Another week, another Leopard Status Update. Please, hold your cheers and applause until the end.
Two parts
Although most people think about SuperDuper! as a single application, it's actually comprised of a number of parts. The two main ones are the UI application (which you interact with) and the Copy Engine, which actually performs the copy.
When changes are made to the UI component, testing takes significantly less time, because it's much easier to ensure that those changes are working properly, and improper operation is relatively low risk: if a button doesn't dim properly in some conditions, it's an easy bug to work around for an end user.
Changes to the copy engine, though, are extremely high risk. Errors made in copying files affect the backup itself, and often occur silently: everything looks like it's working, but, not so much.
Testing the tests
This is one of the reasons that this update is taking so long to release. Due to the nature of the changes in Leopard, we've had to make significant changes to the engine. And while we, of course, have extensive test suites internally, those tests are "necessary" but not "sufficient".
Final bits
As I've mentioned before, we did, of course, have betas of Leopard, and we were working with them. But a beta is just a beta: changes are made up until the shipping version, and that was the case with Leopard as well.
But, there's another consideration, too: we can't do our "big" external test cycles until the "public" has the real bits. Yes, we can roll to testers who have the same beta we have, but when you're making the kinds of changes we had to make this release, it's important to roll in new testers who have different file setups and different patterns of copying.
(Tester fatigue is an issue that all developers are constantly struggling with: it's not so much that a tester is "tired", but that they fall into a pattern of use, and rarely venture outside it.)
So, our internal tests couldn't be run until we received the final bits (we never release test versions to our testers that are risky, to ensure they can really use the test release as a production copy), and our big external test couldn't start until after that.
That testing -- of which there have been multiple rounds -- has been going very nicely indeed.
More progress
So, last week, we locked down the "cloner changes": given feedback from the testers and our external tests, and running against 10.5 and 10.5.1, we're pretty confident that the engine's working properly.
That's a good thing.
We've added some new capabilities to the engine, too. We can now preserve the contents of the Spotlight index on the destination (which also preserves its indexing status in a more reliable way) and preserve the "File System Event" database that Leopard uses. More on this in a later post.
While we were doing that, we decided to do one more thing.
Save the icons
We had always felt that the volume icon -- being a file on the source drive like any other -- should be copied to the backup drive, since you'd want to restore the original drive to the same condition it was originally in, and that included the icon.
Well, we had a lot of pushback on that choice (to put it mildly - I think the thread that discusses this issue and the workaround we came up with originally is the longest one on the discussion forums), and we decided that we were wrong. Since you rarely restore, and your backup drive is constantly visible, it was best to preserve the destination icon. Plus, if you restore with SuperDuper!, we'll preserve the icon of the destination for the restore, so it's all good.
The changes we made, above, made this possible. And so, the destination volume icon will now be preserved.
More coming
So, a lot more progress has been made. Testing's going really well. And I'll talk a bit more about some other new stuff later.
05 Dec 2007 at 10:00 am | #
That’s wonderful news, particularly about the volume icon preservation. Now I don’t have to worry about getting an internal drive icon getting slapped on an external firewire drive. I was so proud of having figured out how to do the post-copy script to restore the icon, and now it’s for naught, but I promise I won’t complain
Thank you!
05 Dec 2007 at 10:33 am | #
Dare we ask for a possible release date?
I miss Super Duper!
05 Dec 2007 at 10:45 am | #
As I’ve said before, Feverish Flux, it’ll get released when it’s done. We don’t want to keep it away from you any longer than we have to, you know?
05 Dec 2007 at 10:50 am | #
Any speed gains with this new Leopard version?
05 Dec 2007 at 10:58 am | #
No: in fact, Leopard seems a bit slower with Disk I/O from what we’ve seen.
05 Dec 2007 at 11:12 am | #
Will the Leopard release be backward compatible to Tiger?
05 Dec 2007 at 12:04 pm | #
Remember, everyone, there are 24 hours in a day and you can’t buy an upgrade for extra daily hours. Thus, every question Dave Nanian has to field means less time he has to finishing SD! for Leopard. He has been generous and candid with information on these blog posts, and even goes above and beyond by replying to one-on-one questions posted here and int he Discussions.
Instead of posting blindly, read the previous occassions where you question has been addressed dozens of times. Read the blog, grok it and let Dave get to work. I am sure that he would be thrilled to get Leopard-compatible SD! out before the holidays, so let’s quit hassling the man and let him do his thing.
Thanks for the update, Dave, and you don’t have to reply, I’ll be presumptuous enough to believe that you would give me a “You’re welcome.”
05 Dec 2007 at 12:34 pm | #
Sounds great! Thanks so much for the update!
05 Dec 2007 at 02:37 pm | #
Guys,
You do the right thing. Don’t feel the pressure we’re giving you in terms of release time.
We’re talking here about serious stuff: backups. One of the most crucial software.
I had a terrible experience with another company (infrant/netgear) who have a network storage solution (ReadyNAS). I own also this product (a 4 disk RAID system). They have recently released their new system upgrade (v4) which is a disater. Dozens of people lost their entire data, pictures, videos, invoice scans you name it.
The issue? They have released it too early. So guys, please take your time, and release it when you are confident, that we can rely on you.
Think about an analogy: your software for us is like the parachute for the pilots.
In SD! we trust.
05 Dec 2007 at 03:05 pm | #
With all affection, I must say, we won’t truly have Leopard until we have SuperDuper! too.
05 Dec 2007 at 04:15 pm | #
The Leopard release will work with Tiger as well, yes.
05 Dec 2007 at 06:48 pm | #
i appreciate the fact that you guys take your time testing… there is nothing more frustration than rushing to release a product that’s not ready to be release, so thank you for your effort in quality control.
peace
05 Dec 2007 at 10:22 pm | #
Jeez. Look Dave, I want a bug-free release as much as anyone… particularly with something as critical as backup software.
Here’s the business case. You USED to have the best - by far- backup software product around for Mac. Emphasis? USED to.
Right now it’s been closing in on 6 weeks since I can’t use your software. Nobody with Leopard can. And the best you can offer - remember, you run this show - is “we’re getting closer”. No timeline. Not even something to say when you’ll post your next “update”.
