I know it feels like that from the outside. But from the inside, we've been putting out quite a few external beta releases (11 at last count), incorporating feedback from our testers, and carefully observing what users with 2.1.4—who have tried to use it with Leopard—have tried to do.
Before I start, though, please recognize that I'm describing things we noticed back in October. So, this is not causing additional delay—these are some of the things that contributed to the delay in the first place.
Paying Attention to Users
We've always observed our users very carefully. And, after Leopard's release, we noticed one big thing: users with 2.1.4 and Leopard have been trying to store their SuperDuper! backup to the same volume they've been using for Time Machine. But there's a significant problem with that: namely, since the Time Machine backup isn't on the source volume, Smart Update is going to try to delete it.
Now, Time Machine "protects" its own backups through a number of complex mechanisms, so no damage is done—except the backup fails.
Choices
In some ways, this is quite similar to the "storing other files alongside a backup" case that has come up before (and has an entire section of the User's Guide dedicated to it)—basically, we could request that users partition the destination drive, put their Time Machine backups on one volume, and their SuperDuper! backup on another.
But, even with Leopard's new "live partitioning" capability, that's a pain, isn't obvious, requires a support round trip, doesn't meet user expectations, and isn't transparent.
It also wasn't something we took into consideration during our original compatibility design. We focused on the various new capabilities of the OS, ensuring that we worked well, but since we were used to partitions—and knew that Time Machine liked as much disk space as possible—we gave it a lot of space to work with and left it alone.
So, once we started seeing this—which was after Leopard's release, of course—we had to make a choice. Push responsibility to the user to do the right thing, or anticipate and handle it inside SuperDuper! so users wouldn't be immediately frustrated.
But I Don't Want to Use Time Machine!
We certainly understood—and understand—that some users don't want to use Time Machine. But the problem is, a large proportion of Leopard's users do, and we have to serve the needs of both groups. We can't come out with a "Leopard-compatible" release that doesn't work properly with Time Machine.
And we couldn't really release a "quick update" that just copied the basics first, and then an update that handled this case right. Had we done that, we would have still needed to take a full external cycle to test the copy engine changes we needed to make, and then run the same extensive cycle again when we made the low-level changes to handle this case.
So, we bit the bullet and made the necessary changes to handle the case properly, the way users would expect: it just works.
So, if you Smart Update a volume that you're using for Time Machine, it works just fine. Your Time Machine backups, and your bootable SuperDuper! backup, and stored on the same volume, side-by-side, without interfering with each other, with no need to partition or do anything special (other than use Smart Update, of course).
On top of that, you can still copy that volume—that is, a volume that has both Time Machine backups and a bootable SuperDuper! backup—to a 3rd volume to make a second backup, and everything there works great, too.
This is technically more complicated that you might expect, but all of that is under the covers. On the surface, there are no visible changes.
Side Benefits
So, this is the main reason why we were able to improve the handling of Spotlight and preserve icons as I discussed in the last post: we had to handle the Time Machine case, but it benefits all users by improving the way Spotlight (which everyone basically uses) and icon preservation (which a small, but vocal group use) works.
Why Focus on Time Machine?
Which, of course, is an extension of But I Don't Want to Use Time Machine!, above.
The fact is, Apple considers Time Machine to be the most important, most visible new feature in Leopard. They've put a lot of marketing muscle behind its rollout, and its tendrils are in everything, from the default desktop to Quick Look.
As I've discussed before, it's a big, good change, and it benefits all users, even those who use SuperDuper! We're truly two complementary technologies, and we need to ensure that SuperDuper! works perfectly with it to ensure that SuperDuper! itself remains a viable product.
And if the product remains viable, we'll be able to continue improving it for everyone—something we all want!
It's Not All Time Machine, Though—Really!
Another interesting thing we found as we got reports from new users, that we never encountered internally: a very old bug in the Migration Assistant (described in Slowly going insane while waiting for a fix back in 2005) is back, with a vengeance. But there's a new variation: rather than having a missing carriage return, there are now also blank lines in the file, which result in the same failure.
So, we've had to implement a second workaround to fix this problem, too.
How Much Longer?
Anyway, enough of that. At this point, we're basically locked down. We have a few UI tweaks to complete, and we should have a final release out to everyone within a few weeks.
You'll notice this is the first timeframe I've provided other than "soon"... and that means I'm quite confident it'll be in your hands shortly. So, once again thanks for your patience, and I really think you're going to be pleased with the update.
16 Dec 2007 at 12:03 pm | #
Thanks for the update, Dave. It’s nice to hear what’s going on behind the scenes, and it sounds as though ya’ll have had some prickly questions to answer.
I respect your dedicated efforts to actively respond to user testing, support Time Machine, and ultimately choose the path that offers the greatest amount of transparency to all end users. There is a huge difference between “Just Do It, Alright?” and “Do It Just Right.”
16 Dec 2007 at 12:18 pm | #
thanks for the update and the insight!
marcus
16 Dec 2007 at 12:26 pm | #
Thanks for the update. Initially, I expected to use Time Machine as my backup solution with Leopard (before, I used SuperDuper with Tiger). But I realize that SuperDuper is still the best solution for my needs—and just what an excellent product it is. So, I’m looking forward to putting the new version to work.
16 Dec 2007 at 02:12 pm | #
Thanks for the update Dave. You’re NOT alone with Leopard update capability - look at Alsoft with Disk Warrior, and I’m betting they’ve got more manpower than you do! I don’t suppose you’d tell us whether you foresee release in 2007 would you? Or is it more likely to be 2008? I’m being patient but looking forward to the sense of security I know the new release will give us all. Tim.
