Welcome to MacForumz.com!
FAQFAQ   SearchSearch      ProfileProfile    Private MessagesPrivate Messages   Log in/Register/PasswordLog in/Register/Password

BounceBack vs Retrospect

 
Goto page 1, 2, 3
   Macintosh computer (Home) -> System RSS
Related Topics:
Retrospect 4.3 for the Mac - I have a G4 running System 9.1 I just noticed that I had a copy of 4.3 on my HD. I would like to do automatic backups to another HD. Will Express do that? Thanks, Sy

Retrospect & Tiger - Hi, Group. I found it that network backup software version 6.x needs a new version to work under Tiger, but the backup 5.0.238 seems to play nicely with Tiger. Anybody know why this is? I am curious.

Retrospect Error 518 - My long-used and totally reliable backup system just started giving me 518" errors on one, and only one Mac on my network is pre-OS-X, BTW). The message the error says something about "not enough client but the..

Retrospect 5.1 Workgroup for Mac - Has anyone had any issues with a -1028 error with 5.1 Workgroup Edition for Mac? I'm backing up four machines to a fifth one. The machines that display -1028 errors are random. If I start an immediate backup, all of the machines backup without..

Dantz Retrospect... - Is it possible to take a tape that was created using Dantz 5.0 under Mac OS 9.2 and restore it to a Mac running OS 10? The backed up data was just graphics files...
Next:  System: OS9.2 drivers for a DX4400 printer  
Author Message
Frank

External


Since: Dec 23, 2007
Posts: 5



(Msg. 1) Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 9:05 am
Post subject: BounceBack vs Retrospect
Archived from groups: comp>sys>mac>system (more info?)

Mac OS X v 10.4.11
2.1 GHz PowerPC G5
1.5 GB DDR2 SDRAM

Seagate 200GB PushButton BackUp External Hard Drive

Have both BounceBack and Retrospect

Which do you recommend using for backup software? Please explain
why

 >> Stay informed about: BounceBack vs Retrospect 
Back to top
Login to vote
nospam

External


Since: Jul 14, 2003
Posts: 1142



(Msg. 2) Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 9:22 am
Post subject: Re: BounceBack vs Retrospect [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

In article
<62d3d0d5-0859-471e-bbe5-938ad2bec413.TakeThisOut@z70g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
Frank <gno52.TakeThisOut@alltel.net> wrote:

> Have both BounceBack and Retrospect
>
> Which do you recommend using for backup software? Please explain
> why

neither. get superduper because it's simple and *extremely* robust.

<http://www.shirt-pocket.com/SuperDuper/SuperDuperDescription.html>

 >> Stay informed about: BounceBack vs Retrospect 
Back to top
Login to vote
Michelle Steiner

External


Since: Jul 15, 2003
Posts: 6223



(Msg. 3) Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 10:48 am
Post subject: Re: BounceBack vs Retrospect [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Imported from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

Back to top
Login to vote
nospam

External


Since: Jul 14, 2003
Posts: 1142



(Msg. 4) Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 10:48 am
Post subject: Re: BounceBack vs Retrospect [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

In article <michelle-F64A4C.10484923022008.TakeThisOut@news.west.cox.net>, Michelle
Steiner <michelle.TakeThisOut@michelle.org> wrote:

> > get superduper because it's simple and *extremely* robust.
>
> Why SuperDuper rather than CCC?

superduper is reliable. very reliable. ccc isn't.

i've had ccc create non-bootable backups and fail to complete the copy
for weird reasons (i don't rememer the specifics at the moment). it
was also slower than superduper.

superduper just works.
 >> Stay informed about: BounceBack vs Retrospect 
Back to top
Login to vote
me

External


Since: Oct 09, 2006
Posts: 386



(Msg. 5) Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 5:09 pm
Post subject: Re: BounceBack vs Retrospect [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

nospam <nospam.DeleteThis@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> neither. get superduper because it's simple and *extremely* robust.

SuperDuper is a fine tool, and I use it daily, but it isn't a substitute
for Retrospect or BounceBack because it doesn't do archival backups.

--
K.

Lang may your lum reek.
 >> Stay informed about: BounceBack vs Retrospect 
Back to top
Login to vote
me

External


Since: Oct 09, 2006
Posts: 386



(Msg. 6) Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 5:09 pm
Post subject: Re: BounceBack vs Retrospect [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

Michelle Steiner <michelle DeleteThis @michelle.org> wrote:
> Why SuperDuper rather than CCC?

CCC does not do "smart" updates. Updating a clone with CCC means
that all data is copied over again, which can take a long time.
SuperDuper will only copy files that have changed since the previous
cloning operation, which takes much less time. My boot drive has 100GB
on it. It takes CCC about 90 minutes to update a clone of it.
Superduper takes 10-15 minutes.

SuperDuper 2.5 also is the only backup app that I have found that copies
ACLs that have been inherited from a parent folder. No other backup app
I have ever tried can do that. Not Time Machine, not CCC, not Disk
Utilty, not Retrospect, not asr.

--
K.

Lang may your lum reek.
 >> Stay informed about: BounceBack vs Retrospect 
Back to top
Login to vote
nospam

External


Since: Jul 14, 2003
Posts: 1142



(Msg. 7) Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 5:09 pm
Post subject: Re: BounceBack vs Retrospect [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

In article <1dZvj.40497$w57.11229@edtnps90>, Kir·ly
<me RemoveThis @home.spamsucks.ca> wrote:

> > Why SuperDuper rather than CCC?
>
> CCC does not do "smart" updates. Updating a clone with CCC means
> that all data is copied over again, which can take a long time.

that used to be true. ccc 3 now does incremental updates.
 >> Stay informed about: BounceBack vs Retrospect 
Back to top
Login to vote
Michelle Steiner

External


Since: Jul 15, 2003
Posts: 6223



(Msg. 8) Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 5:09 pm
Post subject: Re: BounceBack vs Retrospect [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Imported from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

Back to top
Login to vote
me

External


Since: Oct 09, 2006
Posts: 386



(Msg. 9) Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 5:09 pm
Post subject: Re: BounceBack vs Retrospect [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

Michelle Steiner <michelle RemoveThis @michelle.org> wrote:
> Thanks. But SuperDuper makes simply a clone, and not incremental
> backups like Retrospect or Time Machine, right?

