Now that the release of Leopard is imminent-ish, I thought I'd do an update of my Time's Arrow post from a year ago regarding SuperDuper! and Time Machine. Let's get into it!
Leopard Compatbitility
First, v2.1.4 of SuperDuper! is not fully compatible with Leopard.
Changes were made to Leopard since our last release in February. We've been following Leopard's development closely, and we have a working version of SuperDuper! nearly ready. Given the nature of SuperDuper!, though, we don't want to release it until we have the final "bits" of Leopard to test with. It should be available shortly after Leopard's release (earlier if we get the final build before the public does--which we won't).
To answer the inevitable question: the update will be free when released.
Note that netTunes is not Leopard compatible due to a Leopard bug I was unable to work around. I'm hoping for a fix in an upcoming Leopard release, since I do not have a workaround for the problem.
Leopard and Sandboxes
When the Leopard-compatible version is released, please realize that Leopard is a pretty different version of the OS. I recommend against using a Sandbox to share a Home folder between Tiger/Panther/Jaguar and Leopard: there have been a lot of changes to the way data is stored, and a Sandbox is not likely to provide sufficient isolation.
Time Machine
As far as Time Machine goes -- in general, I've always thought that some sort of backup functionality belongs in the OS. It's been a long time coming. The fact that it wasn't there left opportunities for 3rd parties, but that doesn't mean Apple shouldn't address the missing functionality.
And so, they have, with Time Machine. Really, I think that's a great thing. People need to back up more often, and I think Time Machine encourages them to do so, and gives them a relatively transparent way to do it.
Time Machine and SuperDuper!
That said, though, Time Machine isn't the be-all and end-all of backup programs. In fact, given how it works, I really do think that SuperDuper! remains both relevant and necessary -- a true complement to the functionality in Time Machine.
First, as is likely obvious, Time Machine is designed to provide automatic "temporal" backup (discussed in broad terms in the post The Ninety-Nine-Per-Cent Solution many months ago). Its primary usage scenario -- and the one that most demonstrations and documentation focuses on -- is to allow quick recovery of files and data that have gone missing, etc.
It does this in a way that's highly integrated with the OS, with a unique UI that's both cool and kinda cheesy (I'll tell you, the 'space' theme hasn't grown on me at all...)... and, as was the case with Spotlight, with a certain amount of application-level impact (something 3rd parties like Shirt Pocket could never mandate).
Fully, Directly Bootable Backups with SuperDuper!
What's important to note is that this isn't, and never was, what SuperDuper! was designed to do.
Our tagline, Heroic System Recovery for Mere Mortals, tries to sum up the whole idea: SuperDuper! is designed to provide excellent failover support for the all-too-common case where things fail in a pretty catastrophic way, such as when a drive fails, or your system becomes unbootable. We do this by quickly and efficiently creating a fully bootable copy of your source drive. Perhaps more importantly, recovery is near immediate, even if the original drive is completely unusable, because you can start up from your backup and continue working.
You can even take your backup to a totally different Macintosh, start up from it, and work while your failed Macintosh is in the shop... then, when it comes back all fresh and shiny, restore things and keep working. And even if the other Mac is a different CPU type, you can still open and edit the files on the backup.
You cannot do this with Time Machine: Time Machine copies are not bootable until they're restored.
In SuperDuper!, system recovery is done with a minimum of fuss and bother, and with respect for your time. Yes, Time Machine can restore a full system, but that's not its strength. Doing so requires you to actually start up from the Leopard DVD (which you'll need to have with you) and then take the time to restore the backup in full, which interrupts your workflow, requires a working, entirely separate destination device, and takes a lot of your time -- at the exact moment when you can least afford it.
So, when Leopard comes out, and Time Machine is released, be assured that SuperDuper!'s fully bootable backups continue to be relevant and necessary. We'll work alongside its rapid recovery of individual files, augmenting that with our rapid system recovery.
And, of course, we'll continue to improve every part of SuperDuper! to make backups faster and easier for all.
23 Oct 2007 at 12:40 pm | #
This paragraph mentionning that “you can work while your failed Macintosh is in the shop” was exactly what happened to me when SuperDuper saved me lots of precious time when my PB ‘12 drive failed.
