I'm under the impression that a full restore can be done with Time Machine.
Developers can flag certain files so that they aren't backed up and I'm assuming this is after the initial full backup as you'd never need to back up the application itself after the first full BU.
I'm not opposed to two HDD in a computer but standard BU procedure is to store a Full BU offsite. Hell I think by 10.6 Time Machine 2 will work over WAN links so you'll be able to purchases online storage that is TM2 compatible.
I like the idea of backing up multiple computers to Airport connected USB Storage.
From what I've read, you would do a full back up once with all the invisible files and tweaks, and then only the User side from then on. If you added new apps later, you would have to do a Full back up again.
The thing that disturbs me is if you timed the back up every day for example, that would fill up even a large HDD very quickly. How many backups could it hold? For that reason, I'm assuming that Time Machine only backs up incrementally and probably zipped, but would somehow show you the Full backup at any time you looked at it.
If this is the way it works, isn't it conceivable that Time Machine could base the full restore on the original full backup, and then use the incremental updates to finish it out to whatever date you want it?
If this is the way it works, isn't it conceivable that Time Machine could base the full restore on the original full backup, and then use the incremental updates to finish it out to whatever date you want it?
One could do that, yes. It's not the easiest or best way, but it's (probably) doable.
Time Machine is more efficient than that. Each backup consists of all the changed stuff, and symlinks to the backed-up latest revisions of everything else (which exist in previous back-ups). Therefore, in each back-up, you will have either the latest version of the file, or a link to the latest version from an earlier back-up. To create a "full restore" from an incremental, you just follow all those links.
Here's a (very small) demo. Let's say I have files A and B, and I'm doing daily incremental backups.
Day 1: Time Machine backs up both A and B.
I make no changes to files.
Day 2: Time Machine saves two symlinks, one to A's back-up (A.1), and one to B's back-up (B.1)
I change file B.
Day 3: Time Machine saves a symlink to A.1, and saves a new copy of B (B.3)
I make a file C.
Day 4: Time Machine saves a symlink to A.1 and B.3, and makes a backup of C (C.4)
I erase file A.
Day 5: Time Machine saves symlinks to B.3 and C.4
Because symlinks are pretty small (like a kB or something) and you can use compression, you might only add a few dozen megabytes with each backup. The downside is that if a file is big (like a photo or song), and I change it 3 times over a week, I have 3 copies of it saved.
One could do that, yes. It's not the easiest or best way, but it's (probably) doable.
Time Machine is more efficient than that. Each backup consists of all the changed stuff, and symlinks to the backed-up latest revisions of everything else (which exist in previous back-ups). Therefore, in each back-up, you will have either the latest version of the file, or a link to the latest version from an earlier back-up. To create a "full restore" from an incremental, you just follow all those links.
Here's a (very small) demo. Let's say I have files A and B, and I'm doing daily incremental backups.
Day 1: Time Machine backs up both A and B.
I make no changes to files.
Day 2: Time Machine saves two symlinks, one to A's back-up (A.1), and one to B's back-up (B.1)
I change file B.
Day 3: Time Machine saves a symlink to A.1, and saves a new copy of B (B.3)
I make a file C.
Day 4: Time Machine saves a symlink to A.1 and B.3, and makes a backup of C (C.4)
I erase file A.
Day 5: Time Machine saves symlinks to B.3 and C.4
Because symlinks are pretty small (like a kB or something) and you can use compression, you might only add a few dozen megabytes with each backup. The downside is that if a file is big (like a photo or song), and I change it 3 times over a week, I have 3 copies of it saved.
Like some other features, Stacks for instance, Leopard takes a simple applet or feature and makes it complicated. I can't recall ever wanting to use something from the distant past. Fairly recent back up, yes.
Way back, no. Has anyone reading this ever had the necessity of wanting something way back? Probably a few of you but not the majority.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I see a lot of Leopard as just eye candy and not a lot of evolution. Then there's the 90 - 10 principle: 90% of users use 10% of an application. Yes, I know the reply that not everyone uses the same 10%. Still, I'd be far happier if software made my life simpler and got rid of bugs rather than adding a bunch of stuff I wouldn't use.
