Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #63110 > unrolled thread
| Started by | William Hanna <whanna@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2014-08-09 11:30 -0700 |
| Last post | 2014-08-11 08:30 -0500 |
| Articles | 14 on this page of 54 — 14 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system
does SuperDuper run in Yosemite? William Hanna <whanna@invalid.invalid> - 2014-08-09 11:30 -0700
Re: does SuperDuper run in Yosemite? Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2014-08-09 16:16 -0400
Re: does SuperDuper run in Yosemite? Lloyd Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> - 2014-08-09 15:27 -0500
Re: does SuperDuper run in Yosemite? Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2014-08-09 17:32 -0400
Re: does SuperDuper run in Yosemite? Lloyd Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> - 2014-08-09 16:42 -0500
Re: does SuperDuper run in Yosemite? Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2014-08-09 21:27 -0400
Re: does SuperDuper run in Yosemite? William Hanna <whanna@invalid.invalid> - 2014-08-10 08:39 -0700
Re: does SuperDuper run in Yosemite? Martin Frost me at invalid stanford daht edu <nospam@stanford.edu.invalid> - 2014-08-10 17:13 -0700
Re: does SuperDuper run in Yosemite? Lloyd Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> - 2014-08-10 19:17 -0500
Re: does SuperDuper run in Yosemite? FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2014-08-15 08:18 -0400
Re: does SuperDuper run in Yosemite? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-08-15 13:38 -0400
Re: does SuperDuper run in Yosemite? FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2014-08-15 17:07 -0400
Re: does SuperDuper run in Yosemite? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-08-16 13:41 +1200
Re: does SuperDuper run in Yosemite? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-08-16 01:52 +0000
Re: does SuperDuper run in Yosemite? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-08-15 22:25 -0400
Re: does SuperDuper run in Yosemite? FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2014-08-16 00:11 -0400
Re: does SuperDuper run in Yosemite? FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2014-08-16 00:13 -0400
Re: does SuperDuper run in Yosemite? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-08-16 02:03 -0400
Re: does SuperDuper run in Yosemite? FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2014-08-16 04:53 -0400
Re: does SuperDuper run in Yosemite? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-08-16 13:43 +0000
Re: does SuperDuper run in Yosemite? FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2014-08-16 15:45 -0400
Re: does SuperDuper run in Yosemite? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-08-16 16:20 -0400
Re: does SuperDuper run in Yosemite? FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2014-08-16 17:03 -0400
Re: does SuperDuper run in Yosemite? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-08-16 21:34 +0000
Re: does SuperDuper run in Yosemite? FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2014-08-16 20:47 -0400
Re: does SuperDuper run in Yosemite? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-08-17 01:10 +0000
Re: does SuperDuper run in Yosemite? FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2014-08-17 04:41 -0400
Re: does SuperDuper run in Yosemite? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-08-17 20:37 +0000
Re: does SuperDuper run in Yosemite? FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2014-08-17 21:01 -0400
Re: does SuperDuper run in Yosemite? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-08-18 22:06 +0000
Re: does SuperDuper run in Yosemite? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-08-18 08:56 +1200
Re: does SuperDuper run in Yosemite? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-08-17 10:17 +1200
Re: does SuperDuper run in Yosemite? dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2014-08-17 14:37 +1200
Re: does SuperDuper run in Yosemite? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-08-16 22:38 -0400
Re: does SuperDuper run in Yosemite? FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2014-08-17 04:45 -0400
Re: does SuperDuper run in Yosemite? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-08-17 16:11 +0000
Re: does SuperDuper run in Yosemite? FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2014-08-17 13:20 -0400
Re: does SuperDuper run in Yosemite? FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2014-08-17 13:28 -0400
Re: does SuperDuper run in Yosemite? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-08-17 18:03 +0000
Re: does SuperDuper run in Yosemite? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-08-17 20:46 +0000
Re: does SuperDuper run in Yosemite? Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-08-17 10:29 -0700
Re: does SuperDuper run in Yosemite? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-08-17 18:03 +0000
Re: does SuperDuper run in Yosemite? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-08-17 14:25 -0400
Re: does SuperDuper run in Yosemite? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-08-17 03:23 +0000
Re: does SuperDuper run in Yosemite? FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2014-08-17 04:44 -0400