(BTW, this one really sucks in terms of any meaningful details for us customers. Final bits? More progress? Save the f%&$king icons? In the meantime you basically repeated the ONLY real thing we care about - that you won’t commit to any date. Not even February 2008.)
Yeah. That last paragraph sounds a bit frustrated. Here’s my point Dave - it ain’t good business… in ANY sense… to treat your customers like this. Hey, I understand as much as any intelligent person how you need to maintain backup integrity. Guess what - you have something that is buggy. But guess what else? Competitors who have products not nearly as perfect as you have released something that actually makes a bootable copy.
You’re taking a major hit. And you are only making it worse by not being “transparent” right now. Hey, Scoble wears on me as much as most people - but he has this one right. Tell us something. Tell us a drop dead date. TELL US SOMETHING.
This latest post said absolutely nothing. And it’s a piss-poor way to run a business.
05 Dec 2007 at 10:45 pm | #
DaveD… you don’t understand how software development goes, nor much about human nature.
1) it is -impossible- to know how long it’s going to take to develop something, given all the things that can rear their heads. (I know: I was a developer for 25 years.) What you’re asking is like asking “Give me a drop dead date by which the world will have a cure for cancer.” or “Tell me exactly how long I"m going to live.”
Don’t be ridiculous.
1a) Suppose you had a date. Then what? What do you gain by knowing?
2) Human nature. If, because the laws of chaos rule software development, you _were_ provided with a release date, and it took longer to do… lemme guess where you would be in line as the person howling the loudest…
How on earth can Dave N. give you a date if he has no idea what the date will ultimately be? Whatever it is you’re asking for, is likely more deeply rooted in some need within your personality than it is sage (and it’s not) business advice.
I’ve likely been in this game (computers: 30 years and life: 60) longer than you, and my take (since you’re so willing to submit yours) is that DaveN -IS- being “transparent” - telling us exactly what the issues are; where the development status is; and what is going on.
You want a drop dead delivery date? How about this one then, if it will make you feel better, December 21, two thousand and NINE. If it’s not out by then, I will personally refund your money.
Do you feel better now?
Sheesh....
05 Dec 2007 at 11:25 pm | #
Hey Dave (Nanian), thanks for the update.
I find it valuable and from it I know you are both on the case (making SD superb) and aware of the need to keep customers loved.
Given you are not ready to ship yet, to me, the next best thing is a weekly-ish update with as much or as little detail as you have to give.
Sure, some will want software in a time-frame of theirs, but I, and I suspect, many many others, will care more that the software they use is balanced well, well into the engineered-to-near-perfection end of the scale rather than the seems-to-work-lets-ship end of the scale. In this field, erring on the side of engineering-caution is pretty much critical, imho, and following this sage course will earn SD huge respect and all that goes with that. The price may be a few lost sales to those not able to wait, but that’s for them. For me, I keep watching my RSS feed and reading with mounting excitement as the time for SD approaches.
Good luck!, Best, -Alan
06 Dec 2007 at 01:19 am | #
Thanks for the update. I’m relatively new to SD! having purchased it a few months ago and have been impressed thus far. Having said that, I’m a little concerned that this post implies that you are making additions while readying a critical update. I can live without having the right icon, or having accurate Spotlight indexing, but I’ll have a massive headache if my harddrive fails right now. As a software engineer, my experience has been that adding new, non-critical (in my personal opinion) code at this stage only introduces new random variables that generate risk and delays. As a customer, my request to you is to focus on getting SD! functioning on Leopard and defer the additions to a future release.
Best of luck to you and your team!
Sincerely, -Wade
06 Dec 2007 at 01:28 am | #
Thanks for the update Dave - hopefully you’re ignoring ass-hat comments like DaveD’s (he’d be the first one to complain to you if a backup failed, and if backups with SD! were so important to him, he should have done the responsible thing and checked to see if SD! was compatible with Leopard before updating his OS).
If only more developers were as responsible as you, we’d be better off - Adobe software has never worked 100% on any version of OS X for me, and though they say CS3 is compatible with Leopard, I run into all sorts of problems daily. Had they announced instead that CS3 wasn’t compatible, you can be sure I wouldn’t have upgraded my OS
Plus, this time has allowed me to become familiar with Time Machine, which is really a great piece of software to have installed with an OS by default, as you said previously. The combination of TIme Machine and SD! on Leopard will mean even more peaceful nights of sleep for me, and the quality control you insist on putting into SD! is key to that peace
06 Dec 2007 at 10:15 am | #
The floggings will continue until moral improves.
DaveD, why don’t you go write your own software, or settle for CCC, or just live with Time Machine, and stop being a jerk to the guy that’s likely been making your life more secure for the past few years.
Adobe took what felt like forever to get CS3 out, and they didn’t owe me an explanation, and they also didn’t owe me the software. Your sense of entitlement makes me throw up a little bit in the back of my mouth.
06 Dec 2007 at 10:49 am | #
Super Duper is the last of my worries about transitioning to Leopard. Other apps I depend on are not close to being ported. Given the issues regarding leopard.0, it was prudent my development group did not swallow the cool-aid and upgrade. In light of the no-maintenance fee for this major upgrade of SD, I appreciate the diligence of DN and the fact that the code will be backward compatible to Tiger.
06 Dec 2007 at 05:35 pm | #
For my purposes, simply backing up my iMac to a LaCie d2 firewire, SuperDuper still works, albeit incredibly slowly. I’ll happily install the update when it comes. Meanwhile, I can still use it with Leopard 10.5.1, but sparingly. What was a 8-15 minute process currently takes over two hours. Since I know the update is around the corner, I’ll wait rather than try using a different product.
06 Dec 2007 at 08:26 pm | #
First off, I applaud the team for working as hard as possible to release a solid product. For a back up application (or disk utility), this has to be rock solid. Look at how FEW disk utilities that are known to be excellent (i.e. Disk Warrior) not yet updated for Leopard because the people behind the products KNOW that the product has to work as close to perfectly as possible. What good is a back up application you can’t bet you life on? SD is a superb product because the people behind it are truly dedicated and perfectionist.