I don't know if it's possible, but I'd like to be able to pick and choose the 10% of an app that I do use and archive the rest of the application.
I've used PC's for about 25 years (still do) , but I began using a Mac about 5 years ago. I hardly touch the two PC's I have at home, but have to at work. The reason I dislike PC"s is that the OS's get more and more complicated and buggy because they have to be all things to all PC's. Not Mac - one machine - one OS. Clean, neat, not a lot of legacy problems. If the new Mac OS's get more and more bloated, they will get to the point where they're like Windows. Apple, quit adding junk and stick to clean, simple OS's!!!
Like some other features, Stacks for instance, Leopard takes a simple applet or feature and makes it complicated. I can't recall ever wanting to use something from the distant past. Fairly recent back up, yes.
Way back, no. Has anyone reading this ever had the necessity of wanting something way back? Probably a few of you but not the majority.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I see a lot of Leopard as just eye candy and not a lot of evolution. Then there's the 90 - 10 principle: 90% of users use 10% of an application. Yes, I know the reply that not everyone uses the same 10%. Still, I'd be far happier if software made my life simpler and got rid of bugs rather than adding a bunch of stuff I wouldn't use.
I don't know if it's possible, but I'd like to be able to pick and choose the 10% of an app that I do use and archive the rest of the application.
Everything that I've heard suggests that with minimal effort you can tell TM what to back up and what not to. I also think that Apple is pretty good at making small, seemingly minor changes that have a lot larger of an impact, especially collectively. Most of the 200-250 features we haven't seen are probably minor evolutions that make applications slightly better.
I think that TM is actually pretty good. When you have the "shit, my hard drive died" backup option, and the "crap, I need that file from yesterday" option, it's not hard to have them meet in the middle.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sequitur
I've used PC's for about 25 years (still do) , but I began using a Mac about 5 years ago. I hardly touch the two PC's I have at home, but have to at work. The reason I dislike PC"s is that the OS's get more and more complicated and buggy because they have to be all things to all PC's. Not Mac - one machine - one OS. Clean, neat, not a lot of legacy problems. If the new Mac OS's get more and more bloated, they will get to the point where they're like Windows. Apple, quit adding junk and stick to clean, simple OS's!!!
Mac OS X isn't really getting all that much more bloated. Apple may be adding features, but they're removable and/or disable-able features, and most of them are good. The problem with Windows is the obsession with making sure that everything from 1993 still works. Apple isn't afraid to make the developers work to clean up old crap. That's why the move to OS X worked well, and since then, Apple has been deprecating crap libraries and replacing them with better ones.
Like some other features, Stacks for instance, Leopard takes a simple applet or feature and makes it complicated. I can't recall ever wanting to use something from the distant past. Fairly recent back up, yes.
Way back, no. Has anyone reading this ever had the necessity of wanting something way back? Probably a few of you but not the majority.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I see a lot of Leopard as just eye candy and not a lot of evolution. Then there's the 90 - 10 principle: 90% of users use 10% of an application. Yes, I know the reply that not everyone uses the same 10%. Still, I'd be far happier if software made my life simpler and got rid of bugs rather than adding a bunch of stuff I wouldn't use.
I don't know if it's possible, but I'd like to be able to pick and choose the 10% of an app that I do use and archive the rest of the application.
I've used PC's for about 25 years (still do) , but I began using a Mac about 5 years ago. I hardly touch the two PC's I have at home, but have to at work. The reason I dislike PC"s is that the OS's get more and more complicated and buggy because they have to be all things to all PC's. Not Mac - one machine - one OS. Clean, neat, not a lot of legacy problems. If the new Mac OS's get more and more bloated, they will get to the point where they're like Windows. Apple, quit adding junk and stick to clean, simple OS's!!!
I disagree and here's why. Style and Substance are not mutually exclusive. Zach P did an excellent job of explaining what Time Machine does to handle your BU but for you it's as simple as doing a Spotlight search and then clicking the TM button in the Dock. You don't have to worry about the details. That's style and substance in synergy man!
Leopard is far more "nuts and bolts" stuff that appeals to those creating the apps. However Apple has to add the "style" to appeal to consumers who like flashy things.