Re: does SuperDuper run in Yosemite? dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2014-08-17 21:40 +1200
Re: does SuperDuper run in Yosemite? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-08-16 13:40 +0000
Re: does SuperDuper run in Yosemite? John Albert <j.albert@snet.net> - 2014-08-16 21:55 -0400
Re: does SuperDuper run in Yosemite? M-M <nospam@ny.more> - 2014-08-17 15:16 -0400
Re: does SuperDuper run in Yosemite? FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2014-08-17 21:11 -0400
Re: does SuperDuper run in Yosemite? M-M <nospam@ny.more> - 2014-08-18 09:24 -0400
Re: does SuperDuper run in Yosemite? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-08-11 13:43 +1200
Re: does SuperDuper run in Yosemite? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-08-10 21:52 -0400
Re: does SuperDuper run in Yosemite? George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2014-08-11 08:30 -0500
Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]
| From | Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-08-17 10:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <170820141029217592%michelle@michelle.org> |
| In reply to | #63321 |
In article <c5c2hmFa9oU1@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote: > On 2014-08-17, FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 2014-08-17 02:38:25 +0000, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> said: > > > >> In article <1lqj0py.1vw1pfp16dfavpN%dempson@actrix.gen.nz>, David > >> Empson <dempson@actrix.gen.nz> wrote: > >> > >>> The recovery partition is a required component if you want to enable > >>> FileVault 2 encryption on the main partition, since the system needs to > >>> partly boot via the recovery partition to get to the login prompt and > >>> unlock the main partition. This is a case where a bootable installer > >>> cannot be used as a substitute. > >> > >> good point. > > > > Having never used Filevault, I wouldn't have guessed. > > You don't encrypt your valuable data? Strange. I don't use FileVault either; if someone breaks into my house and steals my computer, he's not going to be interested in what data are on it; he's going to be interested in fencing it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-08-17 18:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <c5c947F1i80U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #63325 |
On 2014-08-17, Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote: > In article <c5c2hmFa9oU1@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger ><jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote: > >> On 2014-08-17, FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> wrote: >> > On 2014-08-17 02:38:25 +0000, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> said: >> > >> >> In article <1lqj0py.1vw1pfp16dfavpN%dempson@actrix.gen.nz>, David >> >> Empson <dempson@actrix.gen.nz> wrote: >> >> >> >>> The recovery partition is a required component if you want to enable >> >>> FileVault 2 encryption on the main partition, since the system needs to >> >>> partly boot via the recovery partition to get to the login prompt and >> >>> unlock the main partition. This is a case where a bootable installer >> >>> cannot be used as a substitute. >> >> >> >> good point. >> > >> > Having never used Filevault, I wouldn't have guessed. >> >> You don't encrypt your valuable data? Strange. > > I don't use FileVault either; if someone breaks into my house and > steals my computer, he's not going to be interested in what data are on > it; he's going to be interested in fencing it. Good luck! -- E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter. I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead. JR
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-08-17 14:25 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <170820141425329114%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #63325 |
In article <170820141029217592%michelle@michelle.org>, Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote: > I don't use FileVault either; if someone breaks into my house and > steals my computer, he's not going to be interested in what data are on > it; he's going to be interested in fencing it. maybe. or maybe the person to whom he fences it finds it interesting.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-08-17 03:23 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <c5algqFlp7kU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #63299 |
On 2014-08-17, David Empson <dempson@actrix.gen.nz> wrote:
>
> The recovery partition has four prominent features:
>
> - Restore from a Time Machine backup
> - Reinstall OS X (via download from Apple)
> - Run a limited version of Safari ("Get Help Online")
> - Run Disk Utility
>
> There are other features which aren't quite so obvious:
>
> - Firmware password utility
> - Network utility
> - Terminal, through which several command line tools are available
> - Reset password utility (via Terminal: resetpassword)
>
> All of the above are also accessible via a bootable installer for the
> appropriate OS X version.
>
> The recovery partition is a required component if you want to enable
> FileVault 2 encryption on the main partition, since the system needs to
> partly boot via the recovery partition to get to the login prompt and
> unlock the main partition. This is a case where a bootable installer
> cannot be used as a substitute.
