Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular
Road to Mac OS X Leopard: Time Machine
appleinsider.com — Time Machine is one of the most visually prominent new features demonstrated in Mac OS X Leopard, even if the core idea of backups is as old -- or perhaps older -- than the concept of having any data worthy of being restored. Here's a look at what's new and different about Apple's approach with Time Machine, why backups are a problem to be solved,
lnfiniteLoop- 800 diggs
- digg it
- PaulPinfield, on 10/15/2007, -5/+36I want, I want, I want...
- zabouth, on 10/27/2007, -12/+1to be a hippy?
- PaulPinfield, on 10/13/2007, -0/+1No, hippy = lots of hair and drugs... I am happy to be a wild eyed capitalist.
- zabouth, on 10/26/2007, -1/+2guess no one liked that song then
- zabouth, on 10/27/2007, -12/+1to be a hippy?
- Ireland, on 10/13/2007, -4/+33This is one feature worth shouting about. It makes backing up in Leopard both easy and free.
- rspeed, on 10/13/2007, -4/+15Not to mention reliable.
- ataylor32, on 10/26/2007, -2/+10Hey, you weren't supposed to mention that!
- devindotcom, on 10/14/2007, -11/+11It's not really free, though, is it? That's like saying Microsoft Word is FREE when you buy Office!
- MacParrot, on 10/13/2007, -1/+4If Word was a new feature in MS Office, than yes you would be correct. He means it's free as compared to buying a separate program to do backups with.
- Ireland, on 10/13/2007, -0/+4Well if you are on Tiger and you buy Superduper that's a further $28. Now you don't need to buy Superduper, because you get better alternative built into the OS. The OS is $129, so in my mind Time Machine is free. When you are on Leopard, and you decide to back up, you don't have to buy Superduper.
- devindotcom, on 10/14/2007, -4/+7Just because it's included in the price of something you're buying doesn't mean it's free ... not in any way. You're paying for an update and software package, it costs you $129. There is nothing free about it, you are paying for the functionality of a backup system.
By your argument, something is free if you buy it but not an alternative. Adobe Premiere is free because if you buy it, you don't have to buy Vegas! You just saved like $400! Buy a Canon... now you don't need to buy a Nikon! $1000 savings! You see the problem here? You're buying a backup program as part of a software suite. Please don't try to say something is free when you're paying for it.
- rspeed, on 10/13/2007, -4/+15Not to mention reliable.
- wsts87, on 10/16/2007, -9/+44maybe 10 years from now we will see windows doing something familiar to time machine.
- CrazyZ, on 10/15/2007, -37/+8You're an idiot. Microsoft had shadowcopy long before time machine. Time machine is a shadowcopy ripoff
- meatmcguffin, on 10/13/2007, -3/+22Read page three of the article. Plus, how many ordinary people, not network admins, use shadowcopy?
- jakem1, on 10/13/2007, -5/+3Everyone with Vista Business or Ultimate.
- yabos, on 10/13/2007, -2/+20Why don't you read the damn article which explains why it's not the same thing as Shadow Copy. Here's a hint, it's on page 3.
- skinfitz, on 10/13/2007, -0/+1The article is factually inaccurate regarding Shadow Copy. Why don't you do some research?
- milkmage, on 10/13/2007, -2/+14here you go moron, FTA:
Snapshots and Windows' Shadow Copy
Time Machine has been frequently compared to Microsoft's Shadow Copy (or Volume Snapshot Service), because both systems involve file backup. In reality, they are not really very similar at all. Microsoft uses the background Shadow Copy service to duplicate files on the same disk. Those shadow copies record a "snapshot" of the file at a given moment in time, and can be accessed by the user using Previous Versions (which shows up in the file properties viewer), or tapped into by an external network backup system. Backing up these "shadow copies" simply prevents the external backup system from running into problems trying to back up live files that may be locked by the user working on them.
The data backup features related to Shadow Copy are only useful if a Windows machine is running in an environment with a server backing them up. Shadow Copy is not in itself a backup system, although it can present a listing of duplicated files that were captured by the shadow copy service. Without a dedicated backup system, Previous Versions only shows local shadows of a file. It does not copy files to an external disk for safekeeping, and its shadow copies can't be browsed through by the user in the file system by date or by query. Shadow Copy is certainly not an easy to use consumer backup solution (nor is intended to be), which is what Time Machine expressly is.