Don't worry Apple generally handles bloat well. If something is bloated it's fixed. The evolution you as a consumer want to watch are things that are important.
iCal- In Tiger is a b*tch to handle calendar data because 3rd parties only have read access to your iCal calendar. That's gone in Leopard. All developers now can develop apps that read/write to Calendar Store your unified calendar data. I cried when I heard this...seriously.
Spotlight- I'd use it more if it didn't piss me off. Now it's faster and supports searching across networked/shared computers. Boolean searches are supported
Lets face it with Terabyte drives available in a decade you're likely going to have too many files to adequatly search via a directory structure. I'm moving to flat files and attaching as much metadata as I can.
The reason why this stuff isn't bloatware is because Apple is typically creating API for 3rd parties to go whole hog. Calendar data, To Dos, Quick look, etc are all open API that developers can key into.
Now the geeky stuff is good as well.
Uniform Type Identifers -UTI are more ubiquitious. As a developer you always want to right less code. UTI allows you to encapsulate multiple mime types with a single line (.public I believe) imagine a bunch of your code going from 6 lines to 2 here.
Fast Enumeration- Another way to reduce code and make the code more readible and easier for dealing with properties
yadda yadda yadda....i'm not programming yet so I'm trying to wrap my brain around stuff but Leopard is damn cool. I'm no shill for Apple (usually) but Leopard is a nice achievement that you're going to want sooner than later. There is substance there but it's the kind of substance that makes developers smile but often elicits a "so what" from the rank and file consumer.
First off, thanks hmurchison and ZachPruckowski for stating your opinions and reasons AND for NOT attacking me for mine. Every time I post something in this forum, I cringe waiting for an ambush because I said something someone didn't like.
Secondly, I HEAR you. You made good arguments and have swayed my thinking - not completely - but to a large degree. Hopefully, you are right and Apple OS's don't start looking and acting like Windows. I moved to the Mac because of the beautiful, elegant nature of Apple products. I get nervous when I think that philosophy is going astray. I skipped Tiger because of that fear. I realize I have to keep up or be left behind, and therefore, I will buy and use Leopard. Again, I hope you're right, not just about Leopard but in future OS's.
Like some other features, Stacks for instance, Leopard takes a simple applet or feature and makes it complicated. I can't recall ever wanting to use something from the distant past. Fairly recent back up, yes.
Way back, no. Has anyone reading this ever had the necessity of wanting something way back? Probably a few of you but not the majority.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I see a lot of Leopard as just eye candy and not a lot of evolution. Then there's the 90 - 10 principle: 90% of users use 10% of an application. Yes, I know the reply that not everyone uses the same 10%. Still, I'd be far happier if software made my life simpler and got rid of bugs rather than adding a bunch of stuff I wouldn't use.
I don't know if it's possible, but I'd like to be able to pick and choose the 10% of an app that I do use and archive the rest of the application.
I've used PC's for about 25 years (still do) , but I began using a Mac about 5 years ago. I hardly touch the two PC's I have at home, but have to at work. The reason I dislike PC"s is that the OS's get more and more complicated and buggy because they have to be all things to all PC's. Not Mac - one machine - one OS. Clean, neat, not a lot of legacy problems. If the new Mac OS's get more and more bloated, they will get to the point where they're like Windows. Apple, quit adding junk and stick to clean, simple OS's!!!
What if your only HDD failed - you've lost everything, unless you are one of the (what was it, 4%) of those people who perform regular backups.
I think Time Machine, or any half decent, easy to use backup and restore utility on an O/S is well overdue.
What if your only HDD failed - you've lost everything, unless you are one of the (what was it, 4%) of those people who perform regular backups.
I think Time Machine, or any half decent, easy to use backup and restore utility on an O/S is well overdue.
If your only HDD failed, you wouldn't have been using TimeMachine anyway. You need a secondary or external HDD in order to use TM. Apple recommends an external HDD to use with TM. If you already have an external HDD, any decent backup program will save your hide IF you do regular or automatic (like TM) backups. Most BU programs have automatic features.