So it is, in fact, quite useful, IMO.
--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.
JR
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-08-17 04:44 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <lspq1i$vll$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #63299 |
On 2014-08-17 02:37:12 +0000, dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) said:
> FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2014-08-16 06:03:00 +0000, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> said:
>>
>>> In article <lsmlm5$8q2$1@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't think a recovery partition is silly... just not particularly
>>>> useful.
>>>
>>> it can be quite useful and takes up very little space.
>>>
>>>> I think it should be an option, not slipped in with a normal install.
>>>> Most people don't even know it exists... so it doesn't have anything
>>>> besides Disk Utility on it.
>>>
>>> they know about it when a problem occurs, when tech support tells them
>>> to boot into it.
>>>
>>>> The first thing I do after installing a new OS is make a removable Disk
>>>> Utility on a removable. I usually just clone the new OS onto an old
>>>> 150 GB external, with my Utilities added.
>>>>
>>>> Honestly, I thought everybody did something similar...
>>>
>>> they don't.
>>
>> But outside of Disk Utility, what else can you do with a Recovery
>> Partition? If you don't know it's there (and I suspect a lot of people
>> don't) then you wouldn't have put anything useful on it.
>
> Without some hard work, you can't "put" anything on the recovery
> partition. Most of it is in a read-only disk image, and the boot stub is
> also read-only. Apple expects it to be unmodified from what they supply
> so they can update it as necessary.
>
> It is functionally equivalent to the OS X install DVD for 10.6 and
> earlier (apart from needing to download the install images from Apple).
>
> The recovery partition has four prominent features:
>
> - Restore from a Time Machine backup
> - Reinstall OS X (via download from Apple)
> - Run a limited version of Safari ("Get Help Online")
> - Run Disk Utility
>
> There are other features which aren't quite so obvious:
>
> - Firmware password utility
> - Network utility
> - Terminal, through which several command line tools are available
> - Reset password utility (via Terminal: resetpassword)
>
> All of the above are also accessible via a bootable installer for the
> appropriate OS X version.
>
> The recovery partition is a required component if you want to enable
> FileVault 2 encryption on the main partition, since the system needs to
> partly boot via the recovery partition to get to the login prompt and
> unlock the main partition. This is a case where a bootable installer
> cannot be used as a substitute.
That's the best explanation I've seen, so far. Nothing that can't be
accomplished from a normal install I shouldn't think.
Useful if you don't have an extra system...
--
“Irony is wasted on the stupid” -Oscar Wilde
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-08-17 21:40 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <1lqjkea.qa3hro156weibN%dempson@actrix.gen.nz> |
| In reply to | #63314 |
FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2014-08-17 02:37:12 +0000, dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) said:
>
> > FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 2014-08-16 06:03:00 +0000, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> said:
> >>
> >>> In article <lsmlm5$8q2$1@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I don't think a recovery partition is silly... just not particularly
> >>>> useful.
> >>>
> >>> it can be quite useful and takes up very little space.
> >>>
> >>>> I think it should be an option, not slipped in with a normal install.
> >>>> Most people don't even know it exists... so it doesn't have anything
> >>>> besides Disk Utility on it.
> >>>
> >>> they know about it when a problem occurs, when tech support tells them
> >>> to boot into it.
> >>>
> >>>> The first thing I do after installing a new OS is make a removable Disk
> >>>> Utility on a removable. I usually just clone the new OS onto an old
> >>>> 150 GB external, with my Utilities added.
> >>>>
> >>>> Honestly, I thought everybody did something similar...
> >>>
> >>> they don't.
> >>
> >> But outside of Disk Utility, what else can you do with a Recovery
> >> Partition? If you don't know it's there (and I suspect a lot of people
> >> don't) then you wouldn't have put anything useful on it.
> >
> > Without some hard work, you can't "put" anything on the recovery
> > partition. Most of it is in a read-only disk image, and the boot stub is
> > also read-only. Apple expects it to be unmodified from what they supply
> > so they can update it as necessary.