In Windows Vista, Microsoft also tied Shadow Copy into System Restore, which allows users to roll back their entire PC software install to a previous point in time. This is not a backup system either; it's a system wide undo. System Restore is oriented around undoing the problems caused by installing a software title, a Windows software update, an unsigned hardware driver, or some other event that causes problems that need to be rolled back. It doesn't go back and find something lost from the past; it reverts the clock to a previous checkpoint and throws away the future from that point forward. System Restore is not even loosely related to Time Machine in what it does, how it does it, or why it exists.- jabberwolf, on 10/13/2007, -4/+2Hmm another mactard that has never used shadow copy on vista, ... what's new!?
- Terr01, on 10/13/2007, -0/+3Lame "difference". Saying "Shadow Copy doesn't do backups" is like saying that "HTTP doesn't do web browsing".
What's this? OMG! It does Backups! OMG! It takes advantage of system snapshots! OMG it's free with windows!
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/setup/lea ...
- meatmcguffin, on 10/13/2007, -3/+22Read page three of the article. Plus, how many ordinary people, not network admins, use shadowcopy?
- abrooks, on 10/13/2007, -5/+29Shadow Copy is nothing like Time Machine, they work on two very different principles.
- jabberwolf, on 10/15/2007, -10/+4Um actually ya mactard its EXACTLY like shadow copy!
It does a differential backup on a schedule!
The only difference is that you have to start up the bloated GUI on TIME MACHINE rather then simply right click on a folder or file to see it's history.
And yes, MS has had this on its server software for the last 5 years. They simply added it on to Vista. My only guess they didnt add it before was that if people wanted things deleted, they would empty their trash/recycle bin.
Now on time machine, if you truly want something purged from your computer, you have to go through time machine and find all instances to get rid of it!
Can Mactards be any more ignorant?!- MtheoryX, on 10/13/2007, -2/+4Can Wintards stop complaining about Macs on Mac articles?
- Terr01, on 10/13/2007, -2/+3Can blatant mac fanboys stop trying to claim that every little tweak Apple does on preexisting technology is revolutionary? :P
- sneeka2, on 10/13/2007, -0/+2So, how do I right-click on a file and restore it if I accidentally deleted it?
Woops, can't do if I don't have a server that picked up the shadow copy for a backup.
Shadow Copy is NOT Time Machine. Two different things are two different things. Nobody's saying that Shadow Copies are useless or anything, they're simply not Time Machine.
- MtheoryX, on 10/13/2007, -2/+4Can Wintards stop complaining about Macs on Mac articles?
- jabberwolf, on 10/15/2007, -10/+4Um actually ya mactard its EXACTLY like shadow copy!
- over90000, on 10/13/2007, -28/+6maybe 10 years from now we will see mac fanboys shut the ***** up
- MacParrot, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I think most would prefer if over90000 could figure out a way to stop trolling in Apple articles. One can dream...
- DoctorShim, on 10/13/2007, -4/+14Estimate to get Time Machine feature into other operating systems:
Windows: 8 - 10 yrs.
GNU/Linux: 3 - 5 yrs.
BSD: 30 - 65 yrs.- skinfitz, on 10/15/2007, -22/+3...actually Windows server has had it since 2003. It's called 'Shadow Copy'.
- spectre_25gt, on 10/13/2007, -1/+6The same comment above got buried down to -26 at the time of this posting. People just don't learn, do they?
- skinfitz, on 10/13/2007, -0/+2Quite. I've worked the whole zealot thing out though - think where else do you see a large number of people saying the same things with no actual evidence or critical thinking, just mindlessly repeating what is written somewhere, punishing those who dare to challenge their beliefs? (I use the word 'beliefs' as we are talking about acceptance of information as fact without hard evidence, only documentation that claims it is so).
Clearly the geneticists are correct - that behaviour is part of human nature. - Terr01, on 10/13/2007, -0/+2And again nobody actually explains how Shadow Copy + Backup Or Restore Wizard is truly different. People just don't learn, do they?
'Course, remember that on the latest iMacs people were talking about how the keyboard (white keys, chrome body) was the most "revolutionary" part.
And yes, I'm typing on that very keyboard with it's associated mac right now.
- skinfitz, on 10/13/2007, -0/+2Quite. I've worked the whole zealot thing out though - think where else do you see a large number of people saying the same things with no actual evidence or critical thinking, just mindlessly repeating what is written somewhere, punishing those who dare to challenge their beliefs? (I use the word 'beliefs' as we are talking about acceptance of information as fact without hard evidence, only documentation that claims it is so).