I didn’t switch on the Time Machine on the pre-release builds of Leopard and continued to use SuperDuper for all my backup work. For one I didn’t want to have any additional weird folders on my backup drive (however I have no idea how the structure of Time Machine backup looks like, since I never switched it on) - because I like to have everything separated and packed into dmgs. I have several backups of several machines and several partitions on my backup drive, something that would be (probably) impossible to keep in order with Time Machine. My drives setup is already rather complex (btw a pick here for the interested: http://www.flickr.com/photos/grotsasha/1256676983/ ) and SuperDuper is perfect to simplify the hassle of maintening and backing up several partitions.
I’m sure that Time Machine will do for SuperDuper what RSS integration in Safari did for NetNewsWire - promote the concept of the backup for everybody and highlight the need for a backup programm. Time Machine will be probably sufficient for newbies, but for serious use SuperDuper will always remain my choice.
23 Oct 2007 at 01:14 pm | #
I agree that the O/S should ship with a backup tool, although I would have expected it to be a cloner like SuperDuper. From what I’ve read, Time Machine seems fairly complex, and I’m undecided as to how it will fit into my backup regime. My SuperDuper drive is here to stay--it saved my bacon with minimal down time after a hard drive crash. In fact, if I do buy another drive, it may be for an off-site SuperDuper clone, rather than for Time Machine.
23 Oct 2007 at 01:48 pm | #
Exactly. That’s why I won’t be installing Leopard until Super Duper works on it
As a freelancer, a bootable clone provides great peace of mind.
23 Oct 2007 at 03:58 pm | #
As I’ve mentioned before in the Shirt-Pocket forums, SD! provides the InstantOn™
recovery time that we need.
Time machine will be great when you find out that the file you wanted has been in the trash for days and that you emptied that trash two days ago. Here comes TM. You search, you find, you recover. Click. Done.
But when you wake up one morning, press the Mac Power Button only to find out that you get a “no drive” or worse, a daring CLANG CLANG CLANG from your HDD drive, you will either panic or find your external clone.
Picture yourself in the same situation. No more Mac. It just Doesn’t Work™. What do you do? Start looking for your OS X DVD… panic… sweatting… asking how do I start this Time Machine thing. Will it work? etc.
On the other hand, if you regularly keep a clone (or two if you’re like me), you just plug the drive and see all your Mac alive again, in… 1 minute?
TM is great, for what it does. SD! too.
You only love the power of booting clones (made easy) when you loose at least your HDD once.
For everything else, there’s Mastercard.
25 Oct 2007 at 10:28 am | #
Dave,
I did an full backup with SD last night on Leopard. It appeared to be flawless, is this not the case?
Can you forward on a beta… ?
Thank you
25 Oct 2007 at 08:29 pm | #
Even if I had to re-purchase the new Leopard compatible version of SuperDuper!, I would gladly do so. It’s that important to me.
In fact, it’s absolutely 100% indispensable.
26 Oct 2007 at 01:02 am | #
The missing link for me at this point is offsite backup. Packng up a hard drive and taking it somewhere is not “effortless.” And “somewhere” for me is a problem: I work at home, and home is an apartment, and my family lives in another country. Do I leave the backup in a locker at the train station?
I tried Mozy and was reasonably impressed. But it would be nice if my trusted app of SuperDuper had an integrated method to do an offsite backup, to Amazon or a rented server.
Although Time Machine does not really duplicate SuperDuper’s killer feature, it’s good enough for many, and you’ll lose sales because of it. You need a new feature to sex up the product: how about offsite backups over the internet?
26 Oct 2007 at 07:55 am | #
It’s something we’re considering. But the big problems with backups over the internet, at present, is both restoration and speed…
26 Oct 2007 at 08:40 am | #
Like paul above, I will not be installing Leopard until SD works with it. SD is important to me and he types of backups it provides are exactly what I want. Even after I install Leopard and start using Time Machine I won’t stop using SD for a complete bootable backup.
Keep up the great work Dave.
26 Oct 2007 at 10:06 am | #
Superduper! definitely does what is says.... Upgraded my macbooks sata from 120 to 160 and just running it for the first time, did its job. No mess and waste of time....
Definitely time machine will have its use, but as pointed out when disaster strikes, who will be bootable makes the difference.
26 Oct 2007 at 12:08 pm | #
Time Machine will most definitely not keep me from using Super Duper, I have only once deleted a file that I didn’t want deleted meaning time machines versions are useless to me, having a bootable backup is totally priceless, even when hard drives haven’t failed I find my self using it.