16 Dec 2007 at 03:10 pm | #
Thanks Dave and team. Hope you’re not killing yourselves with work. Take time to be with your loved ones, and enjoy the holidays!
16 Dec 2007 at 03:22 pm | #
Thanks for the update Dave.
If I already splitted my external disk into two volumes (one for Time Machine and another one for Super Duper’s backups) I assume I won’t have any problems. Am I right? I’m waiting for the new version along with the new version of Onyx before switching to Leopard (and I have the DVD around here since october ). Keep up your good work and I’m sure we will all be pleased with the new version you’ll pull out.
16 Dec 2007 at 03:26 pm | #
I would never have believed that anyone would think they could backup using SD! to the same drive on which they’re backing up using Time Machine. I don’t get the sense of that at all, but if you’re now going to allow that with SD!, is my understanding correct that now we can do that?
Will the SD! backup be bootable? Suppose I’m booted to the SD! backup, then what happens to Time Machine during that time?
This is pretty confusing unless, as you suggest, it will all work transparently. I was going to give up on Time Machine but maybe now that won’t be necessary. Still, it’s rather unbelievable. Who wouldn’t want to keep SD! and TM separate at least on a partition?
16 Dec 2007 at 03:46 pm | #
I am the type of guy that would keep SD and TimeMachine on the same drive. I would keep TM around for convenience of doing on the fly restores with all the nice GUI functionality. But at the same time TM has a lot of replication features I also want, like mirroring my backup drive to a second backup drive. I have a poor mans backup solution that works quite well without using a NAS or RAID.
I don’t quite like CCC and also not trusting the ChronoSync with their current Leopard compatibility. fyi. I used ChronoSync quite a bit under Tiger. It seems that ChroSync maybe rushed, or did they quickly figure out all the issues the SD team is working on? Anyway I appreciate the extra care the SD team is taking, “figuring things out”.
I think the real person to blame is Apple, even though I am really liking Leopard. It would have been nice for them to be more open with the Developer community. But I think Apple in this case needed the secretive edge against Vista and sacrificed the developer community in the meantime.
Either way I really didn’t need to install Leopard right away to be able to use SD. Tiger was a great product as is. I guess some of us just can’t wait to have the latest version.
Look forward to the release. Enjoy reading the mini white-paper blog entries Its sure a lot more than other companies openly share with their users.
16 Dec 2007 at 04:01 pm | #
How about a new app icon for this monstrous update?
16 Dec 2007 at 04:39 pm | #
Thanks Dave. Lots.
It’s been said, more than once, but having TM _and_ SD will be superb. I will really feel like I have an excellent backup/restore/disaster-recovery setup, w/o lot’s of fragile complexity.
Really pleased you’ve stuck to your guns and kept at it and not let people who are itching to get SD soonest, deflect you from making SD what you know it needs to be.
Good luck with the last week(s) of work.
-Alan
16 Dec 2007 at 04:44 pm | #
Dave, your application is invaluable to our organization. looking forward to the update. thanks for taking the time to make it right.
SFAdmin
16 Dec 2007 at 04:45 pm | #
I rather that you take the time to make super duper as great as it is with tiger with full capabalities regarding it’s bootable backup and compatibitlity with time machine than rush out interim updates. What I appreciate most with superduper 2.1.4 is that it works and that it is easy and transparent. Like the mac, it just works. So continue with the great work that you do and if that means I have to wait, I will gladly wait until it works flawlessly.
Thanks
16 Dec 2007 at 06:38 pm | #
David: sure, partitioning is no problem at all—not partitioning is just an option, not a requirement.
TK: believe me, many thousands of people have tried to store a SD! backup to the same volume as a TM backup. We don’t make these decisions arbitrarily.
16 Dec 2007 at 06:50 pm | #
For the record, I’ve got no interest in Time Machine. I just want Super Duper to work as it did before. I’m sure that there are plenty of other customers with the same need/opinion…
16 Dec 2007 at 06:59 pm | #
I realize that, as I indicated in the post. And it will, only better.
16 Dec 2007 at 07:11 pm | #
Does this amazingly complex, elegant solution mean we can have our TM, our SD clone, AND an untouched folder which resides only on our external drive , after a Smart Update?
thanks for the fabulous work!
Give us an inch..... lol
16 Dec 2007 at 07:32 pm | #
It does not, Dave: for that, you should partition. There’s your inch.
16 Dec 2007 at 09:15 pm | #
"First time poster-long time user/reader of your products”.
I have my fingers crossed that SD! is **finally** released during Macworld! I’m dying to back-up my new Leopard OS!
16 Dec 2007 at 09:33 pm | #
You know, with all the work going into the new version, I may just have to pay for it *again* just because you deserve it.
16 Dec 2007 at 10:49 pm | #
I’d be more than happy to pay for a new version - because a truly new version it is. You have saved my ...s more than once...!
Thanks - Axel
17 Dec 2007 at 09:17 am | #
Thanks Dave - good to have a timeframe for release… glad to hear that you are mostly finished! All the best,
Ferg
17 Dec 2007 at 09:30 am | #
I’m using Time Machine, waiting for SD/Leopard. In the meantime, I have tried available options (not solutions), like CCC, but only for complete backups (erase and backup) not for “smart-backups”. I have learned that it is possible to have on the same volume, (or on the same partition, if the disk has been partitioned) a bootable “clone”, and additional files that are not part of the cloned disk. Although I recognize and value the options and benefits of Time Machine (that gobbles up disk space like if it was Godzilla swallowing up hills of fish in Manhattan), it will not be my first choice, as soon as SD/Leopard is released.