- spectre_25gt, on 10/13/2007, -1/+6The same comment above got buried down to -26 at the time of this posting. People just don't learn, do they?
- TeacherOfHeroes, on 10/13/2007, -0/+1For Linux, the project to watch is probably "Time Vault". If not, maybe one of the GUIs based on the excellent command line "rdiff-backup" tools will be improved to be more user-friendly
- skinfitz, on 10/15/2007, -22/+3...actually Windows server has had it since 2003. It's called 'Shadow Copy'.
- natenovs, on 10/13/2007, -19/+4except vista already has a file backup system. you select what type sof files you want backed up (documents, music, videos, etc) and then a folder to back them up to. if you want to restore a file or a folder, right click on it, and it lists all the previous versions (either shadow copies, or backups)
- devindotcom, on 10/13/2007, -9/+5Instead of just burying his comment, why not explain why he's wrong? I haven't used Vista so I don't know how the backups work. Why don't you lurkers take the high road and explain why you're burying the guy.
- Stirk, on 10/13/2007, -1/+8It's explained in the article.
- danielwsmithee, on 10/13/2007, -1/+8Because it is explained well in the article.
- natenovs, on 10/13/2007, -0/+2no. the article explains shadow copies and system restore for win 2k3 server. it did not explain the file backup service in vista.
- devindotcom, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2What's funny is that the article describes it as difficult and requiring a server backup system to be useful. The poster showed how easy it is: select a folder for the backup to go to (which could be external) and then you can restore on demand. Sounds pretty simple to me.
- Terr01, on 10/13/2007, -0/+2To quote from the article and respond:
""Previous Versions only shows local shadows of a file. It does not copy files to an external disk for safekeeping, and its shadow copies can't be browsed through by the user in the file system by date or by query. ""
Well, NO DUH! IT NEEDS A FRONTEND. It *has* a frontend, in the form of Windows Backup/Restore Wizard and many other backup solutions free-or-otherwise which use volume shadow copies!
- Terr01, on 10/13/2007, -0/+2To quote from the article and respond:
- devindotcom, on 10/13/2007, -9/+5Instead of just burying his comment, why not explain why he's wrong? I haven't used Vista so I don't know how the backups work. Why don't you lurkers take the high road and explain why you're burying the guy.
- chrisgeleven, on 10/13/2007, -3/+7Yeah, because many people are going to bother to right-click a folder to see the previous versions.
What Time Machine does completely different from Vista is the presentation. It is simple to open, simple to use, and will get people to backup.- devindotcom, on 10/13/2007, -5/+3Is it that hard to right-click?
- KnightWhoSaysNi, on 10/13/2007, -1/+2That's only the most superficial difference. RTFA!
- devindotcom, on 10/13/2007, -1/+1not really relevant to my comment!
- KnightWhoSaysNi, on 10/13/2007, -1/+2That's only the most superficial difference. RTFA!
- Terr01, on 10/13/2007, -3/+2Look, I've used shadow copies. I had to implement them as a backup solution.
And guess what I can do? I can right click on a folder, select a Volume Shadow Copy point, and BROWSE THE FOLDER AS IT WAS IN THE PAST.
Oh, but I forget, it's completely different because it doesn't have a lowercase letter "i" somewhere in there...
- devindotcom, on 10/13/2007, -5/+3Is it that hard to right-click?
- digitalarcanum, on 10/15/2007, -6/+3ntbackup, and shadowcopy. Now shut the ***** up.
- CrazyZ, on 10/15/2007, -37/+8You're an idiot. Microsoft had shadowcopy long before time machine. Time machine is a shadowcopy ripoff
- justinviger, on 10/13/2007, -3/+27Not only is it going to be more intuitive than other backup options, it also looks really cool.
- DoctorShim, on 10/13/2007, -2/+7> it also looks really cool.
Which is why I'm not buying a Mac.
Fine I lied. I am.
- DoctorShim, on 10/13/2007, -2/+7> it also looks really cool.
- shuster420, on 10/14/2007, -2/+16excellent rundown
- shahvikram123, on 10/14/2007, -5/+5The article says: "After finding a source, Time Machine sets up a full backup. It then schedules a backup every hour."
Does this mean that I'm going to have to leave my External HD plugged into my Macbook all the time?
Can I not configure Time Machine to backup only @ certain times, for example every day @ 10pm- abrooks, on 10/13/2007, -1/+18Not necessarily, if the backup source is not present Time Machine can't do anything. As soon as the source is there then it will start backups.