27 Oct 2007 at 11:44 pm | #
Darn. Yeah, I already loaded Leopard on all my Macs - I really needed the Parental controls for the kids. I have my daughter using Time Machine for her MacBook. I did make a SuperDuper! snapshot of my MacBook and my iMac G5 before upgrading - so I could “back-step” but . . . I think for now I’ll use my Backup program (.Mac member software) to get critical files backed up until SuperDuper! for Leopard is released.
SuperDuper! is awesome and saved me as well when my MacBook’s hard drive crashed. I had to wait two to three weeks for my warranty replacement drive to come in the mail (purchased from Hitachi, not Apple). I would have been down for that long if it was not for SuperDuper!. Instead, I was up and running *immediately* after the drive failed. I just rebooted and lost nothing, not even time - unless you count the time it takes to reboot.
When I learned that Time Machine does not make bootable backups, I knew I would be sticking with SuperDuper! - it’s invaluable to have that kind of a backup system.
28 Oct 2007 at 12:21 pm | #
Thanks for such a great program! I just did a smart update in 9 minutes and didn’t have to stop working at all. I’ve been using Retrospect since the days of 3.5” floppies but now that it’s zombie ware I’ve been looking for something better. When Retrospect backs up, the system is too slow to use. SD! is so much better.
[for some bizarre reason, preview thinks I’m someone else - D. Offer]
29 Oct 2007 at 08:22 pm | #
Okay, here’s a question I’m not seeing answered directly. I use SuperDuper! mainly to do exact clones of my main drive. No sandbox. No nothing. Just a copy.
I migrated from 10.4 to 10.5 over the weekend and SuperDuper! seems to work fine. And I have even been able to boot off of my 10.5 backup made via SuperDuper! without issue.
So the question: What exactly is not working? Is it something deeper users would notice? Or something else?
29 Oct 2007 at 08:27 pm | #
The backups often will not boot, and do not meet our standards for metadata accuracy.
31 Oct 2007 at 09:53 pm | #
Hmmm… Hoping for a SuperDuper update soon. I just ordered a new hard drive for my MacBook and want to be able to be 100% confident in the backup I make (under Leopard).
02 Nov 2007 at 04:12 am | #
Hi was just curious as to wether its a future possibility to have a SuperDuper backup that hardlinks the latest files in your Time Machine directory? The biggest draw for Time Machine for me is just its incredibly fast thanks to FSEvents (being I usualy backup wirelessly to an external hd plugged into an airport extreme) and I’d love it if either SuperDuper started using FSEvents to match time machines speed (the hourly backups take around a minute each hour with my standard usage!) or it could work with an existing timemachine backup. Also twould be nice if you guys could figure out incremental changes in large files i.e. VM’s because thats the main place Time Machine falls short for a lot of people (it copies the entire vm’s hd over each time theres the slightest change so for now I’ve had to exclude my vm’s).
I’m asking for a lot I know =P
02 Nov 2007 at 09:15 am | #
No, that really wouldn’t make any sense. Your backup wouldn’t be bootable, and if you did boot from it you’d change your Time Machine archive back deep in its hard link structure. (Plus, it’s protected with ACLs and other things...)
02 Nov 2007 at 09:24 am | #
One thing to note (slighty off topic) is that if you delete an application, and later in time you open a document associated with that application, your time machine copy of the application executes. This is so weird and undesirable…
So beware with Time Machine, it is still too new. I have to confess that I have already made use of it once and it worked “fine”. The interface (which I don’t like nor hate) is -sometimes- a little bit slow, at least for my MacBook Pro 2.0GHZ with a secondary screen (19’’ 1440x900) attached.
But all in all it’s a nice idea. Except that I wouldn’t quit cloning with SD! in a million years. I think that SD is the “EJECT” handle in an F-18. Time Machine is just the “auxiliary systems”.
Use time machine, but when everything fails… pull the SuperDuper handle
02 Nov 2007 at 11:51 am | #
Ah ok, thanks for the reply, well back to weekly superdupes for me then =)
02 Nov 2007 at 01:09 pm | #
I upgraded to Leopard but due to a few quirky plugins my iTunes damaged my iTunes Library. Whine, weep? No problem! I just went to my pre-Leopard System clone, and retrieved the files. Replaced the new ones with the old ones and bam iTunes Library restored.
SD is so indispensable to me. Now that I have upgraded I patiently wait for the new SD.