That said, those of you who are holding off on upgrading to Leopard due to a lack of SD support, well that’s fine but not necessary IMHO. Between setting up an external drive for Time Machine (which is super cool) and using, for the time being, Carbon Copy Cloner, I feel pretty safe. Once SD is released for Leopard, CCC is going into the trash. And unlike SD which I used to update every night with a schedule, I’m only using CCC a few times a week (its slow) and relying on Time Machine for getting back a few files if necessary. So far, so good. I DO miss SD but I have to say, I do love Leopard. And I feel I’m still safe having a clone (made a few times a week with CCC) and Time Machine.
07 Dec 2007 at 12:45 am | #
Sounds great! By all means, take your time. You’re not going to lose me as a user and I’d much rather wait a few weeks/months for a solid version. not worth rushing something out only for me to lose data on a restore. Heck, I don’t even have Leopard (waiting for x.2) so I’m only in it the upgrade for the drive icon at the moment
07 Dec 2007 at 05:15 am | #
While I think DaveD’s tone is a bit harsh, I agree with some of the things he’s saying. SD is not only having tester’s fatigue, as mentioned in the post, they are also having customer’s fatigue.
As of now, SD for Leopard might not be perfect, but it is surely better than no backup at all! Because I am not given any timeline, I am hoping (expecting) that the release is just around the corner and that it is not worth rethinking my backup strategy and trying other solutions. The result? I have had a fresh install for Leopard for several weeks that has never been backed up.
A beta release of the software with all the disclaimers included would have allowed me to have a maybe-not-perfect-copy but better than nothing. And as of now, I’m not interested in “new features”, I just SD to do what it used to do, we’ll have time for added features later.
So, while I do understand that software development can’t be rushed, I feel a bit disappointed and frustrated.
07 Dec 2007 at 12:50 pm | #
Two things I want for Christmas.. Leopard compatible SD and a driver that works with my (now useless) LaCie Mobile Safe Drive.
No idea if I will get either one by that date, but SD is keeping me posted on their progress. LaCie? Not so much…
07 Dec 2007 at 02:55 pm | #
I beginning to feel that there is more to the delay than a product compatibility issue.
Perhaps you want to make a bigger splash by announcing SD! is Leopard compatible while you also announce a new product at MacWorld in January?
Wouldn’t be the first (or last) time that has happened.
For now, I will continue to wait while I work on my Silicon Alley (aka Rte 128) spy novel.
08 Dec 2007 at 01:49 am | #
Like everyone else, I eagerly await the arrival of SuperDuper! for Leopard. TimeMachine is nice, and serves a useful purpose, but in no way replaces the functionality of SuperDuper! The fact that you are delaying the release of the update, and are providing us with regular, plausible updates is a GOOD thing. My SuperDuper! backup on my firewire drive is something I hope to never NEED, because it means that I have experienced a catastrophic failure. Image the despair if, in my darkest hour, I turn to my SuperDuper! backup, only to find that it is somehow corrupted because the upgrade was rushed out the door.
It is clear to me that you understand that SuperDuper! must be ROCK SOLID. It must be exhaustively tested and tested and tested some more. I am confident that when you finally say “It’s ready”, it will be a worthy upgraded that we have all come to trust. Keep up the good work!
08 Dec 2007 at 12:59 pm | #
It looks like there is light at the end of the tunnel for Leopard. Keep up the good work!!
08 Dec 2007 at 01:42 pm | #
Thanks for the update guys. Don’t worry about the haters. Its obvious you’re working as fast as possible on this but also being extremely careful which is *exactly* what I want to hear from the people developing the business critical software I use.
08 Dec 2007 at 02:03 pm | #
I have to agree with some points made by DaveD. I depend on Super Duper and I now must consider moving on to other products. I think good customer service would have demanded an email to your customers letting them know of the expected time for update. I should not have to be kept wondering if an update is coming.
08 Dec 2007 at 02:12 pm | #
I cloned my hard drive using Carbon Copy Cloner. That worked fine, although it took about 5 hours, I believe, to back up 600GB. Then I tried changing the preferences so that CCC would do a “smart update”. There were three errors, all having to do with “error getting creation date...” of several Apple Mail files on the target drive. It also took about an hour to do this imperfect clone, even though there were only a few changes in the source disk, since I ran this second clone operation just a few hours after the initial clone event.
I know this is anecdotal evidence, but CCC just is not up to the task of doing what SuperDuper is so good at.
09 Dec 2007 at 08:08 am | #
Dave
Really, REALLY appreciate all of the hard work that you guys are doing on this upgrade, especially during the Holiday Season. I am sure that this is taking an incredible toll on your personal and family lives.
I swallowed the Kool Aid, and as a long time Apple User should have known better. (If Leopard had been released as 11.0, I wouldn’t have got caught). I am sure that each incremental fix from Apple has thrown you yet another set of curves.
Do not worry about your core base of customers, they will wait. Time Machine is neat product, but it is not the greatest solution for the portable computer user. AND It is the portables, because of the knocking about that they receive, that are the most prone to Catastrophic Hard Drive Failure. I speak from experience.
The ability that SD provides, of allowing work to continue when CHDF hits by merely rebooting from an external cloned HD is INVALUABLE. In 15-20min, I can crack the case of my laptop and physically swap out the drives if I have to. Re-loading Mac OS X 10.5.1 (2hours plus Software Updates) and restoring from Time Machine (??hours-dependent on amount data) is NOT an option.
Thank you for all of your hard work on a truly great product. I will keep checking back.
09 Dec 2007 at 04:38 pm | #
I am not going to install Leopard until I’ll get SuperDuper update.
:-(
10 Dec 2007 at 07:01 am | #
I’m left laughing every time I re-read the line in which DaveD refers to himself as an “intelligent person”. He truly believes that his thirty buck registration fee has earned him the right to say anything he wants. Here is a good way to get rid of such royalty: Dave N should prepare a special early-release Leopard-compatible update for users of DaveD’s ilk, in which smart-update deliberately corrupts all user data, and let them then figure out what hit them. You know, DaveD, if you are a registered SD user, Dave N can send your copy of SD an auto-update of such malicious software and quickly get even for the pot-shots you made. At the very least, I hope that he enforced this site’s rules on decorum and kicked you off as a member. I was heartened to read Tracy V’s erudite comments in follow-on. I will better the offer made therein: I will personally refund DaveD’s money now if he wants it. All he needs to do is apologise on this forum for his poor form.