- yabos, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Time Machine will wait until your external drive is connected. When it is then it will start the back up and continue every few hours as long as it's connected.
They used to have a setting to not back up system files at first but now it seems to be missing from the latest builds.- newbill123, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Supposedly, this is still an option, but just moved to a different spot in the preferences.
- madcow222, on 10/15/2007, -0/+1If you add the /System folder as something to not backup in System Preferences it will ask if you also don't want to backup other system files (meaning /usr, /etc, /var, and others)
- rebotfc, on 10/13/2007, -1/+6Its great because i can come home from a day at work plug the lappy in and it will auto back up. It doesnt need the drive online all the time and automatically detects when its connected.
- superkendall, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4It seems like for a laptop the best solution might be to create a separate small partition for backups, and (if possible) have system backups go to an external drive (how many programs are you going to install on the road?) while you have local document changes go to the smaller backup partition.
Then if there was a way to synchronize that when you got back home (hinted at by noting you could have multiple drives dedicated to backup, some offline)... or possibly you could use the new remote computer access feature to at least hit your backup drive at home while you were networked.- rebotfc, on 10/13/2007, -0/+5You don't need to do any of that, its all automated and detects what drives are installed etc.
- jabberwolf, on 10/14/2007, -2/+1Best solution, leave some space on the local hard drive for the differential backup that Time machine does, use a third party program to take a complete image of your machine every week or so. A full backup is *****. the article is wrong, it only adds the any changes made to the main FULL backup done at 1 point.
Doing a full backup every hour would be a stupid idea and take up external hard drive space very quickly.- SmellyOldSocks, on 10/14/2007, -0/+2Did you read the article? It explains how ongoing backups are simultaneously incremental and full - full in the sense there is a folder on the backup device that appears to contain a full snapshot (for each of the many backup points) but due to the way aliases have been made to work, for the most part will in fact be pointing to older backup(s) - with only recently modified files being held as a fresh copy. I'm sure I've explained it very badly - the article walks you through all this very well, I thought.
- SmellyOldSocks, on 10/13/2007, -0/+2Did you read the article? It explains how ongoing backups are simultaneously incremental and full - full in the sense there is a folder on the backup device that appears to contain a full snapshot (for each of the many backup points) but due to the way aliases have been made to work, for the most part will in fact be pointing to older backup(s) - with only recently modified files being held as a fresh copy. I'm sure I've explained it very badly - the article walks you through all this very well, I thought.
- SmellyOldSocks, on 10/14/2007, -1/+0Sorry for the double post, meant to reply to jabberwolf.
- infobhan, on 10/13/2007, -0/+1Oh, I thought you were just making a backup of your post...
- SmellyOldSocks, on 10/14/2007, -1/+0Sorry for the double post, meant to reply to jabberwolf.
- shahvikram123, on 10/14/2007, -4/+15If you had read the article it made a clear comparison between time machine and shadow copy. There 2 completely different things
- rebotfc, on 10/14/2007, -2/+7I must say Time Machine is awesome, since I've been using the beta it has saved my arse on several occasions where i've overritten files and once where i've had to revert the system entirely.
Great considering it is part of the OS. - RajAtWork, on 10/13/2007, -2/+6It is not clear in the article: which protocols are supported for a backup to a network drive? SMB, NFS, ...?
- superkendall, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Given that it makes use of HFS+ specific features, it seems like it would have to be a form of Apple file sharing... though on UNIX shares, doesn't NFS support hard links?
- FenrisUlf, on 10/13/2007, -0/+3I'm guessing it has to be afp://
- superkendall, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Given that it makes use of HFS+ specific features, it seems like it would have to be a form of Apple file sharing... though on UNIX shares, doesn't NFS support hard links?
- kdjsmith, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5What I want to know is, will it work with secondary drives in a Mac Pro? They always reference external USB drives (Firewire? eSATA? I should hope so) but could I purchase a 750GB SATA drive for my Mac Pro and run Time Machine to it? Can't see why not, but since it's never been mentioned...
- drogers, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Yes, you can use local volume, or even a second partition on a local disk as the backup target. The partition option might make sense if you already have a good RAID setup that you're happy with....
- evilpettingzoo, on 10/13/2007, -0/+1I think a good option would be to get an airport extreme base station, have it attached to a usb drive have backups go there.
