- Last Active
elijahg said:libertymatters said:CheeseFreeze said:Why aren't they retiring this antique approach to back-ups? I mean, they now have a filesystem that supports snapshots, but Time Machine still uses the legacy pre-APFS approach and has been proven to be incredibly inefficient compared to third-party solutions.I know Apple is focusing on services so they actually rather want us to back-up on their cloud VS locally, so why aren't they just EOL'ing this thing altogether, and instead support third-party developers in providing a back-up solution?
And who in their right mind is still "travelling back in time" by traversing through Finder or app time instances (the latter only working with a few 1st-part apps) in 2021? I mean, the Steve Jobs-era visualisation of using Z-depth for time is novel, but hardly practical.
https://support.apple.com/guide/mac-help/types-of-disks-you-can-use-with-time-machine-mh15139/macathempel said:CheeseFreeze said:Why aren't they retiring this antique approach to back-ups? I mean, they now have a filesystem that supports snapshots
@CheeseFreeze is completely right with his comment. TM is archaic and inefficient. A snapshot stores only the block-level difference between files, whereas Time Machine copies the entire file across again even if there's one single bit changed. For a 1kb file that doesn't matter, but nowadays with file sizes ballooning, 1GB+ files are pretty common. Change the title of that file and the entire thing gets copied across again, without the other file being deleted on the backup. So wasting 2x space for one identical file.
Also TM is sluggish on networked disks and the UI is pretty awful. I'd much rather pick a file, see a list of previous versions of that file with previews, and maybe a diff, all integrated properly into the Finder. Not the outdated full-screen TM UI that we have now.
red oak said:The best, most impactful employees are the ones who should get to present. Period.When one group is significantly over-represented, it's transparent and looks forced. And, it de-values those presenters as just on stage to achieve a "quota". What happens to the morale of the over-achieving, highly qualified white males at Apple who were passed over just so a woman could be on stage? That undermines the whole meritocracy of the company culture. It is a cancerIMO
'Side loading' also known, prior to 2007, as installing an application on your computer. The key phrase here being 'your computer'. Who does Apple think they are to deny people the right to install any application they want on THEIR iPhone? Apple's entire case falls apart when you realize the Macintosh can still 'side load' applications to this day. Right-click, open. Annoyed by that? Disable Gatekeeper completely with a command in the Terminal. Why does this 'side loading' persist on the Macintosh? Simple, their customers would not tolerate such computer tyranny. Remember, Gatekeeper was added in to the Macintosh in Snow Leopard. iPhone customers should start to speak up about Apple's heavy handedness on their iPhones. The iPhone's walled garden should be optional just like it is on the Macintosh. Heck, most times I'd choose to stay in the walled garden for security, but when Apple gets heavy handed, like they are today with their outrageous censorship on the App Store and Podcasts, we need an opt out.Bottom-line, this is about maintaining 30% profit on apps and control of people's devices. It is as simple as that.