> >
> > It is functionally equivalent to the OS X install DVD for 10.6 and
> > earlier (apart from needing to download the install images from Apple).
> >
> > The recovery partition has four prominent features:
> >
> > - Restore from a Time Machine backup
> > - Reinstall OS X (via download from Apple)
> > - Run a limited version of Safari ("Get Help Online")
> > - Run Disk Utility
> >
> > There are other features which aren't quite so obvious:
> >
> > - Firmware password utility
> > - Network utility
> > - Terminal, through which several command line tools are available
> > - Reset password utility (via Terminal: resetpassword)
> >
> > All of the above are also accessible via a bootable installer for the
> > appropriate OS X version.
> >
> > The recovery partition is a required component if you want to enable
> > FileVault 2 encryption on the main partition, since the system needs to
> > partly boot via the recovery partition to get to the login prompt and
> > unlock the main partition. This is a case where a bootable installer
> > cannot be used as a substitute.
>
> That's the best explanation I've seen, so far. Nothing that can't be
> accomplished from a normal install I shouldn't think.
The "full restore from Time Machine backup", "Reset password" and
"Firmware password" utilities don't exist in a normal installation of OS
X, only on the recovery partition or a bootable installer.
Most if not all of the features of Reset Password can be achieved from a
normally installed system, as long as you have another working admin
account or know/find out how to do the necessary commands in single user
mode.
I don't think there is any easy way to achieve the features of the other
two without a recovery partition or bootable installer.
--
David Empson
dempson@actrix.gen.nz
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-08-16 13:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <c595b7Fc6mqU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #63252 |
On 2014-08-16, FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> wrote: > > I don't think a recovery partition is silly... just not particularly useful. I disagree. It's saved me time (and therefore money) a couple times. > I think it should be an option, not slipped in with a normal install. I disagree. How does it being there by default inconvenience you exactly? > Most people don't even know it exists... so it doesn't have anything > besides Disk Utility on it. They don't need to know it exists until they need it. Then when they learn it exists, I am sure they are (like me) pleased it is there. > The first thing I do after installing a new OS is make a removable Disk > Utility on a removable. I usually just clone the new OS onto an old > 150 GB external, with my Utilities added. > > Honestly, I thought everybody did something similar... The need for such is drastically reduced by the default existence of a recovery partition. Apple is saving people time and money. It's a good thing. -- E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter. I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead. JR
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Albert <j.albert@snet.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-08-16 21:55 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <53f00b96$0$6291$2c56edd9@usenetrocket.com> |
| In reply to | #63252 |
On 8/16/14 12:11 AM, FPP wrote: > > I don't think a recovery partition is silly... just not > particularly useful. I don't think it's useful, either. When I prepped the SSD that I now use as my "external booter", I didn't even put a recovery partition onto it. If I can't boot from it, I have numerous CCC-created clones from which I -can- boot.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | M-M <nospam@ny.more> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-08-17 15:16 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <170820141516486201%nospam@ny.more> |
| In reply to | #63233 |
In article <lsktr3$5n9$1@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> wrote: > Just gave it a shot... Ran Diskwarrior 4.4 first, then went over it > with Disk Utility as a second check. > > Made a clone-able disk image of Yosemite, wiped out the old partition, > and cloned it back. > > It took between 45-55 minutes from start to finish. > > I like the fact that it also deletes the Recovery partition, as well. > -- After I installed Yosemite, I decided it wasn't ready for me so I wanted to go back to my SD clone of Mavericks. I could boot from the SD disk but the transfer failed corrupting everything on my disk. I couldn't even erase it without going into Internet Recovery mode. Luckily I had a Time Machine backup so after erasing the disk I reinstalled a fresh Mavericks and then transferred from my TM backup. Interestingly, it seems I gained about 35 GB of HD space after the whole reinstall. Anyhow I'm happily back with 10.9. And I am not confident that SD will work perfecty with 10.10 at this point. -- m-m http://www.mhmyers.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-08-17 21:11 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <lsrjrk$nhc$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #63336 |
