Apple External HDD to compliment Time Machine?
If Leopard requires an external HDD in order to run Time Machine (although I don't understand why a second internal hdd wouldn't do if you had a mac pro), then surely it would make business sense to offer an Apple one?
I think the chances of Apple offering one are very high, even though they have good relations with LaCie etc.
I think the chances of Apple offering one are very high, even though they have good relations with LaCie etc.
Comments
If Leopard requires an external HDD in order to run Time Machine (although I don't understand why a second internal hdd wouldn't do if you had a mac pro), then surely it would make business sense to offer an Apple one?
I think the chances of Apple offering one are very high, even though they have good relations with LaCie etc.
I know little about Macs, other than reading on this forum, but why would a key feature of Leopard like Time Machine require you to have an external HD? Seems like a lame design flaw, like requiring you to use an external HD for RAID. The only proper way to do it is internally. If you want to go external, that should be up to the individual. I guess Mini and iMac folks are already used to having a stack of external boxes sitting around.
I've seen pictures of Time Machine being set up, and I think it can be set to back up to the internal hard drive, or any drive you want. It doesn't have to be an external one, though that IS the point of backing up. If your hard drive breaks, you have all your information somewhere else.
It would make sense to let you designate the drive to backup to. An extra internal ala RAID seems like a convenient way to go, though not as secure as an external that you could store in safe place. iMacs would have to start having the option and a Mac Pro is already setup for such a config.
I know little about Macs, other than reading on this forum, but why would a key feature of Leopard like Time Machine require you to have an external HD? Seems like a lame design flaw, like requiring you to use an external HD for RAID. The only proper way to do it is internally. If you want to go external, that should be up to the individual. I guess Mini and iMac folks are already used to having a stack of external boxes sitting around.
{my emphasis}
doesnt that answer your own question?
if its up to the individual then internal ISNT the only proper way.
id rather have a back-up i can take AWAY from the building.... think about that
it amazes me that sometimes people don't see the bigger picture.
Apple always think one ahead about making the best products and they won't do anything they don't have to.
(example being a card reader in their hardware. they won't do it cause things work so well via usb .........)
{my emphasis}
doesnt that answer your own question?
if its up to the individual then internal ISNT the only proper way.
id rather have a back-up i can take AWAY from the building.... think about that
When I reread that, it does sound silly...internal is just an option, notthe way to go for everyone. I was thinking the original post meant external was the only option. I should have said less cluttered or something else. As far as taking your external backup to a different location, yes that would be the safest, but how may folks are going to go to all that trouble every time?
If Leopard requires an external HDD in order to run Time Machine (although I don't understand why a second internal hdd wouldn't do if you had a mac pro), then surely it would make business sense to offer an Apple one?
I think the chances of Apple offering one are very high, even though they have good relations with LaCie etc.
I use the NewerTech miniStack V2 with my Mac Mini. It has the same form factor as the new Airport extreme which lets you plug in an external drive.
When I reread that, it does sound silly...internal is just an option, notthe way to go for everyone. I was thinking the original post meant external was the only option. I should have said less cluttered or something else. As far as taking your external backup to a different location, yes that would be the safest, but how may folks are going to go to all that trouble every time?
i think (as steve pointed out at the demo of TimaMachine) very few people back up FULL STOP.
there is the old adage (well old in Digital terms
backup within the one enclosure is great for HD failure your data should still exist (various forms of RAID)
ACTULLY backing up (ala TimeMachine) to an external storage device (from floppy thru to HD) is making to copys that exist in two DIFFERENT physical locations.. therefor in the event of say...a fire, power brownout or some other disaster in one location.. the DATA still exists.
a fire or brownout blowing a machine with 2 HDs with the same data ("backed up") will still translate to lost data.. its only the storage off site that can hope to ensure that the data is intact.
MOST lifestyle people can afford to loose the content of a HD now and again, its not life stopping... Time Machine IMO aims to retain those digital photos that people now take for granted... dont actually ever get round to PRINTING OUT (secondary storage) and.. if they loose, will still get bummed out about.
Apple dont want you getting bummed out
the ideal i suppose would be 2 HDs inside the case of the Mac, with an external backup that can be taken off site.. or GRABED in the middle of a fire!
not that id advise going back into a burning building
The hard drives inside all Mac's aren't made by Apple, so they wont br releasing an external hard drive any time soon. Actually there is a couple of companies that are offering unlimited online back up for $50 per year, that's where Apple should be looking to go. No need for an external hard drive to back up, all you need is .Mac, imagine that! If Apple could do this, which companies are already doing, then .Mac wouldn't look so expensive and would make sense.
Wow if apple did that for .Mac (which i think is very possible b/c of the introduction of TimeMachine) that would be insane, i would go get .Mac in a heartbeat. that would be so incredibly worth while because not only would you have unlimited amounts of storage, you would be able to access it from anywhere in the world which i believe would be excellent. they only problem i see is that wouldnt it be kind of slow if you transfering large amounts of data (ie your music library)?
Wow if apple did that for .Mac (which i think is very possible b/c of the introduction of TimeMachine) that would be insane, i would go get .Mac in a heartbeat. that would be so incredibly worth while because not only would you have unlimited amounts of storage, you would be able to access it from anywhere in the world which i believe would be excellent. they only problem i see is that wouldnt it be kind of slow if you transfering large amounts of data (ie your music library)?
I back up my iPhoto library to Amazon S3. I don't it for my movies but typically I just toss the DV tapes into the firesafe after loading them on the Mac.
And no, don't stop to grab a HDD on your way out of a fire. Your pictures/data aren't worth it. Anything that important should have been backed up offsite anyway.
Vinea
The hard drives inside all Mac's aren't made by Apple, so they wont br releasing an external hard drive any time soon. Actually there is a couple of companies that are offering unlimited online back up for $50 per year, that's where Apple should be looking to go. No need for an external hard drive to back up, all you need is .Mac, imagine that! If Apple could do this, which companies are already doing, then .Mac wouldn't look so expensive and would make sense.
I could see Apple giving everyone 20GB - 50GB of online space, but unlimited, I doubt it. There would be some idiots who would definitely abuse that... those same idiots who complain about ISP download caps.
The hard drives inside all Mac's aren't made by Apple, so they wont br releasing an external hard drive any time soon. Actually there is a couple of companies that are offering unlimited online back up for $50 per year, that's where Apple should be looking to go. No need for an external hard drive to back up, all you need is .Mac, imagine that! If Apple could do this, which companies are already doing, then .Mac wouldn't look so expensive and would make sense.
.Mac is ridiculously overpriced... it only gives you 1GB of storage! Hard drives, servers and bandwidth are much cheaper than they used to be. You should get a lot more storage for that kind of price, given that large hard drives have gone way down in price and expensive SCSI hard drives are not really necessary for personal data backup. 50-100GB for $50 a year sounds reasonable given that a 320GB 3.5" hard drive costs about $100.
Wow if apple did that for .Mac (which i think is very possible b/c of the introduction of TimeMachine) that would be insane, i would go get .Mac in a heartbeat. that would be so incredibly worth while because not only would you have unlimited amounts of storage, you would be able to access it from anywhere in the world which i believe would be excellent. they only problem i see is that wouldnt it be kind of slow if you transfering large amounts of data (ie your music library)?