Dave, thank you in advance, and thank you for keeping the SD community posted and updated.
17 Dec 2007 at 10:54 am | #
For those of us who (irresponsibly) upgraded to Leopard without first checking that SuperDuper was available for Leopard it would have been nice to have received a working copy sooner even if it had caveats like “doesn’t play nicely with Time Machine” as now we’re rolling the dice depending on the Tiger version of SuperDuper to backup our Leopard Macs.
I’m about to lug my MacBook Pro across the Atlantic to the family’s house over the holidays. I hope I don’t need to restore. :-|
17 Dec 2007 at 11:04 am | #
At least with SD! any data that was on the Tiger b/u is still there and accessible until the update comes out. And we have been kept informed on the progress. I have a LaCie Safe drive that is unusable and inaccessible after updating my MacBook to Leopard. LaCie’s website doesn’t even mention that these drives they are still selling will not work under 10.5, and their support guy is sympathetic but has no ETA.
17 Dec 2007 at 12:19 pm | #
I’m one of the ones who has come to depend heavily on Time Machine. From time to time it has exhibited some very strange behavior, which may be an OS X anomaly rather than a Time Machine anomaly, but it has (1) been successfully used to restore the system, and (2) successfully used to restore corrupted folders. Its anomalous behavior, however, has required that occasionally I have to start all over and do an initial, total backup (during which time I don’t have a backup!).
Even if Time Machine functioned without its unnerving anomalies, I would still look forward to the Leopard-compatible version of SuperDuper. On regular intervals I like to clone my startup disk and my disk containing all my AV data. It’s great to be able to restore to a recent cloned copy and get quickly back in operation. I’m even planning to clone my Time Machine disk so that in the advent of one of its peculiar malfunctions, I can simply return to where it was before the malfunction.
17 Dec 2007 at 01:44 pm | #
I don’t get it… Just don’t let users backup to the same volume where time machine is installed. Problem solved. Anyone with half a brain would create 2 partition on an external and allow time machine to have one and super to have the other.
17 Dec 2007 at 01:54 pm | #
Why does it have to be 2 partitions? If a drive is going to flake out or die, most likely you going to loose both any way.
17 Dec 2007 at 02:04 pm | #
I have to agree with Matt. It seems quite foolish to back up to a Time Machine partition. I don’t see any issues forcing users to have a clean drive or partition for an SD clone and another for Time Machine. In fact, that’s what I’m doing now (unfortunately, using CCC which I’ll have to live with until the SD update). TM is somewhat useful for me in the few cases where I wanted to pick up a document that I trashed or modified but in no way do I see it as a substitute for a true cloned back up (nor I believe does Apple).
I think Matt’s suggestion might actually end up being a lot safer, make SD tech support and documentation easier and few who understand what’s going on could argue with the logic. Those that don’t, well it should be pretty easy to convince them that TM needs to be on its own partition. Doesn’t Apple recommend that anyway?
17 Dec 2007 at 02:39 pm | #
Dear Dave,
I’m typing this at my wife’s Windoes computer because I inadvertently hosed my Leopard machine. (All my fault, not Leopard’s.) Time Machine saved me, but I was wishing for SD! However-- this is the important part-- the knowledge that I had a SD clone of Tiger meant that I couldn’t lose it all. Which is an indirect way of saying what Alan Bristow said above,---
“Really pleased you’ve stuck to your guns and kept at it and not let people who are itching to get SD soonest, deflect you from making SD what you know it needs to be.”
Keep up the good work!
Bill
17 Dec 2007 at 02:52 pm | #
Just a quick note to express my admiration for all the hard work being put in by Dave and co to get this working right. I for one would be more than happy to pay for an upgrade for this essential piece of kit.
Thanks Dave, and make sure you get a break.
H
17 Dec 2007 at 03:26 pm | #
I find the Apple ads ripping VISTA annoyingly humorless in light of the firms’ Leopard travails. It is the diligent efforts of 3rd party software providers like SD! who should instead bask in the glory. They provide the clever, practical and reliable utilities that enable Apple to provide an enhanced environment for computing. They work within the limits of the OS framework and hardware to persevere wonderfully unique solutions.
17 Dec 2007 at 03:40 pm | #
Just wondering Dave, if you have a bootable SD clone on your TM disk, what happens to TM when you boot off the clone? Is it turned off?
And what will happen if you use SD to clone your backup disk (containing both SD clone and TM folder)? Is there a UI option to easily specify whether or not you want to include the TM folder? E.g. duplicating a backup disk vs. restoring a clone.
Based on history, I’m confident you’ve already thought of all of these things and have an elegant solution ... just curious how you chose to address it.
Thanks again.
17 Dec 2007 at 04:16 pm | #
Hi Dave, thanks for the update, but…
I quote this blog :
Nov. 16th, 2007 :
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.
Dec. 16th, 2007 :
At this point, we’re basically locked down. We have a few UI tweaks to complete, and we should have a final release out to everyone within a few weeks.
So, what are few weeks now ? are you planning for a christmas gift ?
Michel
17 Dec 2007 at 04:29 pm | #
Dave, I have been waiting patiently to install Leo on my main machine (it’s on my PB and working well. Not thinking, I did a scheduled backup SD of the PB, but am too chicken to try and work from it, although it did, in fact, boot) till you release SD. It has always been my intention to have two separate externals, one for SD and one for TM. I am hoping this will be a belt and braces solution, covering me for most eventualities.