[removed]void(0);
02 Nov 2007 at 02:16 pm | #
I was wondering how difficult it would be to implement a feature that would take a particular TM snapshot and make it bootable? Dave, are you saying that would not be possible because of ACL protection?
I realize that once you boot from that, as you say, you’d be making changes that would mess up the rest of your TM history, but it might be a nice “emergency feature”, if it’s feasible. I’d recommend wiping out all but the selected snapshot, once it’s bootable (actually once it’s been booted successfully). Of course, such a make-this-snapshot-bootable-and-wipe-out-all-others feature would need to be surrounded by all kinds of “Are you REALLY, REALLY, R-E-A-L-L-Y sure you want to do this?” warnings.
Just seems like there should be a relatively painless way to turn a TM snapshot into a bootable clone.
02 Nov 2007 at 02:26 pm | #
Something we’re looking into for the future, Ray, but care must be taken. Can’t just hard link it, though—it’d have to be copied out of the TIme Machine bundle.
02 Nov 2007 at 02:32 pm | #
Hmmm, my curiousity wants to know why you can’t use hard links, assuming you’re willing to blow away all the other snapshots?
Details related to file metadata? permissions?
I realize that even if it is possible, the details of how you implement such a feature would be extremely important.
02 Nov 2007 at 02:35 pm | #
I *think* that SD! could “learn” to pull a TM snapshot and make it bootable, but I’d definitely “pull it out” somehow. Otherwise your TM history would be broken, and theoretically you’re storing “your history” in that thing.
We’ll see how “fast” the Filesystem/Hardlinks evolve with time and “big” disks. The filesystems will “grow” given enough time. Perhaps in one year, each TM “database” is inmense. Time (no pun intended) will tell.
02 Nov 2007 at 07:04 pm | #
I personally think that the core technology in Time Machine that lets it evaluate for backups so fast (fseventsd) would be a technology that SD! could leverage in the future for the Smart Update so that it could make an incremental backup even faster than it does today.
Essentially fseventsd is a process that logs which folders have been changed (Spotlight notifies it in real time) and then client applications can ask fseventsd for the diffs, then compare file-by-file in the folders that have changed. This would eliminate SD!’s need to evaluate each file on the hard drive during a Smart Update. Maybe we could call it a “Really Smart Update” or something.
Doing it that way should take roughly as long as a Time Machine snapshot to back up (literally a couple of seconds if nothing significant has changed).
02 Nov 2007 at 07:23 pm | #
It’s something that’s under consideration for the future…
05 Nov 2007 at 03:16 pm | #
Is there any timeframe yet for when the Leopard-compatible version will be ready?
05 Nov 2007 at 03:58 pm | #
As soon as we can get it done.
05 Nov 2007 at 04:13 pm | #
Just like the new Duke Nuken
06 Nov 2007 at 11:57 am | #
I don’t know about anyone else, but Time Machine isn’t exactly “Stable” yet, guess it’s just the way things are with any 10.x.0 release. Hint: If you’re using Parallels or anything similar, make sure you exclude your VM folder - Time Machine likes to hang otherwise.
I’ve actually still got my old 10.4 Super Duper image sitting around just incase I come across something I can’t work around.
Either way, I’ll definitely be using Super Duper when it’s Leopard ready. The principles behind Time Machine are nice enough when it works, but this blog post really sums it all up. Time Machine for the odd file or email you overwrote, Super Duper for a catastrophy. Hope everyone else sees the light.
06 Nov 2007 at 05:42 pm | #
What a bummer!
I share virtually all the sentiments I just read. The first thing I was planning to do with 10.5 was create a sandbox, and also share my home folder with 10.4 ... it looks as if I’m already at strike two.
Maybe I’ll just stick with 10.4.10 ...
07 Nov 2007 at 09:50 am | #
I initially did a clean install of 10.5 on an external firewire drive, and I’ve been getting everything (settings, applications, etc.) in order before I clone the installation over to my main laptop drive. I understand that SD isn’t yet fully compatible with Leopard, but does that mean that the application doesn’t run well from WITHIN Leopard or that it is unable to produce a proper clone OF a Leopard installation, even running under 10.4? I ask because I assume I could run SD from a 10.4.10 installation on another external drive to clone my Leopard installation back to my main laptop hard drive. I guess I really just need a clarification on “is not fully compatible with Leopard.” Any help or suggestions of what I might do to get my Leopard install on my main drive other than wait for full SD compatibility? Thanks in advance.
