Click to expand.No CCC doesn't erase the history. If you do an incremental backup, CCC always keeps a history of the previous backups until the disk is full (or up to the limit you specify). Pokemon 2ba master full album.
Both programs have this feature, but you need to purchase super duper to get it, carbon copy cloner is totally free, though you can make a donation, which is worth it.
Incremental backups are fast because only the modified files are added to the backup set. Having said that, I still use CCC as well as the Time Machine. It is easier to pick an individual file to restore from a Time Machine backup as opposed to finding a file you are looking for inside the history folders of the CCC backup set. 'Both are good, but I prefer CCC.
Be aware that CCC will also clone the OS X Recovery Partition, where SD will not.' I believe when you first download and launch CCC, it is set by default to copy the recovery partition. You have to go to CCC preferences and turn this feature off manually.
Also, CCC can 'archive' older versions of files. That is, one can set it up so it will either: - delete any files on the backup that no longer exist on the source volume or - archive any changed files that no longer exist on the source volume (in a separate folder on the target volume for that purpose). Although this only happens when CCC is run, in a way it mimics some of what Time Machine does - that is, maintains an archive of 'older versions' of files. I formerly used SuperDuper, now I use CCC.
I have seen reports that some users of SD found that the backup will fail if SD discovers a damaged file during the backup. The whole process is aborted. CCC, however, will ignore the damaged file and finish the job. No CCC doesn't erase the history. If you do an incremental backup, CCC always keeps a history of the previous backups until the disk is full (or up to the limit you specify). Incremental backups are fast because only the modified files are added to the backup set.
Having said that, I still use CCC as well as the Time Machine. It is easier to pick an individual file to restore from a Time Machine backup as opposed to finding a file you are looking for inside the history folders of the CCC backup set. As a 'Heads Up' / 'Food for Thought': I recently had the hard drive on one of my iMacs (a 2008 with the 1 TB drive) go bad without warning. While I could get copies of files off of the Time Machine drive, trying a full drive restore from Time Machine on the new drive did not work. I tried the most recent, the very first, and several backup dates in between.
Kernel panic every time when I tried to restart. I clone with CCC about every week. I was able to do a full system restore from my clone (thus no need to start from scratch and reinstall every program, etc.).
Then I just restored some documents and things from the Time Machine disk. I think from now on I'll do a clone every night. I trusted Time Machine and it failed me. Starting from scratch and reinstalling programs, setting up mail accounts, etc., etc., and getting things back link I had them is a PITA and takes a week or so. It has been quite a few years since I have had a drive die.
I'm glad I have been paranoid enough to do both - Time Machine and a CCC clone. As a 'Heads Up' / 'Food for Thought': I recently had the hard drive on one of my iMacs (a 2008 with the 1 TB drive) go bad without warning. While I could get copies of files off of the Time Machine drive, trying a full drive restore from Time Machine on the new drive did not work. I tried the most recent, the very first, and several backup dates in between. Kernel panic every time when I tried to restart.
I clone with CCC about every week. I was able to do a full system restore from my clone (thus no need to start from scratch and reinstall every program, etc.). Then I just restored some documents and things from the Time Machine disk. I think from now on I'll do a clone every night. I trusted Time Machine and it failed me. Starting from scratch and reinstalling programs, setting up mail accounts, etc., etc., and getting things back link I had them is a PITA and takes a week or so. It has been quite a few years since I have had a drive die.
I'm glad I have been paranoid enough to do both - Time Machine and a CCC clone. Click to expand.Kudo's for taking the time to post this excellent, highly valuable entry. Hopefully many people will read it & pause to reflect on what they are or aren't doing about backups. Even within my office of professional engineers some get a bit complacent and fail to maintain a good backup routine at home.
Work has them spoiled as its done nightly without their need to participate. It's all too easy to be lulled into procrastination by the relatively trouble free, yet imperfect drives of the last few years.
Fortunately early on in my career the importance of regular backups was drummed into my head. I too use a combo of Time Machine & CCC. What many Mac users overlook is the importance of frequency. My habit has been to use CCC at the end of each days computing session thereby providing peace of mind, that for me is priceless.
As you've duly noted the luxury of time machine, besides being fully automated, is its comprehensive store of ones complete drive. No matter the method employed, nothing beats having a copy of all the work we've invested our time in creating.
Other thoughts:. When ever I do a clone I run DiskWarrior on it (after cloning is finished), then I shut the iMac down and restart and boot from the clone. I then run DiskWarrior on the internal drive.
Now I know the clone is 'good' and that I can boot from it, and I've checked the internal drive's directory, etc. Shutdown the iMac and restart booting from the internal drive. As an aside, I typically don't keep the clone drive connected or plugged into the UPS battery backup.
I only connect it when I'm going to do a clone. That way should lightning hit or something the drive isn't in any way 'in the circuit'. As a 'Heads Up' / 'Food for Thought': I recently had the hard drive on one of my iMacs (a 2008 with the 1 TB drive) go bad without warning. While I could get copies of files off of the Time Machine drive, trying a full drive restore from Time Machine on the new drive did not work. I tried the most recent, the very first, and several backup dates in between.