Eager as I am to have you release the new version, I second the suggestion that you take some time off and simply relax.
Have a wonderful holiday, and come back refreshed and ready to release!
17 Dec 2007 at 08:54 pm | #
... two months after Leopard’s release… do I really have to wait a “few more *weeks*” ‘cause you want to support some brainless i###t who mixes TM and SD backups? Are you serious? ==
Just found the last good reason I needed to buy Synk. Thank you!
17 Dec 2007 at 09:01 pm | #
Criminy,pl_svn, who’s the twit? Good luck with Synk.
Dave, you have once again proven what made this semi-pirate, lazy-assed, self-centered user into an advocate of small-time developers. If you won’t charge us for an upgrade I will make another donation to Tufts.
17 Dec 2007 at 10:57 pm | #
I wish the people complaining would try to name three other Mac software companies that are as responsive to users requests as SD. Seldom do I hear back from any other company I send e-mails asking for help/improvements/offer suggestions. Keep up the excellent work on SD and thanks for taking the time to respond as frequently as you do. If you don’t want to wait, try CCC or Data Backup. Just don’t complain when they are less than what we have come to expect from SD.
I’ll wait thanks, for a working product.
18 Dec 2007 at 01:24 am | #
Looking forward to the new SD!
18 Dec 2007 at 01:50 am | #
Thanks for the update—I would rather have a version that works well, than a buggy version. I do appreciate how difficult it is to get the software perfect, so I say ignore the impatient people and just get us a version of the software that works.
Keep up the good work!
18 Dec 2007 at 07:09 am | #
I agree with BJohnson… before and after buying SD! I have sent emails with questions to Dave, and I was delighted to receive quick and helpful responses. Too many developers won’t take this kind of care, but it’s precisely why I’m happy to wait for SD! for Leopard, because I know when it arrives it will be better than the last release.
Fergus
19 Dec 2007 at 06:48 am | #
my leopard has gone mental.
i need a clean reinstallation now. so i’m going to use CCC. hope everything goes well. cheers, m
19 Dec 2007 at 07:01 am | #
... btw timothy.lance: Synk up and running here. One full bootable backup plus three partial backups (two of them also “doubled” to different disks for extra protection) and all of these are 1 single click away from each other
cheers!
--
pl_svn
19 Dec 2007 at 09:27 am | #
i’m still aiting for the SD update though …
19 Dec 2007 at 09:58 am | #
I wish the MacBU office 08 blog was this open with their customers. I have had a copy of Leopard for about a month now but I haven’t installed it because I’ve been waiting for the SD update. Although, no one likes waiting, this blog has made the wait a lot more bearable.
And to add to what others have said in this thread, the only time I’ve ever had a problem with SD, I sent an email to tech support and Dave responded. My issue actually took a while to figure out, but I never felt a vibe of irritation from Dave, and for a sub $100 program, the customer service you get from SD puts not just all other software vendors to shame, but rivals the kind of customer service you would expect to get from any industry. I’ve stayed in very nice hotels, eaten at very expensive restaurants, and had cars that fall in the luxury category and the customer service experience in those industries hasn’t been as consistent as the service for Dave and SD. So Thanks.
19 Dec 2007 at 11:36 am | #
I wish you well, pl_svn, and also luck. I was an early user of Synk and also wish the kid well. And if this actually works, as in all concerns are addressed, maybe he’ll make some $$. In the mean time, you keep testing and reporting back to us. Flog your drives, do all sorts of backups, smartupdate, regressions/recoveries, etc., etc. Then we’ll know. Until then ...
19 Dec 2007 at 12:44 pm | #
@Matt who wrote: “I don’t get it… Just don’t let users backup to the same volume where time machine is installed. Problem solved. Anyone with half a brain would create 2 partition on an external and allow time machine to have one and super to have the other.”
I agree. I bought a new--larger--external drive and did just that.
I am using SD, with Leopard, to back up to 1 partition. I know it is not bootable and it does take a long time every night, but at least my data are safe.
I am using TM with the other partition. I am still not sure about TM as I have never used the recovery aspect of it.
19 Dec 2007 at 01:16 pm | #
For what it’s worth, I used 2.1.4 to create a sandbox into which I installed Leopard. There was some anomalous behavior, like not being able to move desktop icons in Space 1 of Spaces, until I redid an archive and install. Now everything seems to be as good as one would expect with a brand new OS. A few quirks, but hard to say if it has anything to do with the sandbox or just Leopard newness.
So I understood your warnings to mean, don’t clone a Leopard HD. I decided I had nothing to lose in creating a sandbox under Tiger and then installing Leopard into it. I have deliberately avoided starting up Time Machine. That just seemed imprudent at this time in such an unconventional install.
19 Dec 2007 at 03:55 pm | #
BJohnson,
Thorsten Lemke of Graphic Converter is at least as responsive as Dave. In my personal experience, he is much more so.
I will leave it up to other “complainers” to come up with two more to accept your challenge. So, what are you going to give us if we fill the order? The right to complain? How about licenses for Data Backup?
C’mon complainers! I want to see what BJohnson is going to do when we point out that there are other excellent Mac developers.
19 Dec 2007 at 06:25 pm | #
It was never intended to be an actual challenge and there is no prize if you find three or more. Complain all you want.
macFanDave, I,m glad you have had positive results from other developers, my point being that they appear to be few and far between. SD is one of them.