- superkendall, on 10/13/2007, -5/+16What I really like about these series of articles is that they are complete enough to head off the common Apple hater troll at the pass - the article talks about Shadow Copy, the previous article talked about X-Windows forms of virtual desktops, etc. Really cuts down on people bringing up the same inane points as much as they normally do.
- MacParrot, on 10/13/2007, -1/+4Unfortunately it hasn't stopped the trolls from bringing it up about 10 times so far in the comments. What Apple needs to work on next is iKryptonite. Stops trolls in their tracks
- natenovs, on 10/13/2007, -0/+1except these "trolls" are just reputing the blatant misinformation that is rampant throughout the article. windows has three different backup solutions incorporated into their system: shadow copies, previous version and system restore. a back up service utilizes these three services to build an off line copy of whatever files you want at an automatic interval. then, to restore a file, or folder, you right click on it in explorer and there is a list of previous version which consists of shadow copies and backup versions. select the one you want and it restores the file.
if the writer of this article would take the time to learn about the competitors product before denouncing it, maybe people would have to bring up the inaccuracies "10 times so far"
- natenovs, on 10/13/2007, -0/+1except these "trolls" are just reputing the blatant misinformation that is rampant throughout the article. windows has three different backup solutions incorporated into their system: shadow copies, previous version and system restore. a back up service utilizes these three services to build an off line copy of whatever files you want at an automatic interval. then, to restore a file, or folder, you right click on it in explorer and there is a list of previous version which consists of shadow copies and backup versions. select the one you want and it restores the file.
- deadbaby, on 10/13/2007, -0/+1It's great because you get to see who didn't read the article.
- MacParrot, on 10/13/2007, -1/+4Unfortunately it hasn't stopped the trolls from bringing it up about 10 times so far in the comments. What Apple needs to work on next is iKryptonite. Stops trolls in their tracks
- devindotcom, on 10/14/2007, -14/+6I'd just like to register my opinion that I think Time Machine is useless. I am not interested in an automatic backup system constantly re-configuring itself in the background. I am also not interested in my files being "deleted." I want my files to be DELETED. I can easily archive my own important files, or use a RAID setup to combat HD failure. Add it to the list of things I don't need in Leopard.
I just thought I should say something because the comments are just a love-in at the moment.- mikepictor, on 10/14/2007, -0/+8"I am also not interested in my files being "deleted." I want my files to be DELETED."
Um...what? You want them deleted, or not? And if you did want them deleted, just don't go looking for them in the backup. The first time you *didn't* want them deleted, you will be glad you could go find it again.- devindotcom, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1What I mean is that if I delete a file, I want it removed entirely. If I want to save something, I'll save it. And if I get something back from the trash, Norton's Unerase worked well for me for years, until I simply learned not to delete things I may need.
- coldfusion1970, on 10/14/2007, -0/+1Norton Utilities is not compatible Mac OS 10.4 or newer.
- devindotcom, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1What I mean is that if I delete a file, I want it removed entirely. If I want to save something, I'll save it. And if I get something back from the trash, Norton's Unerase worked well for me for years, until I simply learned not to delete things I may need.
- edcrosay, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10You may not need it, but it will drastically help average joe shmoe who thinks RAID always follows the word panty.
- devindotcom, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1Fortunately, I am not Joe Shmoe - and I don't want to pay for something I will not use, which is intended for Joe Shmoe.
- edcrosay, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Well I'm not a programmer, but I dont whine when they include development tools. I don't use automater, apple scripts and dozens upon dozens of features in OSX. However, there are a ton of features that I do use and enjoy. You don't need to use Time Machine. You don't need to buy Leopard. If you do want Leopard, buy it for the features you do want, and don't bitch about the "extraneous" ones.
- devindotcom, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1The thing is that almost all the features in Leopard are extraneous to me, and it baffles me that people are going to shell out so much money for stuff that is unnecessary, already available, or a minor update. If you want to buy it, go for it, but I'm just putting my opinion out there that to some people these features are useless, and the hype is going way too far.
- edcrosay, on 10/13/2007, -1/+8You're right. They should just release OS 10.5 "Devindotcom" edition with only the features that you specifically want.
- devindotcom, on 10/13/2007, -1/+1I'd settle for smug mac fans not mocking me when I voice my opinion - but that's about as likely as a "Devindotcom" edition.
- edcrosay, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Well I'm not a programmer, but I dont whine when they include development tools. I don't use automater, apple scripts and dozens upon dozens of features in OSX. However, there are a ton of features that I do use and enjoy. You don't need to use Time Machine. You don't need to buy Leopard. If you do want Leopard, buy it for the features you do want, and don't bitch about the "extraneous" ones.