10 Dec 2007 at 10:26 am | #
@suisunca: Be serious. Obviously, DaveD has the right to his opinions even if he never paid a dime. Suggesting that the authors intentionally sabotage someone’s computer (for any reason) is among the dumbest and most misguided ideas I’ve heard in recent memory. DaveD’s tone may not have been ideal, but his main point is still valid.
10 Dec 2007 at 11:02 am | #
@xyz & @suisunca: Obviously, we’d never, ever, ever do anything like that. I don’t think suisunca was even remotely serious in his suggestion, xyz.
10 Dec 2007 at 02:10 pm | #
I’ve been watching this and holding my tongue for a while on it, but some of the apologists on me have me really vexed. Unlike some on here, I don’t pretend to speak for anyone else.
I personally DO appreciate that extensive testing is going into this app. I don’t say it blythely either. I work in a market far away from SW development but our R&D process is also heavily scrutinised by the public and handling irate customers who want the very latest of everything is part of my job, so I know how people can be.
Given that SD is dealing with backups I think that some care and attention is a good thing, however what I find concerning is that apparently pointless stuff like volume icon restoration is even being discussed. Add it at a later date or something, but please don’t use up the dev time on it when the more pressing matter of customers being unable to back up their data is at hand. In the end, if my Mac goes down I couldn’t give a monkey’s cuss what the HD Icon looks like when it is done restoring. I just care that my mac works as before. The cake needs to be made before you think about icing it....
Some on here seem to act like we should just sit back and suck up this delay like good little people, without voicing unhappiness at it. Those of you doing so are acting as if none of us have paid anything for SD. I paid for something that backs up my data, and while it was MY choice to upgrade to Leopard and not Dave’s software’s fault that it now doesn’t work right, I think I am reasonable in expecting that 6 weeks after an OS update the developer will have a release available. Maybe that is naive, but I’m clearly not alone.
This is a commercial product and as such we are not being unreasonable if we have at least SOME expectation. Tracy and MacFanDave clearly feel differently to me, and if you guys wish to take that angle then go right ahead, but I simply happen not to agree with it. Maybe you have worked in SW for years Tracy, but most of us haven’t - There’s nothing in the license agreement requiring us to do so when we cough our money up for a product. We just want something that does what it says on the tin, and right now SD is not that. Of course, we can use CCC but for those of us with 750GB+ to back up that is so totally impractical.
I certainly agree that DaveD might well have put his thoughts a bit more tactfully, but maybe he’s just showing some frustration. Perhaps those of you bashing him could consider giving him the same latitude that you afford ShirtPocket. He appears to disagree with the general love in that’s going on in here and suddenly the guy is branded an “ass hat” etc. and we have suisunca suggesting that the SW is released deliberately flawed to teach those of us a lesson who happen to want something we bought, to work. Grow up, FFS. If you pay your money then you’re surely entitled to voice your unhappiness if you feel you’re not getting what you paid for, or is that privilege just reserved for the Überfans?
SD IS a great product, and I never forget how great it is when it is working, but it has been a while now and I really am getting cheesed off with it. I can’t be anything other than honest about it - It’s giving me the hump, and it’s such an important safeguard to have in place. It’s not some groovy screensaver or neat little widget that pops a pair of boobs up in my menu bar every 5 minutes that is broken, it’s the one thing that stops pretty much my entire digital life going down the pooper. I’ve come to rely so heavily on SD and realise now more than ever just how much I love it, how damn simple it makes something so complex and how much I miss it.
BTW, before the apologists jump on me about using Dave’s name in vain, I should point out that it isn’t some personal attack on him. That would be utterly ridiculous. I just see him posting on here and he seems to be running the show so it’s natural to address him in my post/essay/rant. I’m sure he’s doing his best, and I doubt whether my posting will be taken kindly but in the end I might as well stick my oar in - Everyone else seems to have done so.
Here’s to a stable release ASAP - I’ll certainly appreciate it.
10 Dec 2007 at 02:19 pm | #
I want to emphasize again that the “icon preservation feature” fell out of other work that we had to do. It was an extremely high priority change, based on customer feedback, and as such made its way into this release.
We fully recognize that people want this release quickly. Our apologies for the frustration and time taken, but in the end you will have a release you can rely on, rather than something rushed out the door. Given the nature of the changes needed, and the usage patterns we’re seeing in the community at large, the changes we’ve integrated have been both needed and appropriate—in the entire history of SuperDuper!, has it ever been any other way?
10 Dec 2007 at 02:52 pm | #
Hi Dave,
SuperDuper is a wonderful tool (I always wanted to tell you that), it’s at the heart of my backups procedure. It is so important that I am not even considering upgrading my main computer to Leopard until you tell us “Ok, folks, SD works on 10.5”.
No complain here, on the contrary : take the time you need to make the next version of SD as reliable as the actual one. I _know_ I can trust it, day after day. I don’t want to loose that confidence just to have it released a few week earlier. Leopard’ll just have to wait until _you_ are ready, that’s all
Sorry for my poor english & thxs again for SuperDuper 8-)
10 Dec 2007 at 02:56 pm | #
Relax guys.
10 Dec 2007 at 03:08 pm | #
Aw, Mom! Why am I in trouble?! DaveD started it!
(What I really wish is that the nearly invisible, gray-bordered box below the secret number I have to enter was a darker color so I see it better. I want that more than I want Super Duper right now. DaveN, when can you fix that, @#@#^#@*! I need a date!!! @#%*^$@!!!
10 Dec 2007 at 09:02 pm | #
First, apologies for my somewhat rude tone in my last comment. Yes, I was out of line.
And perfectly valid.
Before I - respectfully - approach a direct comment to the SD software writer (whom I respect and understand where he’s at), let me reply to a few who commented on my comment:
@14…
“DaveD… you don’t understand how software development goes, nor much about human nature.”