19 Dec 2007 at 09:43 pm | #
If we don’t plan to use Time Machine AND SD will SD 2.1.4 work poperly under Leopard?
19 Dec 2007 at 09:47 pm | #
No: as I’ve said elsewhere, SD! 2.1.4 is not fully compatible with Leopard, regardless of your use of Time Machine.
19 Dec 2007 at 11:10 pm | #
Are you going to support FileVault sparse bundles?
19 Dec 2007 at 11:17 pm | #
Not “directly” in this release, though you’re welcome to create one and point us at it.
19 Dec 2007 at 11:45 pm | #
Actually, Bjohnson, there are many excellent Mac developers out there. That’s one of the hidden advantages Macs have over Windows PeeCees: many of the small, independent Mac-only developers really do a great job supporting their wares and selling them at very reasonable prices (quite a few give away their amazing work.)
I bought SD quite a while ago, but I only started using it to full effect when I bought two FW external HDs and an Airport Extreme Base Station a month or so before Leopard came out. I could never have predicted that SD would take this long to be Leopard-compatible. Add to that that using Time Machine with an AirDisk was taken away from us and you can imagine my frustration.
Grrr!
20 Dec 2007 at 07:17 am | #
A happy SD user here. Just thought I’d share one reason why I’m waiting for the new version of SD before cloning and swapping out my hard disk for a bigger one.
While I am waiting I have been cloning using CCC. While the clones work and are bootable, one thing disturbs me. The cloned volume is always smaller than the original. Not much (220MB in 100GB is only 0.2%), but of course this seems to me to mean that NOT EVERYTHING is seen by CCC during the cloning process and so the new drive is not a complete clone. If you rely on the cloned drive and then clone it again then you may well lose a little more data and get a progressive degradation. I assume that with what Dave N says there is a lot more in Leopard than meets the eye and CCC is not seeing all that goes on behind the scenes. For these reasons I am not going to rely on CCC for a proper clone, but just use it as an intermediate backup solution until SD comes out with the Leopard version.
So I suggest for those of you using different cloning programs you do a size check and see if they are really fully Leopard compatible or not. And Dave N can you confirm whether your test cloning procedures for your latest test versions give a clone the same size as the original?
Thanks and Happy Holidays!
20 Dec 2007 at 07:58 am | #
It does not, Choodall, and this in general is nothing to worry about. As we explain in the “What’s going to happen?” section of our UI, we don’t copy temporary files, VM swap files and the like—and those can be quite large. There’s no point copying them, since they have no meaning across a restart.
I can’t tell you exactly why CCC’s copy is smaller, of course, but my guess is that it’s quite similar to the above.
20 Dec 2007 at 10:05 am | #
... you see Dave? If you go on supporting and answering every “need” and every question that comes from people who doesn’t even read a few lines…
C’mon: instead of a way to brainlessy mix tasks which (sould!) have different goals, give us a way to do pursue different *seious* tasks with “brainless” ease!
20 Dec 2007 at 05:13 pm | #
Hello Dave Nanian! Thanks for the extremelx good work, Merry x-mas and a happy new year!
20 Dec 2007 at 09:06 pm | #
How does one become a beta tester?
20 Dec 2007 at 09:08 pm | #
How do I become a beta tester?
20 Dec 2007 at 11:55 pm | #
The beta program is currently full, Jack—sorry…
21 Dec 2007 at 01:56 am | #
Choodall:
As I recall, Bombich has even documented that he doesn’t clone everything in CCC! I think he leaves out certain temporary cache files and the like unless you specify otherwise. That can easily amount to 220MB out of 100GB. These left-out files are unimportant to the functionality of your clone.
Based on Bombich’s track record, if he claims he is compatible with Leopard, that’s good enough for me.
Maybe if you try his new block-level clone feature, you will get a verbatim copy. I haven’t used CCC in a while, at least not since he introduced that new feature.
21 Dec 2007 at 07:59 am | #
Here’s how and why I use SD & TM:
1. I use TM with a LaCie 500GB Firewire 800 drive to protect me from the accidental deletion of file(s). Or, in case I decide later that I really did need that file after all.
2. I use SD with a FireWire 400 500GB Seagate drive to do a complete clone of my system. (I’m currently using CCC until SD is ready.) Then, if I have a hard drive failure with my iMac, I’m good to go with booting from the Seagate drive, and/or, I can quickly restore to a new drive in my iMac.
I think that I can do this with TM machine also, but I’m not 100% sure of that.
Yes, there is some redundancy but the way that I see it, is, that that’s the point of backing up a system.
22 Dec 2007 at 03:06 am | #
I do it the very same way: A FW800 for TM and a FW400 for a SD clone - right now I do it with DiskUtility - seems to me to be a very reasonable solution!
22 Dec 2007 at 01:50 pm | #
I’m having some problems with SuperDuper! since I upgraded to Leopard. If I try to do a smart backup, it backs up everything anyway, taking a HUGE amount of time (like over 24 hours to an external firewire drive). Second, even though my external drive is slightly larger than my internal drive, about 30% the time the backup fails, telling me that the target is out of space. Yes, my internal disk only has 18GB of free space (out of 500G) but it used to work fine. And it does work if I do a clean backup (erase, then backup) instead of a smart backup.
Are these known problems that are being fixed even as I type?
--wm
22 Dec 2007 at 01:56 pm | #
Fixed well before you typed, wm, and the fix will be in our Leopard release.