Kernel panic every time when I tried to restart. I clone with CCC about every week. I was able to do a full system restore from my clone (thus no need to start from scratch and reinstall every program, etc.). Then I just restored some documents and things from the Time Machine disk. I think from now on I'll do a clone every night.
I trusted Time Machine and it failed me. Starting from scratch and reinstalling programs, setting up mail accounts, etc., etc., and getting things back link I had them is a PITA and takes a week or so. It has been quite a few years since I have had a drive die.
I'm glad I have been paranoid enough to do both - Time Machine and a CCC clone. I used the restore disk (2008 iMac) which has an option to restore a bare drive from the Time Machine drive. Using that option it formats the internal disk first. I did try booting from the internal drive after I 'cloned the clone' back to my new, blank internal drive, and restore on top of that, but it did not work on any system files or applications or such. The clone was new enough that it really didn't matter because the 2008 is essentially a spare machine that mostly only my GF uses when she's here.
I have a late 2012 27' iMac for every day use. I clone that every day or two. I have restored a complete drive with Time Machine when a friend's iMac drive crashed and was replaced. Why it failed on my 2008 iMac is a mystery. One of those 'the backup failed' stories that one doesn't know why it failed. That's why I test cloned drives to make sure they boot and I run a couple programs to make sure apps run. I've seen backup failures before.
One way to choose Go to the respective websites for both programs. Look thru the FAQs and the support forums.
Does one program seem to be more 'with it', more actively developed and supported than the other? I'm a registered owner of one of these programs, based in good part on my opinion of the quality and variety of support info available. Also, I have received direct support from the developer for an issue I was having.
I've used software costing.orders of magnitude. more money that wasn't as well supported. It's all too easy to be lulled into procrastination by the relatively trouble free, yet imperfect drives of the last few years. Fortunately early on in my career the importance of regular backups was drummed into my head.
I too use a combo of Time Machine & CCC. What many Mac users overlook is the importance of frequency. My habit has been to use CCC at the end of each days computing session thereby providing peace of mind, that for me is priceless. As you've duly noted the luxury of time machine, besides being fully automated, is its comprehensive store of ones complete drive. No matter the method employed, nothing beats having a copy of all the work we've invested our time in creating. Click to expand.In addition to my regular backups, I have 2 programs that I have found useful as well: Sync (Decimus Software) I use it to backup my documents directory to and SD card. It backs up every time a file is changed so I have a complete duplicate of my file son an SD card if something happens to my SSD.
While I'd still have to redo the drive at least I can keep working on another computer in the interim. As its name implies it can also sync files so if you update a file on another machine it will update the original when the containing drive is plugged back into the original's machine. Backups do not sync. Forever Save (Tool Force Software) This saves a copy of a file every time you do a Ctrl-S or at regular intervals after the first Ctrl - S; which creates a history so if you accidentally screw up and need to get an earlier version you can open one from FS archive. You have to tell it which programs to enable in FS; and if you do not do Ctrl-S at least once it doesn't save previous versions, unless you set its preferences to auto-save all documents. However, I have found it useful after accidentally deleting large chunks of text and saving the file or inadvertently overwriting a file with a completely different one.
I'd love a real time way to save old versions but have not yet found a good solution. Sync can archive changed files but I have not really explored that option. Click to expand.Under Lion and Mountain Lion your machine has a hidden, 650MB recovery partition with some troubleshooting tools and an installer that allows you to download the 4.7GB OS from Apple. Then you have the OS itself installed on the Macintosh HD partition. SD only copies (clones) over the Macintosh HD partition and not the hidden recovery partition, where CCC does both.
So if you use SD, for example, to 'clone' to a new drive you install you will not have a recovery partition on the new drive. I see from your wording you mention cloning a drive, when that is not really what either app is doing. They are just cloning whatever partition you choose, typically Macintosh HD.
CCC just has the added benefit of automatically recognizing the hidden recovery partition and copying it over also. I think what you are seeing is that some people prefer one over the other, and generally haven't used both. I have used SuperDuper for the past 5 years. It works flawlessly, and is very easy to use; it walks you through the steps and you never have to worry about doing anything wrong. As a correction to what others have posted above, SuperDuper has a 'Smart Update' feature in which it will only copy over the changed files, essentially mimicking the cloning procedure, but in only a fraction of a time. I had a not-so-great experience with CCC about 10 years ago, I'm sure that issue doesn't exist any more. I also regularly use Chronosync with another drive, to synchronize and back-up files and folders, without doing a full backup.
Carbon Copy Cloner Ssd
That is another great piece of software. Generally using either SuperDuper or CCC, along with Time Machine is a great back-up system. In a way, I find cloning a drive easier to understand, and you always know what you have. FWIW, I just went to their respective websites again.CCC is free to try for the first 30 days. SuperDuper is completely free to use forever, with just the basic cloning feature set (so you can do the full clone, but not the quicker Smart Update on subsequent clones). The other cool thing about SuperDuper is that I paid for it several years ago when I first used it on my PPC Macs, and I haven't had to pay for an upgrade since.