Actually I do. I’ve developed software from scratch, software with a team of developers, software that was tested in production and not, and software that is supported through various upgrades. Human nature? That’s a whole different thing - and something I didn’t mean to address in my last comment.
I posted my first comment back on November 26 here… and was properly told where I stand by Dave - a full 2 hours later. It was two posts ago… check it out. Seems we have differing ideas about how to run a MacSB business. That’s okay - he’s digging his own hole, and my tone was way bad.
Apologies. Seems my tone served to only obscure my point - that this is a poor way to treat your customers. Or at least communicate to those paying customers.
@18....
“DaveD, why don’t you go write your own software, or settle for CCC, or just live with Time Machine, and stop being a jerk to the guy that’s likely been making your life more secure for the past few years.”
Actually I do write software. And I had the Leopard betas. And - so far- I’ve been FORCED to settle for CCC for bootable backups. Not for archiving - I’ve had that process in places for over 2 years, and it doesn’t involve any of the software being discussed in this blog or the forum.
Again, I’ve obscured my real point - an ongoing business doesn’t speak to it’s paying customers in terms like this - 3 blog posts that _really_ say very little about the technical details while pointing fingers - properly or not - on everyone except the image in the mirror.
That’s poor business.
Trust me, I can appreciate technicalities. I certainly know what Apple’s poor developer channels mean. And no, it doesn’t excuse ANY 3rd party from believing they can make three blog posts in 7 weeks that detail no more than “7 million files backed up” to be treated with a reply that says… please, SHOW ME SOMETHING.
It’s been nearly two months, and you still can’t commit to any date. More on this:
“How on earth can Dave N. give you a date if he has no idea what the date will ultimately be? “
I’m not asking for a date - just an idea. 2007? February 2008? Spring 2008?
Something. But that hasn’t happened. The best he gives paying customers is “getting closer”. Which I can live with, because:
“Thanks for the update Dave - hopefully you’re ignoring ass-hat comments like DaveD’s (he’d be the first one to complain to you if a backup failed, and if backups with SD! were so important to him, he should have done the responsible thing and checked to see if SD! was compatible with Leopard before updating his OS).”
First, yeah - I deserve to be called an ass-hat for my tone. But I have to set you straight too. I do two kinds of backups… nightly and archive. And yeah, for now my nightly is a CCC bootable one. Why? Because I take responsibility for my own actions. Used to use SD, but - dammit - I can’t for now. And if that bootable CCC bakup doesn’t work? It’ll be some sort of Erase and Install DVD Leopard with a day lost because I’ll use my archives.
Trust me, I won’t complain - because I really do understand the technical side of things.
Question to Dave - do you understand the business side of things? Because so far you’ve lost a ton of trust from your customers. And here’s the kicker - I’m simply one guy. If “the enterprise” were ever to embrace Mac - and your product - you would already be up the creek. (Meant with all due respect.)
I guess my post exceeded word length… more to come, if your blog allows it.
10 Dec 2007 at 09:03 pm | #
Second part of my reply - hope it takes.
@33....
“I’m left laughing every time I re-read the line in which DaveD refers to himself as an “intelligent person”. He truly believes that his thirty buck registration fee has earned him the right to say anything he wants. Here is a good way to get rid of such royalty: Dave N should prepare a special early-release Leopard-compatible update for users of DaveD’s ilk, in which smart-update deliberately corrupts all user data, and let them then figure out what hit them. You know, DaveD, if you are a registered SD user, Dave N can send your copy of SD an auto-update of such malicious software and quickly get even for the pot-shots you made.”
I’m actually a guy who - despite an above-average IQ - has his moments of emotional replies. And you read one of them. It might be because DaveN made me feel like I meant nothing for asking (2 hours before he finally posted something that basically said nothing) how he thought one post in 26 days meant anything. But that’s simply me trying to make an excuse for my poor tone.
Let me reply to you directly, okay? I paid my money. And no, it doesn’t get me anything except for the right to use SD. And that’s all. So let me summarize what I was trying to say a week ago, but hopefully in a better tone:
“Dave N should prepare a special early-release Leopard-compatible update for users of DaveD’s ilk, in which smart-update deliberately corrupts all user data, and let them then figure out what hit them. You know, DaveD, if you are a registered SD user, Dave N can send your copy of SD an auto-update of such malicious software and quickly get even for the pot-shots you made.”
He can. Maybe he should. I’m betting he won’t. Why?
Because - unlike you - Dave _does_ grasp what fills his wallet. And to do such a thing would be suicidal. That’s all I’m saying - most people who use SD appreciate the simply UI, but also appreciate what it does. And do so because they not only value what a good backup does… they value how good a job SD does with it. And believe it or not - and something suggests I’m not the only one - many of his customers are pretty technically inclined.
But all we get is a post every 10 days detailing - well very little.
I went overboard a week ago. But hey - I didn’t do it 5 weeks ago, nor did I not accept responsibility for upgrading to Leopard before not realizing SD wasn’t compatible, nor did I blame DaveN for my change in backup policies.
I only meant to mention how poorly he was treating paying customers. And I did it poorly. Apologies DaveN. Any info on where things stand would be greatly appreciated.
10 Dec 2007 at 10:15 pm | #
I’m sorry, DaveD. I’ve tried to give you a lot of information about what’s going on. I haven’t pointed fingers at all, other than to indicate that we didn’t get our final bits, and thus couldn’t start our external testing, until the public did.
As I’ve indicated, testing is going extremely well both internally and externally. That doesn’t mean we’re done—as you know, testing is a feedback loop, and we react to the feedback we get from our testers—but we’re constantly getting closer to release.
The fact that I’m not giving you a precise date does not mean we’re making no progress. It simply means I don’t have a fixed date. Do I have a target date? Yes: as soon as possible. What does that mean? It means it takes as long as it takes (which I would have loved to have been “a day”, but wasn’t and isn’t), and once it meets our quality standards it’s out the door. Have I said that before? Yes, I have. I know it’s frustrating, but I’ll continue to phrase it that way until I know we’re ready to go.
