Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #56757
| From | billy@MIX.COM |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.sys.mac.system |
| Subject | Re: Super Duper v. CCC for rotating/incremental backups. |
| Date | 2014-02-20 16:20 +0000 |
| Organization | PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC |
| Message-ID | <le59vr$6ig$2@reader2.panix.com> (permalink) |
| References | <gaednTV_Y74tupjOnZ2dnUVZ_oadnZ2d@giganews.com> |
Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> writes:
> In light of such a backup which is better (for baseline + incremental),
> Super Duper or CCC?
CCC can archive old stuff. As well, it is a more flexible tool.
I've never asked for support on either one, but Mike Bombich's
(CCC) web site is far more informative - lots of good info there.
> At what frequency are the incrementals reasonably applied? (daily?)
One can never have too many backups. I do them daily, and then for
things that require a lot of work, several times a day. I am not
(currently, anyway) using time machine.
> Anyone using B-Ray burners on a Mac? Comments?
I like DVD-RAM. Great defect management, does reads after writes,
etc. The only problem now is they seem to be going the way of the
floppy disk, M/O, etc. Panasonic will no longer sell me media -
they haven't said so, but I'm guessing they're no longer making
them. They stopped doing the drives a few years ago.
With plain optical media, I always make two copies.....
Billy Y..
--
sub #'9+1 ,r0 ; convert ascii byte
add #9.+1 ,r0 ; to an integer
bcc 20$ ; not a number
Back to comp.sys.mac.system | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Super Duper v. CCC for rotating/incremental backups. Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-02-19 16:52 -0500
Re: Super Duper v. CCC for rotating/incremental backups. Jim Gibson <jimsgibson@gmail.com> - 2014-02-19 16:15 -0800
Re: Super Duper v. CCC for rotating/incremental backups. Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-02-20 00:39 +0000
Re: Super Duper v. CCC for rotating/incremental backups. me@home.spamsucks.ca (Király) - 2014-02-20 03:09 +0000
Re: Super Duper v. CCC for rotating/incremental backups. Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-02-20 15:22 +0000
Re: Super Duper v. CCC for rotating/incremental backups. billy@MIX.COM - 2014-02-20 16:10 +0000
Re: Super Duper v. CCC for rotating/incremental backups. Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-02-20 16:33 +0000
Re: Super Duper v. CCC for rotating/incremental backups. Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-02-20 17:44 +0000
Re: Super Duper v. CCC for rotating/incremental backups. Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-02-20 17:52 +0000
Re: Super Duper v. CCC for rotating/incremental backups. Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-02-21 01:32 +0000
Re: Super Duper v. CCC for rotating/incremental backups. Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-02-21 17:13 +0000
Re: Super Duper v. CCC for rotating/incremental backups. Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-02-20 17:39 -0500
Re: Super Duper v. CCC for rotating/incremental backups. Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-02-21 01:33 +0000
Re: Super Duper v. CCC for rotating/incremental backups. Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-02-20 20:44 -0500
Re: Super Duper v. CCC for rotating/incremental backups. Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-02-20 17:37 -0500
Re: Super Duper v. CCC for rotating/incremental backups. Ned Mantei <ned.mantei@biol.ethz.ch> - 2014-02-20 09:21 +0100
Re: Super Duper v. CCC for rotating/incremental backups. billy@MIX.COM - 2014-02-20 16:20 +0000
Re: Super Duper v. CCC for rotating/incremental backups. Bread <BreadWithSpam@Fractious.net> - 2014-02-25 15:49 -0800
csiph-web