Oh well, I guess I just jinxed myself.
This is a rubbish smackdown. Where's the drama? Where's the bit where one of these backup utilities gets voted off the island? Here's the thing, though: over the last month or so, we've reviewed three very powerful applications that broadly do the same thing.
They all back up your data to external hard disks, and they all create ways that you can startup your Mac again even if your internal drive dies on you., and are surely the leading applications in this, and they are certainly needed. We just wouldn't be doing our job if we didn't pitch them against each other to help you pick one. You wouldn't have imagined that backing up would be such a big field: three competing products in a niche that, frankly, you likely do not spend all day thinking about. You need to think about it a little, though, as of course without backing up your data, your data is going to vanish on you one day. However, if you have a Mac, then you have Time Machine, which is easy: plug in an external drive and off it goes. If you do already think a lot about protecting your data from calamitous loss, then you may have already gone for an online backup service like. So it may seem odd that there can even be enough business going round for these three firms to do well.
Yet they each survive, they each continue to be developed, they are each well-supported and liked. It's a measure of how important their job is: how important, and how useful.
They're so important that we are most definitely arguing that you need one of them. In addition to Time Machine. It's just a question of which. If you currently do not have your work being backed up at all, then stop reading: the answer is that any of these three will make you happy, any of the three will do a great job, so just go get one right now.
They each do the most important jobs of backing up your data, but they do vary. They vary by how quickly and easily you can pick up how to use them, plus they vary by how powerful they are. Despite being such similar products, they also rather aim at different audiences - and therefore concentrate their fire, so to speak, on different issues. Carbon Copy Cloner feels to us like it's designed primarily to get on with the job of backing up quickly. Here's what you're backing up, here's where you're backing it up to, go. There's more to it than that, but not more that you have to understand and setup before you use this. It may be telling that when we had a real-life need to quickly back up a failing drive after the three reviews were done, it was Carbon Copy Cloner we used.
If that's not a vote for Carbon Copy Cloner, we don't know what is. However, using it again like that did raise an issue we hadn't foreseen during the we did last month: for some reason, possibly the impending drive failure, Carbon Copy Cloner took longer to back up this time than it had before. Same Mac, same external drive, approximately the same amount of data, but nearly double the time. For now, we'll put that down to how our hard drive seriously needed backing up before it went any more wrong but still, Carbon Copy Cloner does not win out for speed. That doesn't concern us in the slightest when we're solely doing one Mac, but if you have to do several, it'll be an issue. If you do have to backup many Macs, then the one you need is ChronoSync.
Carbon Copy Cloner 10.6.8
It is the fastest of the three, and it also has features that specifically help managers who are controlling lots of machines. With great speed and a big feature list comes complexity, though. Add in the fact that you can remotely check up on the progress of your backup, and while you're at it send and receive files from the Mac back in your office, and ChronoSync is clearly a professional tool. That's not knocking Carbon Copy Cloner, nor is it praising ChronoSync.
For ChronoSync needs studying: the more time you spend with this one, the more time it will save you later - if you need its myriad features. Like all of these, the tasks it handles do include scheduled backups: you can decide to have it run weekly, daily, hourly or so on.
However, you can also set up rules. Tell ChronoSync to only backup Photoshop files created since last week's backup. Make up a tag for your files like 'Urgent' and tell ChronoSync to backup any thing tagged that way before it does everything else. There is serious power and serious ability to fiddle in ChronoSync, and while, our only real criticism is about how that plethora of options is a barrier to the more casual user. Those same options, plus the ease of using this across many, many machines and controlling that remotely is manna to network managers. So if our rough, totally unfair, watercooler-conversation kind of smackdown sounds as if we think Carbon Copy Cloner is for new users and ChronoSync for experienced ones, that must mean SuperDuper!
Is in the middle. It is, and it isn't. Perhaps it's a scintilla harder to learn than Carbon Copy Cloner, and certainly it is aimed at individuals instead of giant multi-computer companies. However, it has the appearance of being straightforward, yet it also comes with what, such as sandboxing, that are great for people testing and retesting software. The more you think about backups, then the more you realize how important this is, and so it becomes less surprising that three contenders can be thriving away in it. What's maybe still surprising and frankly unhelpful is that all three have such a mix of broad appeal and specific strengths that we recommend any and all of them.
That means this is less a smackdown, and more a sit down with a nice cup of tea, but we're okay with that. If you're in a hurry, just go buy one of them for yourself - and the fact that it's for yourself, and you're in a hurry, tells us you urgently need backup - and that Carbon Copy Cloner is your best bet. Backups are so important that if you then go on to buy one of the others as well, that's still money wisely spent.
SuperDuper requires OS X 10.6 or later, and costs. Carbon Copy Cloner works with Mac OS 10.6 or higher - version 3.5.7 is compatible with 10.6 through 10.9, while version 4 is compatible with 10.8 through 10.10. Regardless of which version you need, it. ChronoSync is, but offer free lifetime upgrades - something neither of the other two do. All three offer trial versions as well.
William Gallagher.