That's right. It's a cloning program only. But it does the cloning job
better than any other app out there, which is why I use it daily.

--
K.

Lang may your lum reek.
 >> Stay informed about: BounceBack vs Retrospect 
Back to top
Login to vote
me

External


Since: Oct 09, 2006
Posts: 386



(Msg. 10) Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 5:09 pm
Post subject: Re: BounceBack vs Retrospect [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

nospam <nospam.RemoveThis@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> that used to be true. ccc 3 now does incremental updates.

Really? How? I can't find the setting for that. I can't find anything
in the documentation either. Every time I ran CCC it always re-copied
the whole disk, even when "erase the target volume" is unchecked.

--
K.

Lang may your lum reek.
 >> Stay informed about: BounceBack vs Retrospect 
Back to top
Login to vote
TaliesinSoft

External


Since: Jun 25, 2004
Posts: 1855



(Msg. 11) Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 5:09 pm
Post subject: Re: BounceBack vs Retrospect [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 12:22:54 -0600, Michelle Steiner wrote (in article
<michelle-D117F9.11225423022008 RemoveThis @news.west.cox.net>):

> SuperDuper makes simply a clone, and not incremental backups like
> Retrospect or Time Machine, right?

I currently run both SuperDuper! and Time Machine as, at least to me, they
serve differing but complimentary purposes, SuperDuper! being best for a full
restore and Time Machine for an incremental restore of a particular file or
folder that may be a version from a time days or weeks or months in the past.

As an aside, I run a "smart" backup of SuperDuper! once each day to a
mirrored RAID setup and an hourly backup of Time Machine to another mirrored
RAID setup. The mirrored RAID configurations protect me from a failure of a
single disk. I have this setup duplicated in two locations, "home" and
"office" so that a total failure in one location is not a total disaster.

--
James Leo Ryan ..... Austin, Texas ..... taliesinsoft RemoveThis @mac.com
 >> Stay informed about: BounceBack vs Retrospect 
Back to top
Login to vote
Michelle Steiner

External


Since: Jul 15, 2003
Posts: 6223



(Msg. 12) Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 5:09 pm
Post subject: Re: BounceBack vs Retrospect [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Imported from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

Back to top
Login to vote
nospamatall

External


Since: May 01, 2007
Posts: 289



(Msg. 13) Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 10:10 pm
Post subject: Re: BounceBack vs Retrospect [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

Király wrote:
> nospam <nospam.RemoveThis@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> neither. get superduper because it's simple and *extremely* robust.
>
> SuperDuper is a fine tool, and I use it daily, but it isn't a substitute
> for Retrospect or BounceBack because it doesn't do archival backups.
>

Carbon Copy Cloner does, and it's free. And it has really good
documentation and web info.

http://www.bombich.com/software/ccc.html

I've seen no reason to use any other backup software.

Andy
 >> Stay informed about: BounceBack vs Retrospect 
Back to top
Login to vote
nospamatall

External


Since: May 01, 2007
Posts: 289



(Msg. 14) Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 10:10 pm
Post subject: Re: BounceBack vs Retrospect [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

Király wrote:
> Michelle Steiner <michelle.RemoveThis@michelle.org> wrote:
>> Why SuperDuper rather than CCC?
>
> CCC does not do "smart" updates. Updating a clone with CCC means
> that all data is copied over again, which can take a long time.

Never happened to me, backups take a few minutes usually, depending on
how much has changed. Also never had a failed backup with it.

> SuperDuper will only copy files that have changed since the previous
> cloning operation, which takes much less time. My boot drive has 100GB
> on it. It takes CCC about 90 minutes to update a clone of it.

You're doing something wrong then.

> Superduper takes 10-15 minutes.
>
> SuperDuper 2.5 also is the only backup app that I have found that copies
> ACLs that have been inherited from a parent folder. No other backup app
> I have ever tried can do that. Not Time Machine, not CCC, not Disk
> Utilty, not Retrospect, not asr.
>

That could be an advantage, i'll remember if I ever have to use ACLs and
need to be sure they are backed up. thanks

Andy
 >> Stay informed about: BounceBack vs Retrospect 
Back to top
Login to vote
nospamatall

External


Since: May 01, 2007
Posts: 289



(Msg. 15) Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 10:10 pm
Post subject: Re: BounceBack vs Retrospect [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

nospam wrote:
> In article <1dZvj.40497$w57.11229@edtnps90>, Kir·ly
> <me.RemoveThis@home.spamsucks.ca> wrote:
>
>>> Why SuperDuper rather than CCC?
>> CCC does not do "smart" updates. Updating a clone with CCC means
>> that all data is copied over again, which can take a long time.
>
> that used to be true. ccc 3 now does incremental updates.

It did before, but you had to install psync first.
 >> Stay informed about: BounceBack vs Retrospect 
Back to top
Login to vote
Display posts from previous:   
   Macintosh computer (Home) -> System All times are: Pacific Time (US & Canada) (change)
Goto page 1, 2, 3
Page 1 of 3

 
You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You can edit your posts in this forum
You can delete your posts in this forum
You can vote in polls in this forum



[ Contact us | Terms of Service/Privacy Policy ]