up running in the time it takes to re-boot. I have tried several backup programs but SD is by far the best for my purposes.
Take your time and get it right
my 2c
Simon L.
24 Nov 2007 at 03:42 am | #
Many thanks for the update, Dave. It’s good to know that you’re working hard to make sure that SD! works exactly right. Like some others here, I couldn’t resist the lure of Leopard, so I upgraded a couple of days ago, and everything seems to be working fine. (Phew!) Over the next few days, as I get more confident with knowing that my Leopard system is stable (and it certainly appears to be that way), I hope to use the current version of SD! to make a full backup of it, replacing my Tiger backup. From what I’ve read here, it should work OK (except that it won’t boot up the system, correct?). Will the Smart Update function work for subsequent backups?
Thanks for all your efforts, Dave!
Russell
24 Nov 2007 at 11:20 am | #
Smart Update should work, yes.
24 Nov 2007 at 02:39 pm | #
Is it safe and reliable to duplicate non-boot and non-Time Machine volumes (such as volumes containing just my iTunes library, documents, or work archives) using SuperDuper 2.1.4 under Mac OS X 10.5.1? I assume that such volumes contain no hard-linked directories.
24 Nov 2007 at 03:41 pm | #
It’s certainly safe, but some of the metadata, ownership, etc might be wrong on the copy. Data should be OK.
24 Nov 2007 at 05:03 pm | #
Thanks so much for the very quick response, Dave!!!
So for now I’ll continue to clone my boot drive using Disk Utility until Super Duper 2.1.5 is released, but go back to cloning my data drives with SuperDuper 2.1.4. That much more convenient than trying to “clone” my data drives by hand, using the Finder to copy and Spotlight to locate changed files. Ugh…
I look forward to SuperDuper 2.1.5, but am very pleased you are taking the time to make the Leopard version stable and reliable!
26 Nov 2007 at 03:28 am | #
Thanks for the update. I rather have something that is working reliably than a quick fix.
Using Timemachine in the meantime. Must say I’m kind of getting used to the convenience fact that I don’t have to be logged in or have to start something.... I just plug in the drice and off it goes.....
Maybe a useful feature for SuperDuper in the future: Have an option to configure it via a Preference pane and then have some background process watching if the designated drive is connected and then just kick off the cloning process. For checks have a log viewer build in the Preference pane / application.
Keep up the good work!
Frank
26 Nov 2007 at 06:16 am | #
Thanks for the update and keep up! Like so many others, I have no trouble waiting for SuperDuper
26 Nov 2007 at 10:13 am | #
I’ve grown to really appreciate SD in the past year, and am also absolutely willing to wait for it to be updated so that it works well.
In any case, this post details my combined usage of time machine with SD, which I’m guessing may well be pretty typical.
26 Nov 2007 at 11:10 am | #
SD owner who understands the issues and is patiently waiting, with the emphasis on “patiently”. That said, one bit of criticism? On the SD site you have this prominently posted:
“(Reasonably) frequent updates are being posted at the Shirt Pocket Watch blog, so stop on by!”
So I come here only to find ONE posting (which is 10 days old) in the last THIRTY-THREE days. That is neither reasonable nor frequent.
26 Nov 2007 at 11:13 am | #
I’m sorry, Dave: I thought 10 days was pretty reasonable. Another post is in process.
26 Nov 2007 at 04:31 pm | #
Dave,
As I did say, I do understand (well, just enough to know I really don’t understand) the complexities that Time Machine introduced. I can be patient.
Consider, however, an outsider’s point of view… at the time I wrote my comment I was unaware that you were 1-2 hours away from posting something. So no - it wasn’t “10 days”. It was “1 every 26 days”. Had I known you would be posting an update today, I certainly would not have commented - because yes, 10 days is reasonable.
Glad to hear you’re making progress!
26 Nov 2007 at 04:38 pm | #
Well, it was 10 days before your post, Dave. And those 10 days included Thanksgiving weekend. But thanks!
26 Nov 2007 at 05:48 pm | #
I cloned my data drives over the weekend using SuperDuper! 2.1.4 under Mac OS X 10.5.1, and from my quick check over several changed files, the clone worked well!
Thanks, Dave!
And Frank, even though Dave isn’t adding new blog entries daily, he definitely is reading these comments regularly and responding to them very quickly.
26 Nov 2007 at 05:58 pm | #
I think we all should step back and realize just how incredible SuperDuper has been for us - especially considering the measley thirty bucks that it cost us. I cannot think of very many other software authors who are as responsive and “open” as this author is. If you’ve upgraded to Leopard, then you have a reasonable backup routine available to you.
And when SuperDuper is ready for us, the backup process will, once again, be painless and reliable.
Clint Bradford
Riverside, CA
909-241-7666
28 Nov 2007 at 10:07 pm | #
I understand this company is a one man show and this guy is working his brain off to get this thing working but backup utilities are exactly for backups and simple enough I am or better said we are without proper backups since leopard came out, some people say that it is ok the wait because it only cost US$30, well a cd is cheaper and it would not be ok if you buy it and it does not sound, so being low priced does not justify that the product is not ready yet, if the product is good and does its job it will sell for what it is worth and you and I will buy it simple enough because we need it. Leopard was in the hand of developers long enough to have products ready for the introduction. When I bought this product I did not buy it because it was cheap but because it was very well recommended I had no idea I was taking such a risk on getting accustomed to using such product from such a small company. I am back in the market for a good backup product not matter what it cost! it was great while it worked.