22 Dec 2007 at 11:12 pm | #
Dave,
Will SD saved job configurations be stored in a way similar to the current version, in that I can point a symlink to the internal action and run it directly via something like DoSomethingWhen or hotbutton utilities? This little tip, found in your forums, has been invaluable to me and I hope (and suspect) it won’t change dramatically in the upcoming version.
Merry Christmas!
23 Dec 2007 at 08:52 am | #
Good luck, guys. Keep at it. I have to use Carbon Copy Cloner in the meantime, but I’m happy to come back to SD! when you have it running on Leopard. I know it’s hard when you’re crunched like this.
23 Dec 2007 at 10:04 am | #
Geoff: absolutely.
25 Dec 2007 at 04:07 pm | #
Great Job. The last bytes are the hardest!!
Why a single partition? A singe partition for SD and Time Machine can be better that two separate partitions because it would allow either to grow without running out of room. When you partition a drive, you have to leave sufficient free space for growth. A single drive with say separate folders for SD and Time Machine would be analogous to the virtual drives that Parallels and VM Ware uses.
Currently I have a 750 gig RAID 1 FireWire drive from Newer Technologies for my SD backups and a 1.4 terabyte eSATA, non-RAID drive set for multiple Parallels drives. The FireWire drive is partitioned to support multiple versions of Tiger. Even though I have Leopard, I am waiting for SD and 1.0.5.2 until I upgrade to Leopard. When I do, I am planning to repartition to support SD and TM on a single, large partition.
A window programmer and Mac user since 1984.
26 Dec 2007 at 04:52 pm | #
I really can’t believe that it’s the end of December, I have a brand spanking new hard drive to install, and I’ve got to go download Carbon Copy Cloner and hope it can do the job because SD! isn’t ready yet.
Please hurry!
26 Dec 2007 at 07:06 pm | #
Well, shucks, I wish SD was available now. However, I very much appreciate the updates—hearing from you makes all the difference (and I don’t get why more companies don’t get *that*); it ups my patience, and It’s another reason why I tell everyone who uses a mac to get SD (and to hold off on upgrading to Leopard until SD for Leopard’s ready, if you can). I’m totally behind your “it just works” philosophy.
Yep, I feel naked with a cludjy (sp?) backup system now. But if you need the time, you need the time—and I’ll deal with it until that bright shiny day that SD for Leaopard shows up.
Dave
26 Dec 2007 at 09:15 pm | #
Any chance of an update on progress?
26 Dec 2007 at 11:09 pm | #
Has Dave ever not given progress reports (like this one) when he’s good and ready to?
27 Dec 2007 at 02:31 am | #
Why is it that Carbon Copy Cloner is Leopard compatible (and free) and has been for some time now, while SuperDuper! is still not? Honestly, this isn’t meant to be a snide, insulting question. I’m genuinely curious as to weather there is a functional difference that accounts for the vastly differing Leopard timelines.
27 Dec 2007 at 02:55 am | #
Simple general answer: “Leopard compatible” has a broad range of meaning; there’s no a strict formal definition.
27 Dec 2007 at 09:19 am | #
Don, you might care to read this post’s comments above yours. Read the other post’s comments. Check out the SD! forums. Shoot, go check CCC’s forums.
27 Dec 2007 at 05:45 pm | #
Waiting anxiously for the new update. Leaning on TM as my only option, while babying my Macbook to avoid accidents. Love SD and appreciate all the hard work your putting in.
The technical details of the update are a bonus, no other software maker that I know of takes time to explain the obstacles and roadblocks. I would bet this is extra time you are putting in, not cutting corners on the update…
Thanks again,
Noah
28 Dec 2007 at 06:42 pm | #
One thing I’d like to know is exactly what “not fully Leopard-compatible” means. What happens if I make a backup using SD! with Leopard? Will it not work? Will it work but be non-restorable? Will it work and be restorable but unbootable? Will the Universe come to an end? Will my Mac turn into a PC?
I am about to change the hard drive on my MacBook Pro. I need a full backup of the hard drive to boot my Mac Mini from while the MBP is in the shop (so the Time Machine backup won’t cut it), and to restore from when it comes back. I paid for SD! about a week before Leopard came out and now I’ve had to wait months for it to be usable.
I realize that you have INF+1 different scenarios to test but at least an interim release would be nice, even if it had the warning “DO NOT backup to a Time Machine volume!”. Remember: the perfect is the enemy of the good enough.
28 Dec 2007 at 07:58 pm | #
I think I’ve said a number of times, but to reiterate again:
- The backup will likely not be bootable
- All metadata/permissions will not be correct
- Smart Update isn’t “Smart” and will likely copy everything again, slowly
Believe me, backing up to a Time Machine volume is just one change in this version. If that was the only thing that needed to be done, we’d have released long ago.
29 Dec 2007 at 03:33 am | #
Just had to do a Time Machine restore and figured I’d share my experiences here, as I would guess that while we’ve done backups with TM, not many people have done a full system restore (I had a head crash on Christmas day).
Note that like everyone else I’m watching for the SD update and planning on using both.
To quickly sum up, I was backing up using TM to a separate Leopard Mac over the network (the only “supported” network scenario). When I tried to boot from the Leopard DVD and restore over the network it failed - it seems Time Machine cannot perform a full system restore over the network - the “Locate Remote Volumes” button remains grayed out. I connected locally and restored. Took about 2 hours for 70GB.
Now for the interesting part of this post. There were several things that Time Machine did not restore 100% properly, and I’d be interested in knowing if SuperDuper handles these cases, or if Dave knows why these problems might occur.