I'm just saying that most users don't go back to some distant past BU for a single file. Using a good BU program will give MOST users what they need in case the Prime HDD fails.
IF you have an external HDD with FireWire, NOT USB, the BU programs can be used to boot your computer. Why not USB, I don't know, but BU programs have that caveat. Some help here, guys. Do any of you know why? Also, I don't know if TM can be used to reboot or not. Does anyone know? I'd appreciate that info.
If not, that would be another strike against using it.
After trying several BU programs including Retrospect, I find the easiest one to use is SuperDuper.
You can download it for free, but the freeby only does full backups or full user backup - not incremental, partial or automatic BU's. For about $30, you can get the whole package. MacWorld Magazine states that SuperDuper is one of the easiest to use.
You said that the BU program should be incorporated with the OS. It's been my experience that BU programs that come with an operating system (like Windows XP) or with HDD drives are not easy to use or flaky or ...... Usually they're truncated anyway.
[QUOTE=sequitur;1098807]IF you have an external HDD with FireWire, NOT USB, the BU programs can be used to boot your computer. Why not USB, I don't know, but BU programs have that caveat. Some help here, guys. Do any of you know why? Also, I don't know if TM can be used to reboot or not. Does anyone know? I'd appreciate that info./QUOTE]
I believe it may have to do with the data rate... I think they're worried that it'll be too slow with USB. That's also why I'm going to be getting a case that has FireWire 800.
1TB Ethernet Big Disk Gigabit Ethernet & Hi-Speed USB 2.0
Manufacturer Part# 301156U
Ethernet Big Disk. D2 Design by Neil Poulton - The LaCie Ethernet Big Disk is the essential storage solution for home and small business networking. This is the simplest way to share files between Windows, Mac and Linux computers. ...More
That's a dual-drive RAID solution (actually, it may just be joined, and not RAID, but it is just 2 x 500 GB disks). They actually sell TB drives, but they cost like $500 each. I think Hitachi has one out, and Seagate is supposedly prepping one. However, that case does have an Ethernet port, so you can use it as a NAS.
I'm pretty sure the issue with USB has something to do with the way that the EFI loads drivers and the order that it does it.
My point was that having a backup program included with the O/S is better than not having one at all. Granted it'll be lacking in features compared to a piece of specialist commercial software, but if you're going to use advanced features then you're going to want to have the pick of what's out there.
Statistics show that you are in the minority here so there is plenty of room for Apple to provide something to get the majority in the habbit of performing backups.
One could do that, yes. It's not the easiest or best way, but it's (probably) doable.
Time Machine is more efficient than that. Each backup consists of all the changed stuff, and symlinks to the backed-up latest revisions of everything else (which exist in previous back-ups). Therefore, in each back-up, you will have either the latest version of the file, or a link to the latest version from an earlier back-up. To create a "full restore" from an incremental, you just follow all those links.
Here's a (very small) demo. Let's say I have files A and B, and I'm doing daily incremental backups.
Day 1: Time Machine backs up both A and B.
I make no changes to files.
Day 2: Time Machine saves two symlinks, one to A's back-up (A.1), and one to B's back-up (B.1)
I change file B.
Day 3: Time Machine saves a symlink to A.1, and saves a new copy of B (B.3)
I make a file C.
Day 4: Time Machine saves a symlink to A.1 and B.3, and makes a backup of C (C.4)
I erase file A.
Day 5: Time Machine saves symlinks to B.3 and C.4
Because symlinks are pretty small (like a kB or something) and you can use compression, you might only add a few dozen megabytes with each backup. The downside is that if a file is big (like a photo or song), and I change it 3 times over a week, I have 3 copies of it saved.
Why make daily back up markings, if nothing is changed? Keep memory of made changes on your normal drive until backed up, and when syncing, place them to right point of time, so you can go back in time with unlimited resolution! Also why make a back up of whole file, if only a part has changed from it? Data is stored in fragments to your hard drive anyway, just back up changed blocks.
That's a dual-drive RAID solution (actually, it may just be joined, and not RAID, but it is just 2 x 500 GB disks). They actually sell TB drives, but they cost like $500 each. I think Hitachi has one out, and Seagate is supposedly prepping one. However, that case does have an Ethernet port, so you can use it as a NAS.