28 Nov 2007 at 10:16 pm | #
Ivan: the final version of Leopard was not in the hands of developers. We had to buy it, the same day you did.
The fact that it’s not ready has nothing to do with whether the company is “small”. It has to do with the kind of testing we have to do.
Remember: you can always use Time Machine while you’re waiting. As I’ve said in my other posts, SD! and TM complement each other nicely.
28 Nov 2007 at 11:16 pm | #
Ivan - It’s not only “smaller” developers who all obtained the latest version of Leopard the same day you and I purchased it: Firms a little larger - like HP - are also still working on Leopard compatibility issues.
29 Nov 2007 at 05:33 pm | #
I think SD is just plain simple and brilliant. I mostly use a Macbook Pro so I am not crazy about Time Machine and I am using CCC now. I used to develop software myself for the windows environment and had a subscription to the “MS Developer’s Library”, we got betas that were pretty close to RC, so most of the work was done before release date. I did not know it was so different for Apple. Regarding HP, we the little guys can not afford to be as careless as large companies as HP are. As a matter of fact I do not used HP products any longer and I switched to the MAC looking for a better alternative than the combination: Microsoft + mainstream PC manufacturers.
01 Dec 2007 at 12:54 am | #
I must say that I cannot believe some of the rudeness that I see on these posts.
Dave Nanian is working very, very hard to surmount some extraordinarily complex issues. All of us will be depending on his work to safeguard our data, and I see some posts which are just stressing him out. First- Dave thank you for your hard work. SuperDuper! saved me after my first disastrous Leopard installation when it bluescreened due to the infamous ‘applicationenhancer’ bug in addition to the keychain killer. After the SD! restore I could do a full ‘archive and install’ and since then things have been great. If it weren’t for that superduper archive, however, I would have been in a world of hurt. When I saw that reboot work, my heart started beating again
Just think everyone- we need that kind of assurance with the new version. So I hope that I don’t see any more posts demanding why Dave hasn’t posted on this blog, or why it’s taking so long.
Have some courtesy and realize that the work he does now will benefit you when you need it most.
Respect!
03 Dec 2007 at 11:15 am | #
Rude/irrespectful? Once again SD is brilliant and that is why we buy it instead of getting someone else product’s or using pirate copies. I believe this company knows that and bottom line our dollars are getting into its account. There is not better support than that in today business world, at least that is what I wish for my business. I do not see any thing irrespectful or rude in the postings just people expressing their opinions. Why it is not ready? I believe we are entitle to know if we are going to continue using this product, so lets hang the skin outside the meeting room and lets get down to business!
09 Dec 2007 at 02:37 am | #
I cannot agree more...hrcwubfa said it all. SuperDuper is THE ultimate Mac backup utility.
15 Dec 2007 at 03:32 am | #
Thanks, Dave, for putting my name in the About SD! credits page. I sure don’t deserve the plug, but I DO appreciate it—IF my name is there forever <he he joke>! Can U email me a copy of the Abt pg?
On a side note: I recently was talking with a friend who owns MacMouse, a local Mac retailer here in AlohaLand. I told him I’d wait on Leopard until “the dust settles” & “Who needs Time Machine with SuperDuper!?” ... He agreed & thanked me for using SuperDuper! <huh?> Twice blessed.
Make SD! solid & safe, Dave, instead of fast to market.
19 Dec 2007 at 01:30 pm | #
For those of you who are whining about not having a Leopard safe release of this product here’s one way to think about your situation.
Imagine you just got in your car and drove it straight toward a brick wall at 100mph. When you wake up in hospital with a broken neck you start to complain that nobody moved the wall for you.
I haven’t upgraded to leopard and won’t for at least a few months even though my latest macbook pro came with the disk. I rely on my machine to work without all the hassles of a new OS release. Bottom line is it will take at least 6 months for the Leopard to become anything like a safe environment to work in along with all the applications you have come to rely on.
Ivan good luck finding a backup program you can trust. Frankly with the timescales presented to developers you have no hope. My advice based on 20 years experience in this industry is go back to using 10.4 for at least another few months.
A company that is smart enough to take the approach of Shirt Pocket is the company I will continue to buy my products from.
20 Dec 2007 at 05:38 am | #
So “Leopard ...no longer recreates a standard system folder (specifically, /private/var/run)”? How does it get away with that? It still uses that folder--I just checked mine, under OS 10.5.1, and it’s there, full of files that were just updated yesterday. Can you give us any more details on that bug?
20 Dec 2007 at 07:56 am | #
Sure, johnsawyercjs: if you remove that folder (i.e. don’t copy it from a source because it, like many other folders, were automatically created by the startup process), it won’t be recreated on startup due to a change in that process. This causes many processes to silently fail at boot, because launchd makes extensive use of /private/var/run…
That’s the what. The why—that is, why it was changed like this—I can’t answer.
20 Dec 2007 at 09:15 pm | #
Thanks, Dave. Interesting. Sometimes it seems there isn’t any valid “why” involved in Apple making decisions like this, giving the impression that it’s somebody doing some late-night programming at Apple who forgot to include something they were supposed to, the code gets set in stone, and then it takes forever for the problem to get fixed.
20 Jan 2008 at 12:51 pm | #
Well, like I said in a post before, I went in a quest to find a backup program and could not find one that really works under Leopard, including Carbon Copy Clone and bruClone; with both I get strange behaviors with the dock, like disappearing after bootup and not reapearing but after I execute an application. So I am back where I was before: waiting for Super Duper. Hopefully, Dave got it right.