- devindotcom, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1Fortunately, I am not Joe Shmoe - and I don't want to pay for something I will not use, which is intended for Joe Shmoe.
- chrisgeleven, on 10/13/2007, -0/+11Well then, don't use it. Duh.
For many people who don't have proper backups, this will be a huge improvement. - drogers, on 10/13/2007, -0/+7RAID on a laptop? Not likely - and in case you haven't noticed Apple sells a ton of laptops these days. And manual archiving? Why on earth would you bother doing that when you can have your OS do it for you? Seriously, when was the last time you backed up iCal? Address book? Your email? Time machine did mine 34 minutes ago. Last week I fired up iCal and it was empty - the database had become corrupt and I lost everything. Even my latest manual backup wouldn't open (so much for manual archiving). Then I remembered TM, fired it up, found the backup from a few hours before, and BAM - all good.
So let's see - your way requires a) multiple steps, which differ for each app or data type you want to back up. b) manual intervention. c) a drive to back up to. Time Machine requires c) a drive to back up to. Sounds like a winner to me!
As for potential drawbacks, time machine has no noticeable hit on system performance (been running it for a while with an old slow USB drive, and I *always* forget it's there) and all it requires is plugging in an external drive once in a while. On top of that, you can still back it up with an occasional CCC or manual file copy if you want to be sure. So, where are the drawbacks?
As for deleted files - when you delete them they are gone from your main drive, and they'll be removed from your backup drive when it runs out of space to store old files. What's the harm? Or are you looking for a way to make sure the black-helo folks don't find your data?
One more thing - if/when your drive does die and you replace it, a fresh leopard install will find your TM backup and restore your machine to a pristine pre-failure state with just a few clicks. Make no mistake - OS integration is a HUGE boon for backup.
Listen, I'm not a huge fanboi that jumps on every feature as Job's gift to mankind, but when I see someone bashing the most well thought out and executed data backup system I have EVER used (and that includes years of enterprise level backup systems), it makes me wonder about motivation...- devindotcom, on 10/13/2007, -3/+1Doesn't installing onto a RAID 1 configuration render all your points ridiculous?
- devindotcom, on 10/13/2007, -2/+1No, I'm retarded, sorry. If something like a corrupt file like yours occurs that's totally not a solution. Vista's backup would certainly work, though. Not that I use Vista, but it would work.
- devindotcom, on 10/13/2007, -3/+1Doesn't installing onto a RAID 1 configuration render all your points ridiculous?
- mikepictor, on 10/14/2007, -0/+8"I am also not interested in my files being "deleted." I want my files to be DELETED."
- natenovs, on 10/27/2007, -9/+4theres also vista's auto backup feature. it is set to run once a week and you can restore a file by right clicking on it and seeing all of the previous version.
- victorycig, on 10/13/2007, -3/+4Hey, don't crash our Leopard party, man :)
- DelMonte, on 10/14/2007, -0/+5"theres also vista's auto backup feature. it is set to run once a week and you can restore a file by right clicking on it and seeing all of the previous version."
What if you deleted the file? You right click on the empty spot where the file once was? I doubt it.
I guess you're forced to restore a previous version of the whole folder to find the deleted file that was once inside... And then, you only have access to a list of versions for the folder, which may have changed after that file was deleted. How do you know which folder to restore?
In Time Machine, open the folder that was containing the file, click on the Time Machine icon, and simply go back to the point where this file existed. Then you can use Quicklook to see the content of the file, before you choose to restore it.
What if you deleted the file and don't remember where it was exactly?
Do a search for the deleted file using Spotlight, it returns 0 result? No problem, enter Time Machine, click the upward arrow and instantly go back to the point where this search returned something.
What if you don't even remember the name of the file?
With Time Machine, just set up a search for the file you're looking (let's say a PDF file that contains the word "blob" and is >1MB) and with one click you can go back to the last time this search returned something, then restore your file from there. Again, you can use Quicklook to see if it's the right file, before restoring.
Just a few examples of things that are hard or impossible to do with Vista's backup solution, and that's only scratching the surface.- natenovs, on 10/20/2007, -0/+1you click on the folder, and load the previous version of that folder.