I'm pretty sure the issue with USB has something to do with the way that the EFI loads drivers and the order that it does it.
Unfortunately, I have to show my ignorance again. Why couldn't you use that as an external HDD for a desktop? Couldn't the two 500 GB disks be concatenated and be used sequentually? What would the problems be?
Comments
Developers can flag certain files so that they aren't backed up and I'm assuming this is after the initial full backup as you'd never need to back up the application itself after the first full BU.
I'm not opposed to two HDD in a computer but standard BU procedure is to store a Full BU offsite. Hell I think by 10.6 Time Machine 2 will work over WAN links so you'll be able to purchases online storage that is TM2 compatible.
I like the idea of backing up multiple computers to Airport connected USB Storage.
From what I've read, you would do a full back up once with all the invisible files and tweaks, and then only the User side from then on. If you added new apps later, you would have to do a Full back up again.
The thing that disturbs me is if you timed the back up every day for example, that would fill up even a large HDD very quickly. How many backups could it hold? For that reason, I'm assuming that Time Machine only backs up incrementally and probably zipped, but would somehow show you the Full backup at any time you looked at it.
If this is the way it works, isn't it conceivable that Time Machine could base the full restore on the original full backup, and then use the incremental updates to finish it out to whatever date you want it?
If this is the way it works, isn't it conceivable that Time Machine could base the full restore on the original full backup, and then use the incremental updates to finish it out to whatever date you want it?
One could do that, yes. It's not the easiest or best way, but it's (probably) doable.
Time Machine is more efficient than that. Each backup consists of all the changed stuff, and symlinks to the backed-up latest revisions of everything else (which exist in previous back-ups). Therefore, in each back-up, you will have either the latest version of the file, or a link to the latest version from an earlier back-up. To create a "full restore" from an incremental, you just follow all those links.
Here's a (very small) demo. Let's say I have files A and B, and I'm doing daily incremental backups.
Day 1: Time Machine backs up both A and B.
I make no changes to files.
Day 2: Time Machine saves two symlinks, one to A's back-up (A.1), and one to B's back-up (B.1)
I change file B.
Day 3: Time Machine saves a symlink to A.1, and saves a new copy of B (B.3)
I make a file C.
Day 4: Time Machine saves a symlink to A.1 and B.3, and makes a backup of C (C.4)
I erase file A.
Day 5: Time Machine saves symlinks to B.3 and C.4
Because symlinks are pretty small (like a kB or something) and you can use compression, you might only add a few dozen megabytes with each backup. The downside is that if a file is big (like a photo or song), and I change it 3 times over a week, I have 3 copies of it saved.
One could do that, yes. It's not the easiest or best way, but it's (probably) doable.
Time Machine is more efficient than that. Each backup consists of all the changed stuff, and symlinks to the backed-up latest revisions of everything else (which exist in previous back-ups). Therefore, in each back-up, you will have either the latest version of the file, or a link to the latest version from an earlier back-up. To create a "full restore" from an incremental, you just follow all those links.
Here's a (very small) demo. Let's say I have files A and B, and I'm doing daily incremental backups.
Day 1: Time Machine backs up both A and B.
I make no changes to files.
Day 2: Time Machine saves two symlinks, one to A's back-up (A.1), and one to B's back-up (B.1)
I change file B.
Day 3: Time Machine saves a symlink to A.1, and saves a new copy of B (B.3)
I make a file C.
Day 4: Time Machine saves a symlink to A.1 and B.3, and makes a backup of C (C.4)
I erase file A.
Day 5: Time Machine saves symlinks to B.3 and C.4
Because symlinks are pretty small (like a kB or something) and you can use compression, you might only add a few dozen megabytes with each backup. The downside is that if a file is big (like a photo or song), and I change it 3 times over a week, I have 3 copies of it saved.
Like some other features, Stacks for instance, Leopard takes a simple applet or feature and makes it complicated. I can't recall ever wanting to use something from the distant past. Fairly recent back up, yes.