- The Spotlight index was not restored, and had to be rebuilt; this took about 45 minutes.
- Mail indexes had to be rebuilt when I launched Mail; this took about a minute, but struck me as odd.
- Safari cookies were gone - no biggie.
- iTunes needed to be reassociated with my iPod and reauthorized to my iTunes store account.
- SyncServices - massive problems with Missing Sync; constant errors in system.log. This didn’t surprise me, as SyncServices is rather fragile in my experience, and iCal has application-level bugs dealing with it as well (hopefully to be fixed in 10.5.2).
- LaunchServices - All applications are being launched “for the first time”, but at least all of my document associations are intact.
- Permissions were read-only for the root of the volume, which prevented me from applying a custom icon. Quick chmod and it’s fine.
So, a variety of small things. Of all of them, SyncServices is definitely the hardest to fix. :-(
29 Dec 2007 at 09:54 am | #
Thanks for this report. Please check your email.
29 Dec 2007 at 10:02 am | #
Hoping for a happy new year for all of us, and I’ll back this statement up with SD! as soon as I can
29 Dec 2007 at 10:20 am | #
It’s not unexpected that Spotlight would have to be rebuilt: SD! doesn’t copy the index because it’s invalid when the base volume changes anyway. Mail likely does the same.
Safari cookies should be preserved by SD, but TM might exclude that info.
I’ve not had to reauthorize iTunes, but even if you do, since it’s the same Mac it shouldn’t eat another authorization.
Not sure why SyncServices would be broken, as that’s not something I’ve seen either, but—it depends a lot on what it was doing when you backed up… and, yes, it’s fragile as all get-out.
LaunchServices is semi-expected, depending on how much of the LaunchServices caches you copy (and I don’t think TM copies them at all)…
29 Dec 2007 at 12:51 pm | #
... ehm… Jon (post #70): in Leopard you can resize partitions on-the-fly!
01 Jan 2008 at 10:37 am | #
Happy New year !
新年快乐 !
Bonne Annee !
I hope we gonna be able to get our superduper fully back very soon !
Cheers !
01 Jan 2008 at 12:23 pm | #
I, too, had a Christmas Day hard drive crash. The whole story is at http://risley.net/crash , but the digest version is that (a) bootable clone backups remain vital for mission-critical machines and (b) Time Machine does *not* automatically restore system files, so if you’ve modified your system in any way, it isn’t a viable primary backup solution.
Happy New Year!
--Ron
02 Jan 2008 at 04:11 pm | #
Good luck finishing up. If I could offer anything for your consideration it would be the timing in your decision to go ahead and incorporate superfluous interface tweaks and improvements along with making it Leopard compatible. If you had left the interface as is and made a pure compatibility release it might have made it possible to ship a Leopard compatible version earlier.
For this reason, while I love the responsiveness and openness of you and your company, I don’t know if some of your explanations for the recurring delays aren’t skirting the issue a bit. If you had come out and just said “hey, we bit off more than we could chew...” it might resonate as a little more honest in my ears. You’d think SD was the most complicated, most mission-critical application ever written the way you describe it - and it is critical and I don’t want to downplay that either but still...exactly for the reason that it is so critical makes a delay of this magnitude difficult to understand.
I am afraid I’ve got to move on to other solutions despite having registered SD less than a year ago. I might come back and check out the upgrade in a few weeks/months, but I might not.
One thing is for sure though: I wish you a ton of success with it and I hope it is as bug free as you’d like it to be. I am sure all of the users you have lost due to these delays can be won back, and that new ones can also be brought into the fold - especially if your interface is improved.
02 Jan 2008 at 04:15 pm | #
I’m sorry you feel that way, David. But, we hardly made “surperfluous interface tweaks and improvements”. In fact, you’ll likely not find much different at all in the UI.
I don’t think we bit off more than we could chew at all. I just think we’re taking the time to chew before swallowing.
02 Jan 2008 at 04:24 pm | #
I totally understand what David is saying, and I tend to agree with him. Your blog has talked about trying to figure out how to make SD compatible with Time Machine, which is probably a good thing to do, but for those of us who are not using Time Machine it would have been nice to just do a quick update so we could continue to use SD to back up our computers. I too have switched to another product. It isn’t compatible with Time Machine, but at least I have a backup.
And your response sounds like you are arguing with him. That doesn’t inspire confidence. Especially since it sounded like he was trying to be as gentle as possible.
Well, best of luck…
02 Jan 2008 at 04:34 pm | #
My intent is not to argue, but rather to clarify. I’m sorry if that wasn’t clear.
02 Jan 2008 at 04:54 pm | #
I didn’t read your comments as argumentative, and thanks for clearing that up. Sorry, but I had it stuck in my head that you had re-organized the UI, and I didn’t mean “superfluous” in the derogatory ...well, maybe only slightly
Although I’ll remain surprised at the length of time it will have taken to begin supporting Leopard users, I’ll stop blaming a UI overhaul.
02 Jan 2008 at 05:15 pm | #
Am I right? The whole “making it compatible with Time Machine” thing is part and parcel of making it compatible with Leopard? IOW, it’s the way Leopard manages file information (metadata) that has thrown SD! for a loop and it just so happens that it is this same metadata that makes Time Machine function?
02 Jan 2008 at 05:30 pm | #
That’s right: compatibility with Time Machine is really making it compatible with Leopard’s on-disk structures, some of which are new.
