PROBLEM- aliases, Dock items

[stevea]

The backup copy is not a perfectly identical replacement for the original disk.

Dock items point to the original disk, not to items contained on the backup copy.

(I suspect similar problem with aliases in general, but have not checked it yet.)

I can understand why items might be copied exactly, and that is a desireable feature.

However, there should be an option to modify Dock items so that their references behave as one might wish and expect- for example, if user wanted to make a backup copy to replace an original.
________
Extreme Q

[dnanian]

Actually, it is a perfectly identical replacement for the original disk. That's why the aliases have references to the original volume name.

I just put an extensive reply to the same basic question here, so take a look.

In summary, if you name the backup the same as the source before you boot from it, or make the original drive "unavailable", things will work as you'd expect.

Modifying all of the aliases on the drive to point to a new volume is, I think, pretty unwise... it'd be very hard for a user to understand, and it really goes against the whole idea of a "duplicate"...

[stevea]

Originally Posted by dnanian

Actually, it is a perfectly identical replacement for the original disk. That's why the aliases have references to the original volume name.

I just put an extensive reply to the same basic question here, so take a look.

In summary, if you name the backup the same as the source before you boot from it, or make the original drive "unavailable", things will work as you'd expect.

Yes, understood. (I thought that's what I said above...)

But actually, SuperDuper does NOT make a "perfectly identical replacement".

To get nitpicky, if the volume name on the copy is not changed, then the copy is not an exact duplicate.

Also, as stated before, aliases and Dock items do not reference the so-called "replacement".

Originally Posted by dnanian

Modifying all of the aliases on the drive to point to a new volume is, I think, pretty unwise... it'd be very hard for a user to understand, and it really goes against the whole idea of a "duplicate"...

I strongly disagree with this kind of opinion about users.

Yes, it makes sense to offer a simple product.

But, any product in this category is going to be used by sophisticated, knowledgeable users also, and if their needs aren't met or satisfied, than eventually the marketplace overall will realize that the product is lacking.


Even if features aren't incorporated in the product, the failure to acknowledge, recognize or document these kinds of issues right off the bat and demonstrate this to users, diminishes the quality of the products or services offered.

Although it is great to provide quick and informative responses on a discussion forum, it isn't a substitute for a comprehensive, mature product that reflects these needs. It really shouldn't be necessary to test drive a piece of software and determine its capabilities by trial-and-error regarding these matters, particularly when these are core items central to the advertised purpose of the software!
________
Vaporgenie reviews

[dnanian]

Thanks, again, for your comments. We'll endeavor to include a comment about aliases in a future version of the User's Guide.