Way back, no. Has anyone reading this ever had the necessity of wanting something way back? Probably a few of you but not the majority.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I see a lot of Leopard as just eye candy and not a lot of evolution. Then there's the 90 - 10 principle: 90% of users use 10% of an application. Yes, I know the reply that not everyone uses the same 10%. Still, I'd be far happier if software made my life simpler and got rid of bugs rather than adding a bunch of stuff I wouldn't use.
I don't know if it's possible, but I'd like to be able to pick and choose the 10% of an app that I do use and archive the rest of the application.
I've used PC's for about 25 years (still do) , but I began using a Mac about 5 years ago. I hardly touch the two PC's I have at home, but have to at work. The reason I dislike PC"s is that the OS's get more and more complicated and buggy because they have to be all things to all PC's. Not Mac - one machine - one OS. Clean, neat, not a lot of legacy problems. If the new Mac OS's get more and more bloated, they will get to the point where they're like Windows. Apple, quit adding junk and stick to clean, simple OS's!!!
Like some other features, Stacks for instance, Leopard takes a simple applet or feature and makes it complicated. I can't recall ever wanting to use something from the distant past. Fairly recent back up, yes.
Way back, no. Has anyone reading this ever had the necessity of wanting something way back? Probably a few of you but not the majority.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I see a lot of Leopard as just eye candy and not a lot of evolution. Then there's the 90 - 10 principle: 90% of users use 10% of an application. Yes, I know the reply that not everyone uses the same 10%. Still, I'd be far happier if software made my life simpler and got rid of bugs rather than adding a bunch of stuff I wouldn't use.
I don't know if it's possible, but I'd like to be able to pick and choose the 10% of an app that I do use and archive the rest of the application.
Everything that I've heard suggests that with minimal effort you can tell TM what to back up and what not to. I also think that Apple is pretty good at making small, seemingly minor changes that have a lot larger of an impact, especially collectively. Most of the 200-250 features we haven't seen are probably minor evolutions that make applications slightly better.
I think that TM is actually pretty good. When you have the "shit, my hard drive died" backup option, and the "crap, I need that file from yesterday" option, it's not hard to have them meet in the middle.
I've used PC's for about 25 years (still do) , but I began using a Mac about 5 years ago. I hardly touch the two PC's I have at home, but have to at work. The reason I dislike PC"s is that the OS's get more and more complicated and buggy because they have to be all things to all PC's. Not Mac - one machine - one OS. Clean, neat, not a lot of legacy problems. If the new Mac OS's get more and more bloated, they will get to the point where they're like Windows. Apple, quit adding junk and stick to clean, simple OS's!!!
Mac OS X isn't really getting all that much more bloated. Apple may be adding features, but they're removable and/or disable-able features, and most of them are good. The problem with Windows is the obsession with making sure that everything from 1993 still works. Apple isn't afraid to make the developers work to clean up old crap. That's why the move to OS X worked well, and since then, Apple has been deprecating crap libraries and replacing them with better ones.
Like some other features, Stacks for instance, Leopard takes a simple applet or feature and makes it complicated. I can't recall ever wanting to use something from the distant past. Fairly recent back up, yes.
Way back, no. Has anyone reading this ever had the necessity of wanting something way back? Probably a few of you but not the majority.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I see a lot of Leopard as just eye candy and not a lot of evolution. Then there's the 90 - 10 principle: 90% of users use 10% of an application. Yes, I know the reply that not everyone uses the same 10%. Still, I'd be far happier if software made my life simpler and got rid of bugs rather than adding a bunch of stuff I wouldn't use.
I don't know if it's possible, but I'd like to be able to pick and choose the 10% of an app that I do use and archive the rest of the application.
I've used PC's for about 25 years (still do) , but I began using a Mac about 5 years ago. I hardly touch the two PC's I have at home, but have to at work. The reason I dislike PC"s is that the OS's get more and more complicated and buggy because they have to be all things to all PC's. Not Mac - one machine - one OS. Clean, neat, not a lot of legacy problems. If the new Mac OS's get more and more bloated, they will get to the point where they're like Windows. Apple, quit adding junk and stick to clean, simple OS's!!!