On top of that, proper copying of ACLs and EAs is important under Leopard, and the APIs provided for doing that do not work (due, no doubt, at least in part to insufficient testing), and we’ve had to write those ourselves—and test them—to make sure they work correctly under both Tiger and Leopard…
There are other low-level issues involved too, but only part of the delay is to deal specifically with Time Machine, and those changes were dictated by careful observation of the support requests coming in.
02 Jan 2008 at 05:42 pm | #
I love SuperDuper and will wait for you if it takes a lifetime.
02 Jan 2008 at 06:08 pm | #
I absolutely agree. I have been recommending SD for years, and I take my own advice. I will NOT put Leopard on my main machine till SD is compatible.
Actually, waiting this long probably means that Apple will come out with 10.5.2 and fix all the niggling little (big) problems before SD is released, so Dave is really doing us a favor.
02 Jan 2008 at 08:07 pm | #
The time it has taken to get a working version for Leopard is quite disappointing. I mirror the thoughts of many, there is no excuse for taking this long to release a working version. I feel truly bad for those that use SD in a business environment. I’m sure they were expecting a lot better from this company.
02 Jan 2008 at 08:17 pm | #
Peter, I am a business user. We use SD to backup our Mac Pros 1.) I would never upgrade our OS without making sure all critical software is compatible first so we are still on Tiger 2.) For business, nothing worse than software you can’t count on, so better to get it right. You clearly are not a business user. In fairness to you, I too, did not expect it to take this long to “get it right” but such is life. So we wait....
02 Jan 2008 at 09:30 pm | #
Geez Louise,
Can we PLEASE stop pointing fingers at each other here, i.e. who’s a business user and who is not?
Who freakin’ cares?
Having a reliable backup strategy is important to ALL of us of we would have never found our way to SD!
Some of us, me included, are not as happy as others regarding the length of time the update is taken, but I have no desire to replay that tired old song out here or anywhere else. It’s Dave’s company and he calls the shots - period.
Some others of us, me included again, were so sure of ourselves that we upgraded before checking compatibility and oops!, the rest is well documented here.
Having said all that, I’ll wager that we are so close to MWSF that we won’t see the finished update before that date. I’m not saying that Dave is holding back the update, but my marketing sense tells me that he has something else cooking on the back burner that may or may not work directly in conjunction with what we currently know as SD! Releasing it/them/whatever makes perfect sense to me.
Just one former developers opinion....
02 Jan 2008 at 11:03 pm | #
@justfly I have no doubt you are correct as I do not expect a release before Macworld. It’s already been this long, why not make it a little longer just so they can a promotional release in conjunction with Macworld. Meanwhile, we all get more frustrated. Professional product, not so professional company, in my opinion. I wish SD was developed by Omnigroup.
02 Jan 2008 at 11:12 pm | #
sorry Dave, completely uncalled for. In my frustration I hit the submit button. Never type frustrated and hit submit. I guess if this wasn;t such a great product, we wouldn’t be frustrated about not being able to use it. Sorry again.
02 Jan 2008 at 11:18 pm | #
I apologize, typed frustrated and hit submit. If this wasn’t such a great product, it wouldn’t be all that frustrating waiting to use it. Again, I apologize, never type frustrated and hit submit. Omnigroup does make nice software too.
03 Jan 2008 at 02:22 am | #
I agree with both sides on the wait for the update, don’t release it until it’s right...but I would imagine a lot of people have found alternatives by now given it’s so long since Leopard came out and that is bad for SD’s business model.
Irony would be that 10.5.2 changes enough that it makes even the unreleased version of SD incompatible again...theres a terrifying thought for those that have not developed an alternative back up plan by now
I love SD, it’s the first Mac app I brought after getting a Mac and I’d even pay for the new upgrade in a heart beat, but even I have to say that it’s starting to get more like Adobe’s long waited MacTel release and all the jokes that surrounded it.
03 Jan 2008 at 11:05 am | #
justflybob/Sole: honestly, not holding anything up for Macworld. All holdups are technical. If you think about Shirt Pocket, SuperDuper! and what we do, “splashy marketing” doesn’t really apply.
03 Jan 2008 at 11:15 am | #
C’mon Dave Nanian ... time for a new update ... looks like we hit the 100 comment limit ... we need a new place to whine publicly
On a serious note, in 94 you mentioned the need to implement your own versions of some of Apple’s API’s which are not working correctly. Presumeably, Time Machine may use some of these APIs ... does that mean Time Machine is producing corrupted backups?
04 Jan 2008 at 01:56 am | #
@sole
Shirt Pocket Software is WAY WAY WAY more professional than most major companies.
Haven’t you read ANYTHING that has been said? Leopard’s file system changes are extremely complex. Leopard takes advantage of new hard linking capability and uses Access Control Lists extensively. With backup software it is EXTREMELY CRITICAL to get it right, and get it right the first time.
Say he released SuperDuper for Leopard two weeks ago and it had a bug that messed people’s backups on Leopard. The same people screaming bloody murder at how long it has taken to release the software would be screaming bloody murder that it was released too soon.
I am SO GLAD that he’s taking the time to release something right the FIRST TIME. Unlike a fruit company we all know.
04 Jan 2008 at 04:59 pm | #
Sooooo - does this mean we will FINALLY be able to store files alongside an SD backup? Pritty Please?
11 Jan 2008 at 05:04 pm | #
It is plain silly to think that SD users could not benefit from an update that would work correctly on a dedicated Leopard partition. I for one am smart enough to understand that I can’t trivially run a bootable backup on the same partition with another non-bootable backup. I suspect most SD users either already know that or could be successfully warned about it in the update notes and help.