Comments on: SuperDuper: Now with Leopard Compatibility

By: Raj

Raj — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 20:46:26 +0000

TM is better than nothing but a solution like SuperDuper or the free CarbonCopyCloner allows for bootable backups, i.e. if you’re computer goes kaput you can boot your backup from another computer connected to your backup drive. The cool thing about SD is that you can back up your info to an external drive and use that same drive for Time Machine, giving you the plus of both utilities in case you simply want to use TM to review various copies of a folder for example.

You can choose a drive, and you can choose a boot drive… but you can’t drive a boot.

By: Rob Wilkerson

Rob Wilkerson — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 14:40:15 +0000

@Jake –

The point you’re making is dead on and, for my part at least, I wasn’t trying to offer a better or worse evaluation. Just speaking of what works for me and why I chose SuperDuper. As to the bootable nature of the backup…what if your hard drive crashes? Having that bootable backup allows you to bring a new machine online _very_ quickly. Can TimeMachine handle that?

Again, not the right or wrong way to go, just something to be considered in any decision.

By: Jake

Jake — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 14:33:55 +0000

fair enough…

I still feel for the average mac enthusiast (aka, someone who uses a computer for a combination of work/entertainment/creating), time machine is a great option whose ease of use and insanely low price (free!) make it a far more valuable app.

While some people may need to instantly boot up their entire disc, with time machine, you can easily look through a copy of your old machine and find any file you may need and then take just the files that are necessary. Then using mac sync, you can set up a new machine with the information on a time machine hard-drive. Maybe it takes longer to load, but all in all it works pretty well… well enough that I can’t quite see a reason to go looking for something else… perhaps if i had already been using Superduper i would say the same thing about it…

I’m not sure about the wireless backing though… it would seem strange not to have such an option, but I’ve never tried it… hmmm….

By: Rob Wilkerson

Rob Wilkerson — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 19:36:35 +0000

I backup to another server on my network over a wireless connection. To the best of my knowledge, TimeMachine isn’t capable of doing either (sans TimeCapsule). The bootable component is essential for me as well, but Fraser and Dave covered that quite well.

By: dave

dave — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 16:24:42 +0000

i second fraser’s comment – i need very regular bootable backups. for example, if my machine is stolen i can get a new machine up and running instantly with a superduper backup…also, with smart updates (unlocked when you pay and worth every penny) the updates take only a few minutes.

By: Fraser Drew

Fraser Drew — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 15:13:37 +0000

The big reason to use SuperDuper is if your Mac is for your business/ it’s critical you can use it every day. Super Duper is BOOTABLE. Time Machine does make it really easy to bring your Mac back when you reinstall Leopard/Upgrade your Mac, however with SD, simply attach the external to another Mac, hold down “option” and your away.

By: Jake

Jake — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 13:17:01 +0000

I’d have to agree. I really see no benefit from choosing superduper over time machine…

someone should write an article comparing the two… from the negative rating that wphj got, i think its obvious that people disagree from his (and my) view of the situation. I’d love for someone to show me why…

By: wphj

wphj — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 11:54:15 +0000

I’ll stick with Time Machine. It’s free and takes zero effort.