- devindotcom, on 10/14/2007, -9/+1If I'm not mistaken, the big "innovation" is simply a new alias managing system. The "multi-link" idea is misleading, since each "hard" link is now essentially a "soft" link, except when it's the last one, in which case it is "hard" again. Of course, you'll never know how many soft links there are because it's backed up every hour - and doubtless there will have to be a special utility to actually remove files completely and fully from the hard drive. Maybe I'm misunderstanding things, but I don't see how one of these multi-link hard links is any different from an alias that is automatically updated as to the status of the target file.
- sneeka2, on 10/13/2007, -0/+2You're misunderstanding things. A hard link is not a soft link. As it is, you can delete the first backup instance of a file, all hard linked instances of successive backups will still be exactly the same, since they all point to the same data on the drive. An Alias OTOH only points to a node in the file system.
A agree about the utility to "really" delete a file, but then again, if you don't want Mom to find your porn collection, add it to the backup-exclusion list. Time Machine can't guess for you whether you just accidentally deleted a file or whether you meant it.
- sneeka2, on 10/13/2007, -0/+2You're misunderstanding things. A hard link is not a soft link. As it is, you can delete the first backup instance of a file, all hard linked instances of successive backups will still be exactly the same, since they all point to the same data on the drive. An Alias OTOH only points to a node in the file system.
- kcb2, on 10/13/2007, -0/+3What I can't understand is why Apple isn't marketing an online repository to go along with Time Machine. My MacBook is hooked to the network any time it is on unless I am traveling (and even sometimes then too). I don't want to lug a USB drive everywhere or get to a destination and realize I deleted a file and want it back from my USB drive sitting at home.
Good idea...falls short of perfect. I use Carbonite for my PC and it works great with similar functionality (less flashy though). Carbonite is promising a Mac version shortly - I may just choose it over Time Machine....- danielwsmithee, on 10/13/2007, -0/+6Just make a network share that you can't get to from anywhere, and Time Machine should work fine with it
- nanboya, on 10/14/2007, -0/+3The one nice thing is that this will be built into the system and not an add on.
- coldfusion1970, on 10/14/2007, -0/+1They already have a online network you can use this with, have you never heard of dotMac?
- kaytrio, on 10/14/2007, -0/+21Wow... if you actually sit down and read this, you can really learn something about how file systems work.
- unionaire, on 10/14/2007, -9/+4At first when I saw Steve Jobs introduction to time machine I asked myself "how is this different from other backup programs?"
and now that this article explains it quite clearly, there's really not much to it. It's more like a system integrated solution with carefully crafted wizards to do the trick without user's intervention. Incremental backup and differential backup is new tech? come on dude, these functions are available years before Leopard. Even before the 10.4 OSX maybe. Integration with system event is not really a big deal --- especially for the manufacturer of the OS! They have more advantages on this one than any other developers.
Now when the article said something about a combination of old ways and new technology, I was interested to see what the "new technology" part is. But it happens as a disappointment because really there's no "New technology" involved at all. Apple produces this one machine that has every screw chosen by them. I really don't see the reason why they did not make this back-up solution long before the leopard.
I have to say that it sounds really nice for the users as they don't really have to know all kinds of crap like that. Computers are suppose to help and not bring problems to average users. The name "Time Machine" sounds really good too as it is more intuitive to users, but other than that...it is really NOTHING NEW. Even the idea is not new. It's just another Apple's successful ad-campaign and this article is not really worth digging as it is really inappropriate to say it has any new technology in it.- deadbaby, on 10/13/2007, -1/+1OSX 10.4 (and probably before) include rsync which is one of the most powerful backup applications ever created. But yeah, Time Machine is nothing knew it's just a good solution. No one backs up because it's a pain in the ass to setup. Now it takes like 3 clicks.
- coldfusion1970, on 10/14/2007, -0/+1Apple dont say they've invented "backing-up".
They just say that they've made it really easy for everyone.
I'm definitely looking forward to it.
- DaffyDuck, on 10/13/2007, -0/+8My lack of extra hard drive, however, is still not solved.
- jayfehr, on 10/13/2007, -0/+2Buy one, they're cheap
- tedc, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Can Time Machine in its present incarnation back up to ZFS, or is it just HFS+ at the moment? I couldn't find any mention of ZFS in the article, but wouldn't it be a natural for the destination drive with its support for block-level incremental backups?
- astrosmash, on 10/14/2007, -0/+4Considering that OS X presently only supports read-only access to ZFS, I'd say no.
- HideoKojima, on 10/19/2007, -15/+5Another Vista rip off.