The fact that I’m not releasing “details” (at a technical level) is due to one rather simple reason: the details have taken us quite a long time to figure out, and offer us competitive advantages that I’m not about to disclose publicly. Does a lack of disclosure mean there are no details?
Honestly, if I wanted to treat my customers poorly, I would have released day-and-date with Leopard. But I did not, because it’s important to me that what we do release works correctly, and as transparently as possible.
After all, you really don’t want SuperDuper! to fprot your tarball, do you?
10 Dec 2007 at 10:45 pm | #
Helius,
I don’t think you quite get my angle. I’m really trying to urge Dave to post his progress on this blog somewhat frequently (like at least once a week; two or three times would be preferable) so he doesn’t have to answer the same questions over and over again.
Just take a look at the discussions and even some of the blog feedback. A lot of people are asking and saying the exact same things and Dave is taking time out of his schedule to give the same answers over and over again.
If you go through all of the threads in the discussions and the blog, you can sense how things are going via Dave’s answers. If he were to be “proactive” (I hate that word, but it seems to be pretty good here), he could answer the ongoing questions even before they are asked, and we could know about the progress without having to drill down dozens of threads.
I must be frank: I am not happy that I haven’t been able to back up for 6 weeks, but asking “are we there yet?” a few dozen more times isn’t going to make the product come out any sooner. And, given Dave’s diligence at responding personally to almost every query, it will almost certainly slow progress.
11 Dec 2007 at 07:58 am | #
I commend SD developers for taking the time to release a bug-free piece of software - almost 100% is not an option. I am an active (L4) poster on Apple’s user-to-user discussion forums and have been recommending SuperDuper! as an inexpensive backup utility that really works. I dumped another one (CCC if it is important) for SD several years ago. SD saved me once, and, frankly, am amazed that the product is still updated without additional charges (unlike several other products).
FWIW, I have delayed installing OS X 10.5.x until SD is available for Leopard.
Barry
11 Dec 2007 at 10:26 am | #
Everyone is entitled to their opinion about how Dave N should run his business, how much info he should post, how frequently, whether he should give us a target date or timeframe, etc. And Dave N himself, obviously, has the right to make these decisions as he sees fit, given the access he has to all the details of development and testing progress.
I would argue, however, that anyone who believes that SD!’s “paying customers” are not being treated fairly, has misplaced, self-generated expectations. Remember that SD! for Leopard has ZERO paying customers. SD! for Tiger and earlier works as advertised (you got what you paid for).
Dave N has been very clear about creating expectations for SD! for Leopard. He has full intention of releasing it when he’s confident that it works. He won’t charge extra for it. And he doesn’t know when that will be.
If you have expectations that go beyond those ... well, have fun, express them, whatever ... don’t be surprised when they aren’t met ... remember, you made them up, Dave N didn’t create them.
Thanks Dave N. Great product, looking forward to the Leopard version.
11 Dec 2007 at 01:41 pm | #
So, if we have not paid for a Leopard version, RayZ, would it be reasonable to surmise that you advocate an upgrade fee then? I don’t think it’s an unfair expectation that a developer supports a new OS update promptly. Perhaps you do, and that is of course up to you. If you’re not using Leopard, then why are you bothering to post here anyway? If you ARE using Leopard and you’re happy with whatever else you’re having to use (CCC etc.) then I humbly suggest your standards may have slipped! OK - I apologise for the flippancy but to have something as good as SD is a boon for our platform and to then be without it sucks a biggie. I’ve sold 9 friends (all switchers) on SD, simply because it works so well and none of them are comfortable with their backup strategy now. It’s like flying first class then having to go back to economy! It’s just weird to me that yet again I see people leaping to ShirtPocket’s defence un-necessarily when all I’m saying is that I’m unhappy it’s taking so long and that I just want something I really love, back!
MacFanDave - I do see what you’re saying, but since I don’t know DaveN, and the updates here have been less than full until recently, I can’t assume that he is fully aware of what a royal pain in the hoop this is becoming. I guess I SHOULD, but so many SW developers these days don’t know, or don’t care, (M-Audio, are a fine example) so I suppose I always assume the negative. I mean, it’s not like they don’t know that when the new OS comes out loads of people will want to use it ASAP - We’re Mac users FFS!
I know that there is a lot of repetition, but a whole bunch of dissenting voices might hopefully make a point. I do accept that if DaveN replies to every one of us unhappy folk then he’ll have no time to develop the SW, and I don’t expect a reply. Damn, if he never posted here again and it helped get SD out the door faster I’d be ecstatic. What I would prefer is that stuff like HD icon restoration is just ignored in favour of getting the basic app running.
In the end, it’s clear that none of this makes a jot of difference really, but I’d rather be honest than sit there meekly just sucking it up. I’m a believer that knowing what your customers think, even if it’s not good, is better than not knowing anything. Besides, I’m not looking to crucify anyone here, I just want to back up my Mac. I’m sure the guys at SP re working their little legs of to get this fixed, but in the end if my iMac goes tits up that isn’t going to do me a lot of good.
I’ve said all I need to say on it - It’s pointless playing tit for tat on here and it’s OK to disagree anyway, so let’s just hope that the new version is released soon so we can all watch that cool little thing where the blue bar turns green and be smug and satisfied that should the worst happen, SD has us covered.
12 Dec 2007 at 04:22 am | #
"Bravo!” to DaveD for doing the right thing and acknowledging the nastiness as unnecessary. And a hearty “Hear, hear!” to RayZ. I’m sure all can agree that SD is a product that has saved each of its users about an hour of their time right at the very first smart-update. I’m also sure that each of us believes that an hour of our time is worth more than thirty bucks. I submit to you that we got our money’s worth out of our registration fee at our first smart-update—the rest is gravy. And, if you sent even one support request to DaveN, direct email, forum, or blog, and you got his typical reply-in-an-hour-or-less treatment, then you’ve got more than your money’s worth. Me, I am so in awe of his product and support that I have three paid registrations on each iteration of SD that I am running on three personal computers—it is such an amazing product. Those title bars on the GUI turn green, and I sleep in peace. Like RayZ, I also believe that a Leopard-compatible version of SD should be a pay-for upgrade. I would pay for it three more times.
