#4
|
||||
|
||||
In general, I find it pretty easy to know what I've been doing in the past few hours, so if there are critical things I need to restore from another backup, it's relatively easy to find them. But this is a usability problem with Time Machine, most certainly - it doesn't handle "please restore everything from the last four hours" well at all.
But, as I said, I don't think this is, in general, appropriate or desirable coupling between systems. One of the main advantages of using two separate programs to back up is to have additional failure modes covered. If your Time Machine backup gets corrupted (and a small corruption can have massive impact on a Time Machine volume), your SuperDuper! volume is there for you. Similarly, if you have some critical files you absolutely must restore from your Time Machine backup, that's there too. Tying both together in any significant way compounds, rather than reduces, any potential errors that either might encounter alone.
__________________
--Dave Nanian |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
alternating backup | snoopy67 | General | 11 | 04-04-2009 05:14 PM |
Hard drive size doubled after backup.... | sanketr | General | 7 | 08-02-2008 12:16 PM |
Feature Request: Last Backup Date | bobm | General | 2 | 04-24-2008 02:31 AM |
Server drive won't mount after backup | rhennosy | General | 1 | 11-09-2007 03:49 PM |
(Zero-length) File caused SuperDuper to abort backup | alancfrancis | General | 7 | 08-31-2005 10:42 AM |