Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #53781
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.sys.mac.system |
| Subject | Re: dmg; SuperDuper vs Disk Utility |
| Date | 2013-12-24 15:05 -0500 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <241220131505166231%nospam@nospam.invalid> (permalink) |
| References | <SalmonEgg-347A7C.09272024122013@news80.forteinc.com> |
In article <SalmonEgg-347A7C.09272024122013@news80.forteinc.com>, Salmon Egg <SalmonEgg@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > As I understand it, SuperDuper allows cloning a disk image, but Apple's > Disk Utility allows you to do the same thing. What is the relative > advantage/disadvantage of these apps? superduper can do an incremental clone, copying only changed files. it's *much* faster. another option is carbon copy cloner. it has a few more features but it's slower, unless you're cloning the entire drive and ccc can do a block copy (it can't always).
Back to comp.sys.mac.system | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
dmg; SuperDuper vs Disk Utility Salmon Egg <SalmonEgg@sbcglobal.net> - 2013-12-24 09:27 -0800
Re: dmg; SuperDuper vs Disk Utility Tom Stiller <clusterfux.upmon@gmail.com> - 2013-12-24 17:38 +0000
Re: dmg; SuperDuper vs Disk Utility me@home.spamsucks.ca (Király) - 2013-12-24 17:48 +0000
Re: dmg; SuperDuper vs Disk Utility nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-12-24 15:05 -0500
Re: dmg; SuperDuper vs Disk Utility nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-12-24 15:05 -0500
Re: dmg; SuperDuper vs Disk Utility Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-12-24 20:12 +0000
Re: dmg; SuperDuper vs Disk Utility Michael Vilain <vilain@NOspamcop.net> - 2013-12-24 19:08 -0800
csiph-web