12 Dec 2007 at 11:07 pm | #
This program is the business. It’s saved my bacon more times than I care to remember. I am checking daily, with baited breath for the new release!
You guys are fabulous. Bring on the new version, of course in it’s own time, but know that your fans all know it will be well worth the wait.
13 Dec 2007 at 01:40 am | #
I will buy SD! again to install on a new Mac. It saved me hours of work when a SW update hosed my computer’s ability to connect to the world. Shirtpocket has me as a customer for life( or as long as I run Mac boxes, anyway)
I’m happy that great care is being taken in updating SD!, and as much as I dislike running without a backup routine on my Leopard iMac, I’d prefer that this is done right the first time.
Lots of devs foist beta product on customers to cut development costs: let the users troubleshoot it for you!( cough TIME MACHINE cough) Dave’s not like that, and I’m grateful. His kind of integrity is an increasingly rare thing, I think.
Also: Apple really ought to treat developers better; they are the reason that the platform is so special, even after all these years, and all the changes.I suspect that if Shirtpocket had had a better view of what to expect in Leopard prior to final release, this delay probably wouldn’t have happened. So, I’m really frustrated with APPLE over this, and other software delays; Cupertino’s Orwellian siege mentality hurts us all.
13 Dec 2007 at 01:58 am | #
I really have to grit my teeth and grimace when I am treated to stories like this:
http://www.macworld.com/news/2007/12/12/databackup/index.php
If you don’t care to follow the link, it states that this competitor to SD! is ready for Leopard. For those of you who might say, “If you love Data Backup so much, why don’t you marry it? Or, at least, buy it?”: I have already bought SuperDuper!
I don’t know whether ProSoft (the makers of Data Backup) have solved the issues that are preventing us from getting our update, or whether they just glossed over them, but it is discouraging that yet another alternative to the software we have chosen is making us doubt our wisdom.
13 Dec 2007 at 04:04 am | #
MacFanDave - I just saw this over at MacUpdate and was about to post a link to it for those who feel they can’t wait for SD and need a solution in the meantime. I have never used Data Backup before so am not sure how well it works but I think I’m ready to give it a go; I can’t really afford to wait any more and these 7 hour CCC full backups are doing my head in. It could be that it won’t be a patch on SD but it does appear to offer what I need (Full cloning plus incremental backups) and although the interface appears to be a masterclass on how to makes a really ugly, scruffy looking UI (including the dreaded brushed metal), I reckon I can suffer that. Still, I don’t really care how it looks - If it backs up my data then I’m happy. There’s a 30 Day unlimited, full featured demo available so I’m about to have a crack at that. Price is $59, which is a bit of a bummer if you’ve already coughed for SD but if it does the job....
13 Dec 2007 at 08:09 am | #
Whilst I accept the delay in releasing the latest leopard compatible version of SD, I had to upgrade my system to Leopard (an early damaged Beta Safari installation/removal prior to owning SD was the cause).
Is it possible for anyone to provide us with a list of what SD cannot do in Leopard? Or is that simply too much work.
I want to have a backup of my laptop drive - the files are much more important to me than the software to me, so it doesn’t have to be fully bootable until SD is fully Leopard compatible.
As an extra comment (and fully supportive of Dave Nanian):
As an Developer using the Apple betas, I was lucky that the software I built only had a few problems, but it still had them, though I was lucky and got them fixed on the day of release.
Dave’s software is critical to many of us.
I’d rather Dave got the software right and didn’t get hassled for it.
One bad release can destroy a reputation. SD has a reputation for being perfect at it’s job.
13 Dec 2007 at 10:03 am | #
@Biz:
Why not go with Time Machine in the mean time? It does a perfectly fine job of backing up your files. It lacks functionality that SD! offers, sure. But for keeping a backup of your files it’s okay. And it’s free and built-in.
I have been using it since my upgrade to Leopard. When SD! becomes available, I think I’ll keep on using it, just as an extra measure. Use Time Machine for its functionality of getting back lost files or earlier versions of files. It’s integrated into the Finder so it works well for that. And use SD! to make a complete, bootable backup twice a week as I did in Tiger. If the whole drive (or computer) failes, I can keep on working off the SD! backup. And if I want a file from yesterday, get it off Time Machine.
13 Dec 2007 at 10:45 am | #
As regards Data Backup. After reading all the update comments from VersionTracker going back to v2.0.1 I think I’d rather have CCC. And especially worrisome was the lack of anything noted going to v3.03 other than it’s Leopard compatible. v2.0.1 is the version mentioned in that backup article everyone loves. The “What’s new” notes do not give much comfort.
But I’ll actually just stick to TimeMachine.
13 Dec 2007 at 10:47 am | #
@Michael
Good point!
I had a nasty experience with an early developer version of Leopard’s Time Machine during development and it hosed the whole machine! Might be worth risking it again!
cheers
Biz
13 Dec 2007 at 11:04 am | #
haven’t said much yet and don’t get me wrong — i appreciate everything SD-wise. great product and all that. but since i’m a paying customer i think it’s about time. don’t you think?
13 Dec 2007 at 12:03 pm | #
Hmmm. A much larger company with more employees can’t do it. Why would you expect SD! to do but what they are? When I first read the Data Backup comments my knee jerk response was, “Well whoop-tee-doo. Ya gets what ya pay for.” Apparently, at least IMNSHO, that isn’t even true as regards DR.
13 Dec 2007 at 02:16 pm | #
Time for a status update, please?
13 Dec 2007 at 07:33 pm | #
While it doesn’t do local backups to an externally connected hard drive, I highly recommend CrashPlan. It does backups to another computer (I use a server I maintain in my department but it can do a backup to any other computer on a network). I also purchase space on the company’s servers ($5/month for 50GB storage) for off-site backups. It’s a great program, detects changes and does the backup in the background. It’s NOT a cloner, but for incremental backups of critical files, I think it’s pretty good stuff.
14 Dec 2007 at 01:14 am | #
Any more info? Thanks! (Love SD!)
