 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1
08-10-2006, 06:02 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Time Machine
Hope this isn't a silly question but I have to ask. BTW, I think SD is a great product and will never abandon it.
Now to the question: Is the new feature in OS10.5 "Time Machine (TM)" basically the same as SD? Did Apple take a little advice from you guys and gals at Shirt Pocket on the developement (hope so) of TM, and do you see SD working with the 10.5 (hope so again)? 
|
|
#2
08-10-2006, 08:44 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
They're really not at all the same, actually. I can't go into detail, since anything that wasn't in the keynote is under non-disclosure... but I'll be posting a discussion on my blog when I finish it.
And, yes: SD! will work with Leopard, alongside Time Machine, and do good & useful stuff, have no fear.
__________________
--Dave Nanian
|
|
#3
08-14-2006, 10:09 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Time Machine has been around for awhile
Here's a link to a product for Mac System 8 & 9 called Rewind:
<http://tinyurl.com/o44y2> On the box is a quote from a product review published in MacWeek, dated 2000: "It's like a time machine for your Mac." It never really caught on, but it was the same concept. I'm glad Apple picked up the concept and is making it a standard feature. And I'm glad to hear Shirt Pocket will keep adding value to SD!
|
|
#4
08-14-2006, 11:11 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
The "unique" part of Time Machine is its integrated nature, not really what it's doing, which is pretty conventional and has been available for a long time on many platforms...
__________________
--Dave Nanian
|
|
#5
08-21-2006, 03:46 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Thank goodness SD will stick around
Dave:
Understand about the non-disclosure stuff. However, I am more than technically curious about Time Machine having to have a dedicated hard drive, or at least a very large partition ... if it's going to keep around various versions of every Word document back to the days of when 10.5 was first loaded, or whatever -- that could be years. If that is a valid technical assessment, and especially if you are commited to keep SD around, why would you ever need Time Machine data for more than a week or so (assuming you smart update a .dmg every week). John Love 
|
|
#6
08-21-2006, 04:46 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
It's a good question, John, that I've addressed in a general sense in my blog post The Ninety-Nine-Per-Cent Solution. Time Machine's approach doesn't really change my general opinion there...
__________________
--Dave Nanian Last edited by dnanian; 08-28-2006 at 01:43 PM.
|
|
#7
08-27-2006, 12:19 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
99 percent solution
Dave, that conversation between you and Peter da Silva was quite an education.
I'm not smart enough to comment on the technical content ... but for sure I laughed when someone (obviously in a hurry) typed "SuperDumper". John Love
|
 |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| A SuperDuper Back Up Strategy | Bagelturf | General | 3 | 09-09-2007 02:23 PM |
| Hotkey Control of Remote machine? | thom | General | 8 | 03-03-2007 11:50 AM |
| write problems after cloning machine | mkrueger | General | 13 | 12-31-2004 08:17 PM |
| 1st backup clone to ext dr estimated time ?? | esuebrown | General | 3 | 07-24-2004 05:31 PM |
| Can I get more than 30 minutes of evaluation time? | dnanian | Frequently Asked Questions | 0 | 07-15-2004 12:40 PM |
Hybrid Mode