07 Nov 2007 at 10:06 am | #
It’s not ready to use with Leopard. We’ve had reports of success copying Leopard from Tiger, but it’s not something I’d endorse or suggest.
08 Nov 2007 at 02:00 pm | #
It would be great if the Super Duper web site could be updated with some new about the testing and a possible release date for SuperDuper Leopard compatibility. I get more and more anxious of not beeing able to do a 10.5 Bootable clone. Do not like the the machine. Too weird to use.
Regards.
08 Nov 2007 at 06:12 pm | #
Agreed. I downloaded the demo and cloned to a FW in Leopard but it wouldn’t boot. I’ve heard great things about SuperDuper but won’t spend the money until it works with Leopard. Andy idea how long it will be?
08 Nov 2007 at 06:23 pm | #
As I’ve said, we’re going as quickly as we can…
08 Nov 2007 at 07:17 pm | #
I’ve got to hand it to you, Nanian ... how’s your sleep been? No pressure, right?
We keep asking you the same damn questions, and you are still here, repeating the same answers ... how do you do it?
My gut tells me that Shirt Pocket is not much larger than Dave Nanian. One hand typing replies, the other coding, all while you ponder what it might be like having to get a real job, one with a commute (something I’ve avoiding for years myself).
The point of this ramble is simple: attaboy, Dave. Really, a big slap-on-the-back attaboy. You have an incredible, first-rate product with SuperDuper! You respond to your customers professionally and promptly. And as stressed as all of us are, fearing the loss of our sandboxes, it must be a real mixed bag for you.
This customer just wants to cut through for a moment and say “thanks.” I think we all appreciate your dedication, and the fact that you won’t release a product based on a clock.
Hang in there. Get some rest ... take an hour off, maybe two. No more.
You are the man (i.e., the sand man).
Now I need to get back to work.
Good luck (remember, we know where you live) <just kidding!>
08 Nov 2007 at 07:27 pm | #
Thanks, Lar… trying to hold it together here.
09 Nov 2007 at 12:55 pm | #
Hi Dave,
SuperDuper has saved my beans on several occasions, and I’ll never be without it.
As a matter of fact, I start a SuperDuper backup of my MacBook Pro on an office drive toward the end of EVERY workday (since SD works in the background I can continue working until it’s through). Then as soon as I get home EVERY day I start another SD backup of the MBP on a different drive; so even if disaster strikes and I lose two of the three data sets, I still have one more bootable backup elsewhere that I can start up immediately.
Time Machine is a nice thing to have to recover those lost odds and ends, but when (not “if") there’s a disaster, you can bet I’ll be reinstalling from my SD clone, not rebuilding my whole HD from Time Machine.
Thanks for giving us the BEST backup solution ever.
Bill
09 Nov 2007 at 02:02 pm | #
Having played around a bit giving TM a few chores I become more and more convinced that I will hardly ever use it. [I’m not a Sci-Fi Fan and the UI is just too much like a microsoft Tardis. SuperDuper is quick, versatile and completely idiot proof - I know because I’m the idiot. Leopard as a whole is a little underwhelming. But I won’t ask when SD is going to be ready because I’m sure it will be 100% stable when it is and I don’t think TM is. Call it a gut feeling but one of the reasons I trust SuperDuper so much is that it doesn’t ever look as though it was produced in collaboration with Spielberg. I can’t see you losing much if any to TM but I can imagine word spreading abroad when a lot of users of Leopard find out TM’s obvious limitations.
10 Nov 2007 at 12:06 pm | #
FREE Panther icons Dave,
Kind’a feels like so many folks are waiting for SuperDuper! that, well, if we all got in one spot, it could very well be another Woodstock.
I’ve installed 10.5 on a non-critical G4 iBook, but I’m holding off on everything else in hopes the sandbox has a resurrection. To stay busy while we wait, I bet some folks are knitting, others polishing their dogs — but I just made a cool batch of icons based on Panther’s icons.
The blah, blue Panther icons — enhanced, modified and beautified — for use with 10.4.x Tiger fans. So if folks either don’t want to upgrade, or can’t due to older models, they can still pretend. And isn’t that what we all do anyway.