On 2014-08-17 19:16:48 +0000, M-M <nospam@ny.more> said: > In article <lsktr3$5n9$1@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Just gave it a shot... Ran Diskwarrior 4.4 first, then went over it >> with Disk Utility as a second check. >> >> Made a clone-able disk image of Yosemite, wiped out the old partition, >> and cloned it back. >> >> It took between 45-55 minutes from start to finish. >> >> I like the fact that it also deletes the Recovery partition, as well. >> -- > > After I installed Yosemite, I decided it wasn't ready for me so I > wanted to go back to my SD clone of Mavericks. > > I could boot from the SD disk but the transfer failed corrupting > everything on my disk. I couldn't even erase it without going into > Internet Recovery mode. > > Luckily I had a Time Machine backup so after erasing the disk I > reinstalled a fresh Mavericks and then transferred from my TM backup. > > Interestingly, it seems I gained about 35 GB of HD space after the > whole reinstall. > > Anyhow I'm happily back with 10.9. > > And I am not confident that SD will work perfecty with 10.10 at this > point. It worked fine for me, but I don't do live cloning. I make a disk image, and I'm booted into a different partition than I'm backing up from. Backups can be faulty. -- If #2 pencils are so popular, why are they #2?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | M-M <nospam@ny.more> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-08-18 09:24 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <180820140924099972%nospam@ny.more> |
| In reply to | #63343 |
In article <lsrjrk$nhc$1@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> wrote: > > And I am not confident that SD will work perfecty with 10.10 at this > > point. > > It worked fine for me, but I don't do live cloning. I make a disk > image, and I'm booted into a different partition than I'm backing up > from. > > Backups can be faulty. I was able to boot from the SD disk and run it fine, it's just that I was not able to restore from it when Yosemite was running. -- m-m http://www.mhmyers.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-08-11 13:43 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <110820141343447140%YourName@YourISP.com> |
| In reply to | #63133 |
In article <mya97b2891.fsf@Sunburn.Stanford.EDU>, Martin Frost me at invalid stanford daht edu <nospam@stanford.edu.invalid> wrote: > William Hanna <whanna@invalid.invalid> writes: > > > > > You made a conscious choice not to run the beta, yet felt qualified to > > > > Give a non-answer based on your choice, not your knowledge. > > > > > > Not so. I /know/ that SuperDuper will be updated as necessary for > > > Yosemite. > > > > Well, to be accurate, you don't KNOW that. > > Well, to be really accurate, YOU don't know THAT. > > Perhaps Davoud has been in contact with the author of SuperDuper. Or even *IS* the developer. > Of course, *knowing* anything about the future is technically > impossible, unless you're a time traveler from the future. Yep, the developer may be planning and even working on the updated version, but then gets squashed by a herd of stampeding elephants tomorrow before releasing the new version. ;-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-08-10 21:52 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <100820142152123953%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #63138 |
In article <110820141343447140%YourName@YourISP.com>, Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote: > > > > > You made a conscious choice not to run the beta, yet felt qualified to > > > > > Give a non-answer based on your choice, not your knowledge. > > > > > > > > Not so. I /know/ that SuperDuper will be updated as necessary for > > > > Yosemite. > > > > > > Well, to be accurate, you don't KNOW that. > > > > Well, to be really accurate, YOU don't know THAT. > > > > Perhaps Davoud has been in contact with the author of SuperDuper. > > Or even *IS* the developer. he isn't.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-08-11 08:30 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <D00E2FC1.AE63F%ghost_topper@hotmail.com> |
| In reply to | #63133 |
On 8/10/14 7:13 PM, in article mya97b2891.fsf@Sunburn.Stanford.EDU, "Martin Frost me at invalid stanford daht edu" <nospam@stanford.edu.invalid> wrote: > William Hanna <whanna@invalid.invalid> writes: > >>>> You made a conscious choice not to run the beta, yet felt qualified to >>>> Give a non-answer based on your choice, not your knowledge. >>> >>> Not so. I /know/ that SuperDuper will be updated as necessary for >>> Yosemite. >> >> Well, to be accurate, you don't KNOW that. > > Well, to be really accurate, YOU don't know THAT. > > Perhaps Davoud has been in contact with the author of SuperDuper. > Who hasn't?!? Dave is ALWAYS in his garage, willing to answer ALL inquiries...
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]
Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system
csiph-web