I disagree and here's why. Style and Substance are not mutually exclusive. Zach P did an excellent job of explaining what Time Machine does to handle your BU but for you it's as simple as doing a Spotlight search and then clicking the TM button in the Dock. You don't have to worry about the details. That's style and substance in synergy man!
Leopard is far more "nuts and bolts" stuff that appeals to those creating the apps. However Apple has to add the "style" to appeal to consumers who like flashy things.
Don't worry Apple generally handles bloat well. If something is bloated it's fixed. The evolution you as a consumer want to watch are things that are important.
iCal- In Tiger is a b*tch to handle calendar data because 3rd parties only have read access to your iCal calendar. That's gone in Leopard. All developers now can develop apps that read/write to Calendar Store your unified calendar data. I cried when I heard this...seriously.
Spotlight- I'd use it more if it didn't piss me off. Now it's faster and supports searching across networked/shared computers. Boolean searches are supported
Lets face it with Terabyte drives available in a decade you're likely going to have too many files to adequatly search via a directory structure. I'm moving to flat files and attaching as much metadata as I can.
The reason why this stuff isn't bloatware is because Apple is typically creating API for 3rd parties to go whole hog. Calendar data, To Dos, Quick look, etc are all open API that developers can key into.
Now the geeky stuff is good as well.
Uniform Type Identifers -UTI are more ubiquitious. As a developer you always want to right less code. UTI allows you to encapsulate multiple mime types with a single line (.public I believe) imagine a bunch of your code going from 6 lines to 2 here.
Fast Enumeration- Another way to reduce code and make the code more readible and easier for dealing with properties
yadda yadda yadda....i'm not programming yet so I'm trying to wrap my brain around stuff but Leopard is damn cool. I'm no shill for Apple (usually) but Leopard is a nice achievement that you're going to want sooner than later. There is substance there but it's the kind of substance that makes developers smile but often elicits a "so what" from the rank and file consumer.
Secondly, I HEAR you. You made good arguments and have swayed my thinking - not completely - but to a large degree. Hopefully, you are right and Apple OS's don't start looking and acting like Windows. I moved to the Mac because of the beautiful, elegant nature of Apple products. I get nervous when I think that philosophy is going astray. I skipped Tiger because of that fear. I realize I have to keep up or be left behind, and therefore, I will buy and use Leopard. Again, I hope you're right, not just about Leopard but in future OS's.
Like some other features, Stacks for instance, Leopard takes a simple applet or feature and makes it complicated. I can't recall ever wanting to use something from the distant past. Fairly recent back up, yes.
Way back, no. Has anyone reading this ever had the necessity of wanting something way back? Probably a few of you but not the majority.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I see a lot of Leopard as just eye candy and not a lot of evolution. Then there's the 90 - 10 principle: 90% of users use 10% of an application. Yes, I know the reply that not everyone uses the same 10%. Still, I'd be far happier if software made my life simpler and got rid of bugs rather than adding a bunch of stuff I wouldn't use.
I don't know if it's possible, but I'd like to be able to pick and choose the 10% of an app that I do use and archive the rest of the application.
I've used PC's for about 25 years (still do) , but I began using a Mac about 5 years ago. I hardly touch the two PC's I have at home, but have to at work. The reason I dislike PC"s is that the OS's get more and more complicated and buggy because they have to be all things to all PC's. Not Mac - one machine - one OS. Clean, neat, not a lot of legacy problems. If the new Mac OS's get more and more bloated, they will get to the point where they're like Windows. Apple, quit adding junk and stick to clean, simple OS's!!!
What if your only HDD failed - you've lost everything, unless you are one of the (what was it, 4%) of those people who perform regular backups.
I think Time Machine, or any half decent, easy to use backup and restore utility on an O/S is well overdue.
What if your only HDD failed - you've lost everything, unless you are one of the (what was it, 4%) of those people who perform regular backups.
I think Time Machine, or any half decent, easy to use backup and restore utility on an O/S is well overdue.
If your only HDD failed, you wouldn't have been using TimeMachine anyway. You need a secondary or external HDD in order to use TM. Apple recommends an external HDD to use with TM. If you already have an external HDD, any decent backup program will save your hide IF you do regular or automatic (like TM) backups. Most BU programs have automatic features.