48 FREE Panther icons for your Tiger (and for your Panther if you know the tricks). And not only do I have the FREE icons, but a FREE Mac application (LiteIcon) you can download to make installing your new icons quick, safe and easy. Here’s the link — it’ll take your mind of SuperDuper! for a while.
http://matre.com/creative
If the link above gets sniffed and deleted (maybe, who knows?), just click on my name above.
Enjoy, Dave!
14 Nov 2007 at 09:32 am | #
Love SuperDuper! and looking forward to the update with Leopard compatibility. If anyone out there is wondering about SD, I highly recommend it. Well done, Dave!
14 Nov 2007 at 10:21 am | #
Just another note of encouragement. I’m waiting patiently for SuperDuper! before doing anything major on my Leopard MacBook ... I want a nice clean bootable backup to which I can return when something blows up. Thanks for a great product!
15 Nov 2007 at 07:15 am | #
Corrections:
In my previous post, every time I mentioned Panther, I really meant Leopard. When is Apple going to run out of cats?
I doubt if there will be a Tabby release, but maybe a Sabre Tooth Tiger release?
Maybe Tony the Tiger!
How are things going, Dave? Can we get you anything?
15 Nov 2007 at 10:13 am | #
Sure, Lar: a drink’d be nice.
15 Nov 2007 at 10:31 am | #
Vodka Martini, shaken but not stirred or what kind of drink are we talking about here?
15 Nov 2007 at 10:45 am | #
I don’t think 007 would be terribly thrilled with the detail work involved in this update, so a Vodka Martini is probably inappropriate.
Maybe just a coffee. Need to stay alert. :-D
15 Nov 2007 at 12:40 pm | #
Though I am running Leopard here I have yet to try out Time Machine and there is one thing about the whole concept that is bugging me. According to the blurb it keeps a copy of every file you’ve ever created or deleted, so for someone like myself dealing with large video or image projects I can’t help but feeling the largest hard drive in the world would be filled up in the space of a couple weeks and then what? Am I missing something here?
As was mentioned earlier I bet there will be a performance hit as well just like some experienced with Spotlight. Once upon a time I activated FileVault only to find that it made working in Photoshop on heavier files just about impossible so I wonder how Time machine will really work in the future. I have enough faith in SD! to know they will make the right choices.
15 Nov 2007 at 12:46 pm | #
TM will have to copy those “large” files everytime it detectes a change. So yes, you’ll be using lots of HDD space. (Same with Virtual Machines). That will only happen once in an hour (of whenever you force it). Or, if you unplug the TM drive, only “once” when you plug it back.
TM has been really useful for me last week, was looking for a file I deleted hours earlier. But as I’ve endlesly mentioned earlier in the thread: SD! is a “must”.
15 Nov 2007 at 12:49 pm | #
Ashley—the “what”, in this case, is that Time Machine will throw away older backups/copies, keeping the most recent stuff. The more “large files” it copies, the less history it’ll retain. Time Machine really likes having a big-big-big destination drive, the bigger the better.
Perhaps consider something like the Drobo?
Martin—out of curiosity, with the deleted file, why wasn’t it in your trash?
15 Nov 2007 at 01:23 pm | #
Dave,
This will sound silly, but… it’s 100% accurate.
I had this .zip file hanging around my desktop for days. It was bothering me there. I like clean desktops.
So i moved it to the thrash when I decided that I no longer needed its contents.
A few hours later, I emptied the trash. (--> this should answer your question). The “why” is unknown. I just had the need to emtpy the trash. I hate seeing a non-empty trash. Its like a drug for me.
So I emptied the trash.
Two days later I started looking for that zip file…
…only to realize what happened.
TD to the rescue.
Deskcop -> TM -> (spotlight box: search for zip name). ZAP. Restore. Voilá.
It works.
Should TM have been disabled or non-existant (tiger?) I would have had to go back to my Weekly clone and/or daily. But I could have missed it, if my clone erased it. (That’s why I keep two clones, but that’s just me).
So in the end, I think that TM is a “good idea” for daily stuff, not big files, no PSDs, no big Movies, no Big Logic Files, no Virtual Machines.
And SD covers the worst case scenario: HDD Failure.
I am more afraid of the later. That’s why I like SD so much.
My only big gripe (with both SD and TM to be honest) is that backing up things that are on external drives to OTHER external drives is: a) “difficult” in SD (scripts and stuff like that are no user friendly), and b) Impossible in TM as it only works for the internal drives (Afaik).