14 Dec 2007 at 04:52 am | #
Timothy - I think it’s worth trying yourself before dismissing it. Those VT/MU posts can be somewhat misleading....I tried Data Backup last night and it appears to have done exactly what was required. In fact, it immediately did an incremental update, recognising the fact that I already had a clone on my external drive anyway (done by CCC), so that was a nice surprise. A look at the structure, sizes etc. shows it to be identical, although I confess that I wasn’t THAT thorough.
I did like the feedback it provides - Multiple status bars on progress of files copied etc. That said, the interface is truly horrible, especially the brushed metal aspect - If it wasn’t something I used just once per day I don’t know if I could stomach it. They couldn’t even get the perspective right on the Calendar icon.
But, I digress. In the absence of SD it appears to work and given that you get a 30 day fully functional trial, maybe it’s a good thing to use (for free) while waiting for our favourite and much debated backup app to receive it’s update? If SD doesn’t turn up within that 30 day period and you can’t wait any more then at least you can make a choice and you have a backup that doesn’t take 4 hours or something to run each time (or in my case, 7 1/2 hours....)
Helius
14 Dec 2007 at 06:06 pm | #
I was not referring to the comments on VT. No, what I did was clicked the version number popup menu and went back to v2.0.2 which is the version mentioned (panned) in the backup comparison article I linked above. I then read the “What’s new” comments (Prosoft provided info) for each version to the present. I saw nothing that convinced me they had truly *fixed* their metadata issues. I have no doubt DB results “look” good. I have no doubt SD!’s results will BE good.
14 Dec 2007 at 06:31 pm | #
this thread of comments amazes me. first off, i’d be fired if i could not commit to dates at my job, and we are making up new technologies and solutions as we go in my industry. not making some existing thing work on a different OS (although we have been down that road too).
for the fanboys: stop. it’s okay for people to ask for timeframes. software developers who resist giving them are programmers, not businessmen. eventually it DOES matter.
i just can’t believe you people can be willing to beat each other up in the parking lot over backup software. suddenly the local two year olds look very mature indeed.
14 Dec 2007 at 06:49 pm | #
I have solved the challenge of giving Dave tons of slack and getting a backup .. the answer is Time Machine. Granted, because it works at the I/O level in order to be as unobstrusive as possible on the front-most apps, it takes gobs of time (I recall 3.5 hours to back up 40gig. But, it does work .. it gets you there and allows me to give Dave all the time he needs. Someone earlier said words to the effect “No SuperDuper!, no Leopard”.
Speaking of Time Machine, I read on MacFixIt that to update NOW with Time Machine, control-click on the Dock icon and select away.
By the way, and clearly the most important, Merry Christmas to you, your family, your “four-legged child” and all your friends.
John Love
14 Dec 2007 at 06:52 pm | #
It really has gotten out of hand on all points, scott.
It’s become something of a fatal car crash. It’s horrific to see, but somehow impossible to look away from.
Not to disparage Dave N., but how does anyone really know that the team isn’t sitting on the shore in the Cayman Islands, sipping rum drinks and waiting for MacWorld to roll around?
My point is, you don’t. No one does, except Dave N.
I’m going to stick my neck out here and say for the record that I truly believe we will magically see the Leopard update on January 15
14 Dec 2007 at 09:40 pm | #
Well, trust me: we’re not sitting on the shore in the Caymans.
15 Dec 2007 at 02:30 am | #
Hey Dave,
Please don’t mistake my comment above as a cheap shot, for that was not the intent.
But I do sit back and laugh at some folks here who attempt to explain why this or that is taking this or that long, when they don’t appear to have any connection to your company and therefore know just as little as I do as to when the update will be finished.
And once you push this puppy out the door, perhaps you should take the crew down to the Caymans. Having personally experienced the harsh winters of New England I understand that it certainly couldn’t hurt.
But then again, maybe you and I are equally full of beans. The only difference would be that mine would have definite Tex-Mex flavor; yours would certainly be Boston Baked.
And I still say it will be January 15. Just makes too much damn sense.
15 Dec 2007 at 10:11 am | #
Will it be out before christmas? Before 2008?
Every day I watch the homepage with a little hope, only to be disappointed
15 Dec 2007 at 10:54 am | #
Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t see what all the heat is about here. I want SD too. I’m waiting to do a clean install of Leopard (I’ve already done an Archive Install) until I can do a SD backup. But in the meantime I’m certainly backing up. I’m using Time Machine, and as I mentioned previously, Crash Plan is a nice option for network (local or off-site) backups.
Even when SD *does* get upgraded for Leopard, I wouldn’t rely on a single solution backup strategy. I use multiple destinations and multiple applications: clones, incrementals, local harddrives, off-site servers.
So I’m happy to wait while Dave gets this exactly right. That’s why I trust SD as a clone application of choice.
15 Dec 2007 at 01:18 pm | #
Well since changing to Leopard i have had to reinstall twice already, Thank goodness for Superduper. I had last version of tiger saved so could boot from external and then copy it back to my macbookpro hd. then upgraded to Leopard again. Of Course that involves getting all the leopard stuff again. Just cant wait till i can use Superduper to save my Leopard that works onto my external. Everytime i have had do this i hope the new version is coming soon. Getting tired of going from tiger all the time. I know i could use CCC but dont want to write over my tiger back up and lose it
last update was dec 5 is the 15th now , any progress report to help us survive lol
Dave
16 Dec 2007 at 10:23 am | #
Having used Retrospect for the past 16 years I only recently came to SuperDuper! - because after changing to Intel Macs I needed a new backup solution. I installed Leopard right away on the new machines, so that was a bit of ‘bad luck’ with regard to SD! not being Leopard ready.
Anyhow, it lead me to search for a possible substitution - which I frankly did NOT find - and to the recognition that SuperDuper! seems to be just THE best backup solution for me. It makes sense to me, that it just takes the doing and time it takes, to get the Leopard version out. I appreciate the good work that obviously showed up in the earlier versions (which I didn’t know then) and am confident that the new version will be just of the same reliability. So thanks to the author for that!
In the meantime, besides using TimeMachine of course (which is great, IMO), I do regular clones using DiskUtility and will be very glad when Leopard-SD! finally comes out!