I'm just saying that most users don't go back to some distant past BU for a single file. Using a good BU program will give MOST users what they need in case the Prime HDD fails.
IF you have an external HDD with FireWire, NOT USB, the BU programs can be used to boot your computer. Why not USB, I don't know, but BU programs have that caveat. Some help here, guys. Do any of you know why? Also, I don't know if TM can be used to reboot or not. Does anyone know? I'd appreciate that info.
If not, that would be another strike against using it.
After trying several BU programs including Retrospect, I find the easiest one to use is SuperDuper.
You can download it for free, but the freeby only does full backups or full user backup - not incremental, partial or automatic BU's. For about $30, you can get the whole package. MacWorld Magazine states that SuperDuper is one of the easiest to use.
You said that the BU program should be incorporated with the OS. It's been my experience that BU programs that come with an operating system (like Windows XP) or with HDD drives are not easy to use or flaky or ...... Usually they're truncated anyway.
I believe it may have to do with the data rate... I think they're worried that it'll be too slow with USB. That's also why I'm going to be getting a case that has FireWire 800.
Unbelievable price for a top quality 1TB drive. Unfortunately, it's only USB 2.0 and not Firewire and SATA, too.
http://www.PROVANTAGE.com/scripts/go...me/E70618/home
LaCie 301156U 
\t
LaCie - Hard Drives
1TB Ethernet Big Disk Gigabit Ethernet & Hi-Speed USB 2.0
Manufacturer Part# 301156U
Ethernet Big Disk. D2 Design by Neil Poulton - The LaCie Ethernet Big Disk is the essential storage solution for home and small business networking. This is the simplest way to share files between Windows, Mac and Linux computers. ...More
Returns: 30 days (if unopened)\tLACI08H
$289.37
I'm pretty sure the issue with USB has something to do with the way that the EFI loads drivers and the order that it does it.
Statistics show that you are in the minority here so there is plenty of room for Apple to provide something to get the majority in the habbit of performing backups.
One could do that, yes. It's not the easiest or best way, but it's (probably) doable.
Time Machine is more efficient than that. Each backup consists of all the changed stuff, and symlinks to the backed-up latest revisions of everything else (which exist in previous back-ups). Therefore, in each back-up, you will have either the latest version of the file, or a link to the latest version from an earlier back-up. To create a "full restore" from an incremental, you just follow all those links.
Here's a (very small) demo. Let's say I have files A and B, and I'm doing daily incremental backups.
Day 1: Time Machine backs up both A and B.
I make no changes to files.
Day 2: Time Machine saves two symlinks, one to A's back-up (A.1), and one to B's back-up (B.1)
I change file B.
Day 3: Time Machine saves a symlink to A.1, and saves a new copy of B (B.3)
I make a file C.
Day 4: Time Machine saves a symlink to A.1 and B.3, and makes a backup of C (C.4)
I erase file A.
Day 5: Time Machine saves symlinks to B.3 and C.4
Because symlinks are pretty small (like a kB or something) and you can use compression, you might only add a few dozen megabytes with each backup. The downside is that if a file is big (like a photo or song), and I change it 3 times over a week, I have 3 copies of it saved.
Why make daily back up markings, if nothing is changed? Keep memory of made changes on your normal drive until backed up, and when syncing, place them to right point of time, so you can go back in time with unlimited resolution! Also why make a back up of whole file, if only a part has changed from it? Data is stored in fragments to your hard drive anyway, just back up changed blocks.
That's a dual-drive RAID solution (actually, it may just be joined, and not RAID, but it is just 2 x 500 GB disks). They actually sell TB drives, but they cost like $500 each. I think Hitachi has one out, and Seagate is supposedly prepping one. However, that case does have an Ethernet port, so you can use it as a NAS.
I'm pretty sure the issue with USB has something to do with the way that the EFI loads drivers and the order that it does it.
Unfortunately, I have to show my ignorance again. Why couldn't you use that as an external HDD for a desktop? Couldn't the two 500 GB disks be concatenated and be used sequentually? What would the problems be?