Don’t listen to me
16 Nov 2007 at 04:46 am | #
Is it possible for you to create a mailing list or something to let us know when SuperDuper is leopard compatible? Right now I just check your website every few days when I remember, but i’d rather just get an email saying “your backup software is ready”
Thanks - i really appreciate it.
16 Nov 2007 at 04:57 am | #
You can click on “Notify me on follow-up comments” and you’ll get an email when somebody (like me) add a new comment to the thread.
16 Nov 2007 at 04:58 am | #
I second Brian’s comments. I’m checking every day.
Dave, you could make a killing on Adsense right now
16 Nov 2007 at 09:44 am | #
Sorry, guys—we don’t do outbound mailings like that because then we end up on “spammer” lists (even when people ask to be notified). But if you subscribe to the blog (or just start SD! every so often, since it has an updater built in), you’ll be notified.
19 Nov 2007 at 08:53 pm | #
I noticed that SuperDuper! doesn’t seem to do Smart Update the way it used to do in Tiger. It is writing my files all over again as if my backup drive was completely empty. This is not a bootable drive, just a drive I keep my photographs and documents on.
I’m going to check and see if my registration info is correct; otherwise I have no idea what is going on.
19 Nov 2007 at 09:15 pm | #
I just realized I am posting to the wrong area LOL. This is the Blog for the article. I’ll go the Support route.
20 Nov 2007 at 09:54 pm | #
I bailed on Time Machine today and ran a backup using SD. There is a conflict between Spotlight and TM that Apple needs to fix. In thinking about what Time Machine offers and SD, I think I am going to get another external so that I can do both. With SD it is just too easy and reliable to go to a clone when needed.
24 Nov 2007 at 01:17 pm | #
I’m new to Mac. I just brought home a new IMac but I have a question. It seems to me that if I want to clone my HD I have to have same size HD as on my Mac. I have a few HD laying around at home but they are smaller, but bigger then used space on Mac’s HD. Is it better parition Mac’s HD so I will be able to clone (Tiger OS) before I upgrade to Leopard (Disk included with comp) and then if I want I can go back to Tiger?
24 Nov 2007 at 03:41 pm | #
That’ll work fine, Serge, as long as the data fits (with about 15% free space for booting, etc).
27 Nov 2007 at 05:10 am | #
To know when the Leopard compatible version of SD is out, I follow this thread. Reading comment 51 and 52 got me wondering: shouldn’t you always empty the trash? I thought this was an abslute must but aperently it isn’t?
27 Nov 2007 at 05:41 am | #
Leaving items in the trash has never been a problem for me and just gets duplicated on the cloned copy. I think it goes to show just how good SD! is.
I’ll be very relieved when its Leopard compatible.
27 Nov 2007 at 05:54 am | #
I don’t empty the trash all the time. It would defeat the purpose of the trash. If you empty it all the time, better just leave it off and erase instantly.
That TM gives you now, is the ability to have a “bigger trash” where you can actually search. That’s all about it. But when your house burns, only SD can save you
27 Nov 2007 at 05:56 am | #
I meant:
(...) What TM gives you (...)
Sry for the typo.
27 Nov 2007 at 10:44 pm | #
Hi, It is about the 35 post since my original post on Nov 08.
Please give us some hope on a possible target date on the Leopard compatible release.
I think many people cannot wait longer.
Before I used to use a 160 HD external drive to clone my MacBook now I need a 250g HD and more to get backups with TM. Could we beta test beta releases for some individuals with IT skills ? This could help the QA on this next release. Let me know.
SD Fan.
Some hints for sw developers: Subversion for VCS, OTRS for tickets tracking system (support), Bugzilla for Sw Bug issues (or TRAC) and Plone for a good CMS. All Open Source.
Thanks.
27 Nov 2007 at 11:06 pm | #
I think I’ve posted a few more times, SarouFrodon…
28 Nov 2007 at 01:37 pm | #
>>SarouFrodon…
It may be just me, but I believe you are over your post limit, sir ... you can stop now. Do you think the more posts you submit, that development speed will increase? Do you think if Dave doesn’t hear from you for a while, he’ll forget to work on SD?
What if every shirt-pocket customer wrote seven (7) posts every four (4) days (average)? Do you think with that speed-boost Dave would be finished by now? Or, do you think he’d actually be behind since he seems to place a priority on customer communication?
And your statement: “I think many people cannot wait longer” probably does not speak for the majority. If you cannot wait any longer, and SD! is not ready ... what will you do?