- devindotcom, on 10/14/2007, -4/+4Even I have to bury you for that, and I've been trashing time machine and getting buried through this entire comment section.
- FredFredrickson, on 10/24/2007, -11/+3Windows has had System Restore for years... besides, I'd rather not use all my hard drive space on backing up full copies of my system. I'm not that big of an oaf with my files.
- Twee, on 10/13/2007, -0/+3It backs up to an external drive. It doesn't use any of your local drive's space. Also, this is completely different from system restore, RTFA! System restore is an undo for system settings in case you install a bad driver, it takes a snapshot of your system, but not your personal files.
- edcrosay, on 10/14/2007, -0/+3This is way more robust than System Restore. Plus, you pretty much have to purchase a dedicated USB or Firewire drive for this. It wont take up any more space on your current hard drive..... you just have to buy a new one :(
- deadbaby, on 10/13/2007, -0/+4System Restore exists because of DLL hell and the fragile Windows registry. It does nothing to prevent data loss. It's a band aid on the bloddy infected knife wound we call Windows.
- astrosmash, on 10/13/2007, -0/+1> "I'd rather not use all my hard drive space on backing up full copies of
> my system. I'm not that big of an oaf with my files."
Famous last words. This guy has obviously never had a hard drive die on him.
- jabberwolf, on 10/19/2007, -10/+4Actually Servers had the shadow copy for the last 5 years.
Now Apple comes along and puts a bloated Gui for something very simple, and calls it "innovative and new" ?!?
Sell it to the mactards, they don't know better.- rebotfc, on 10/14/2007, -2/+5Did you even read the article moron?
- deadbaby, on 10/13/2007, -0/+4It's typical of the whole MS/Apple debate isn't it? Shadow Copy is only really useful if you have an Active Directory setup with My Documents folder re-direction. Even with Vista the backups that Shadow Copy makes are stored on the same physical disk which gives you no redundancy at all. What Apple did, as usual, was to look at a common problem (lack of users backing up files) and give them an easy solution (it takes aprox. 3 clicks to enable time machine) Microsoft just doesn't understand (or care) how to make features work well.
- pengas, on 10/13/2007, -3/+4Who's a flaming fanboy?
- nanboya, on 10/27/2007, -0/+3The article says shared network drives a la Airport Extreme; can anyone confirm if a standard Appleshare volume (say from a desktop) would be usable? I'd be more than happy to partition off one of the 250GB drives in my G5 for "permanent" Time Machine use if I can access it from my laptop while in my home network.
- iChaz, on 10/20/2007, -0/+3is there a porn filter?
XD- jackyyll, on 10/14/2007, -0/+2Store your porn in a password protected sparseimage file, silly :p
- dalesmatrix, on 10/23/2007, -4/+2Does anyone remember GoBack for Windows 98? It seems very much like Time machine, you could rollback any file or the whole system.
- DelMonte, on 10/19/2007, -0/+6Anyone posting that Time Machine is like feature X of operating Y from N years ago either:
A) Didn't read the article at all.
B) Only read the first page. (There's more than one page in this article, in case you didn't notice.)
C) Only glanced through the article, looking for pictures proving their theory that Time Machine is all about looks.
D) Is too dumb to understand what's being written about it.
E) Is an Apple hater that voluntarily disregards what makes Time Machine innovative and different, reducing it as "simply a back-up program with a pretty GUI".
Time Machine is much more than a back-up program. It's a framework that provides APIs to enable almost unlimited undo in apps using their native interface. You can use Time Machine in the Finder, with Spotlight search and smart folders, but you can also use it with Mail, the Address book, iPhoto, without being limited to a crippled interface. The app-native interface window is brought into TM, with all its features, like search and sorting. And that's just the start. The APIs are available to all developers so they can easily add TM functionality to their apps. - klaupacius, on 10/14/2007, -1/+1Props AppleInsider, good article.
- wiihuck, on 10/14/2007, -1/+1that would be a first.
- infobhan, on 10/15/2007, -0/+2What's not clear to me from this article is how you'd go about restoring after a total hard drive crash. Does Time Machine have some functionality for doing the more traditional restores? I can see the utility for retrieving files you deleted by accident or need an older revision of, but what I fear is the loss of an entire drive. Any beta users care to comment?
- rebotfc, on 10/23/2007, -0/+2When you insert the install CD, you have an option to restore from a Time Machine repository. I had to do this when I had to re install tiger temporarily, it works really well, just choose the TimeMachine disk and it does the restore for you.
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by