When it is ready, though, Dave will let you, me, and everyone else know.
So chill, and have a great day
29 Nov 2007 at 12:05 am | #
Sorry Lar, BTW: from your post 42: Error 404 - Page Probably Moved (I would have loved to visit) and from post 45: Do you want SD to be Panther or Leopard compatible ?
You are right, I will still wait new SD release like everybody else. Still use TM and CCC since I do not have anything better…
My point was that not all people are looking at the blogs to get news and express themselves.
SD is a great product but I must admit the lack of communication from the main web page.
Some news about progress would be nice. Nothing changed about SD since beginning of Nov.
I talked to many people about the benefits of a bootable backup with SD. Instant crash recovery vs OS re-install, etc.. Plus the fact that SD do not consume as space as TM with its intelligent incremental backups.
I do not know if Dave is alone in this but if so, please hire some contractors to delegate some development. At one point you cannot be the head and the hands.
SD could beneift from a bigger customer base. Unless SD owner do not need the money.
Once in business, growth is mandatory otherwise globalization will eat you.
Sorry for the hard facts and still hope to see a release soon.
Chill out Lar..
Thx.
18 Dec 2007 at 12:29 pm | #
I was completely bitten by SuperDuper not being Leopard-ready. The responsible thing to do, once you discovered this months ago, would have been to release an update that prevented the app from running on Leopard.
I sure as hell hope you’re adding an OS version check to the “fixed” version so customers don’t get bit again. It won’t matter to me, I’m no longer a customer of yours.
18 Dec 2007 at 12:57 pm | #
I’ve used SD for several years and LOVE it. I want it back, but only when you’re confident you’ve got the Leopard version perfected.
Simple common sense says you’re working as fast as you possibly can to achieve full Leopard compatibility (obviously - DUH!); so it’s beyond me why people get themselves in such a snit on this blog. Kinda reminds me of irate airline passengers who go ballistic when their plane is delayed for a mechanical problem or weather. Hey, if the pilot has the slightest doubts about the safety of the flight, I’m perfectly willing to just sit at the gate reading my book for as long as it takes until he’s sure we’re going to make it all the way to our destination in one piece.
Thanks for your great work on the original SD and this version so far - just keep pluggin’.
Bill
18 Dec 2007 at 12:59 pm | #
@Bob,
The responsible thing to do, was make sure that your applications work with your new TOY. Because installing a NEW OS into a production machine without proper testing is your fault. I am not defending SD! nor you here. But YOU should make sure that everything works. Not simply “assume” that because it starts, it just works. You have, surely, learnt a lesson from your lack of common sense. This won’t happen to you again in the future (I hope).
Next time you do something like upgrading your OS, make sure that you’ve made your homework before.
I agree that a small update preventing or warning Leopard users that SD! coulnd’t be used wouldn’t have hurted anyone, but I took the risk of upgrading to leopard the day it went out, and i carefully checked all my apps and removed the non-compatible ones. As the time passed, new versions started to emerge and I reinstalled/copied the preferences and did what I had to do to recover my previous state.
Sorry pal, but that’s the way to go when you do something as dangerous as upgrading the entire operating system. It was YOUR fault not to check. If backup was SO important for you, why on earth did you just “upgrade to leopard”. What does Leopard has that you can’t find yet in tiger? A new version of Candy Bar?
C’mon, those of us who are on Leopard it’s because we are early adopters. If you brought a new Mac with leopard in it, then you had to manually install SD! and therefore, you should have seen it right there on the front page: “Not Leopard Compable”.
Sorry about your data loss, but don’t shoot the messenger; it was your fault. Seriously.
18 Dec 2007 at 05:16 pm | #
Greetings SarouFrodon,
Rest assured, this Lar is always chillin’. I’m so chilled, Apple’s cats began to get confusing, and there I was, talking Panther. Damn, I hate when that happens. But understand, too, that much of it was tongue-in-cheek.
But for ‘Bob’ — gosh, you didn’t quite state what happened, though you did state you are no longer a customer. So, you are not taking any blame yourself for not checking out your software? Are you a new computer user? In any event, you are probably the type who learns best the hard way, so you shouldn’t make that mistake again.
By the way, I set up two boot volumes, one with Tiger and the other with Leopard. It’ll probably need to stay like that for sometime, too.
Hi Dave, how’s it going?
And now, back to work ...