Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

mg196 · Mar 29, 2009, 03:54 PM

Well, after 6 years, it was time for an iMac upgrade! My 15" flat-screen G4 has been at its limit for quite a while, and as soon as my tax return came in I logged into the Apple Store. Thankfully, there was a delay in my Tax Return, because if it would have arrived earlier, I would have purchased a refurb'd old one.

I went with the standard keyboard/numeric keypad (too convenient to pass on), upgraded to 4GB RAM and 640GB HD.

A couple questions:

1) I am looking for some suggestions regarding backup up specific files on my new iMac. Currently, I keep all my iTunes/iPhoto files on an external drive. I think those are the most valuable files I have. Does Apple include some built-in back-up software?

2) iPhoto sharing: Currently, I am unable to share iPhoto (100% shared, including edit/delete functions) between two "log-ins," so all the screen names on my computer now go to a shared "virtual drive" on the external-HD, which permits this. Will I still need to do this on my new iMac?

3) I hope to hook up my new iMac wirelessly to my router. Is this a viable option, or should I still rely on ethernet?

OK, that's all I got for now. Thanks!

olePigeon · Mar 29, 2009, 04:43 PM

1. Leopard includes Time Machine, but I don't know how it handles external drives. It's usually used to back up whatever drive you're Mac is actually using. However, you can get a free program called Carbon Copy Cloner. CCC is really easy to use and you can use it to set up a regular backup schedule.

2. I don't know. Maybe someone else has a good suggestion.

3. Wireless should be OK. I'm pretty sure the new iMac has 802.11n which is supposed to be fast.

adamfishercox · Mar 29, 2009, 04:59 PM

1) Time Machine will work fine.

2) Probably, yes.

3) Ethernet is always faster, but if you want to put it in a place where Ethernet isn't an option, wireless will be just fine.

jretzner · Mar 29, 2009, 11:07 PM

Time Machine works fine, backing up my 2.8 iMac to one of my external HDs. SuperDuper also works fine, backing up my iMac to my second external HD.

Simon · Mar 30, 2009, 03:27 AM

Why use the $28 SuperDuper when faster and more reliable cloning is built right into OS X?

/Applications/Utilities/Disk Utility > Restore

(select erase destination for really fast block copies)

Maflynn · Mar 31, 2009, 06:11 AM

Time machines handles external drives quite easily and seamlessly. Either for the destination or as part of your backup strategy.

jretzner · Apr 1, 2009, 10:53 PM

Why use the $28 SuperDuper when faster and more reliable cloning is built right into OS X?

I've never used that utility. Does it make a bootable disk?

Simon · 02:38 AM

SD costs $28.

Disk Utility's Restore is built into every installation of OS X for free. It makes super-fast, bootable clones and it's rock stable. It hasn't had a tenth of the issues SD or CCC have had in the past.

You really don't want to pay for a bootable clone.

steve626 · Apr 18, 2009, 11:23 PM

Originally Posted by Simon

SD costs $28.

Disk Utility's Restore is built into every installation of OS X for free. It makes super-fast, bootable clones and it's rock stable. It hasn't had a tenth of the issues SD or CCC have had in the past.

You really don't want to pay for a bootable clone.

I know this issue has been discussed extensively elsewhere. But in fact, SuperDuper is free (just as is Disk Utility). When you pay the $28 fee, you get an enhanced version of SuperDuper that allows for "smart updates" which take only about ~ 1/20 as long to do since only files changed/modified/added since the last clone are copied. This is a huge advantage that Disk Utility does not offer. To be able to run a "smart update" at the end of the day and have it finish in a few minutes versus having to wait for more than an hour for a clone to be done is what makes the $28 worth it for many people. If one is able to simply leave the computer alone to run the clone for a few hours (which is how long cloning large disks can take), then Disk Utility would be fine.

I work at a company where we have several thousand Macs in use, and there are many dozens of SuperDuper users there. I have never heard about issues with SuperDuper among those users. No program is bug free, and perhaps earlier versions were less reliable, but today SuperDuper is very reliable.

Cold Warrior · Apr 18, 2009, 11:38 PM

It sounds like smart update is incremental. Time Machine is incremental too and it comes with Leopard (although you may not be using Leopard).

turtle777 · Apr 19, 2009, 12:37 AM

Originally Posted by mg196

2) iPhoto sharing: Currently, I am unable to share iPhoto (100% shared, including edit/delete functions) between two "log-ins," so all the screen names on my computer now go to a shared "virtual drive" on the external-HD, which permits this. Will I still need to do this on my new iMac?

No, there are other ways of sharing a iPhoto library.

Apple suggests this:
http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1198

If you are more adventurous, you can also modify the ACL and put the iPhoto Library into Users/Shared/
http://www.macosxhints.com/article.p...&lsrc=osxh

Here's some more good background information:
http://tech.kateva.org/2008/10/apple...er-iphoto.html

Whatever you do, don't forget: iPhoto is not a multi-user app., it does not have the code to negotiate two users simultaneously writing to the database, and trying will cause db corruption. So only one user at a time.

-t

Simon · 04:05 AM

Originally Posted by Cold Warrior

It sounds like smart update is incremental. Time Machine is incremental too and it comes with Leopard (although you may not be using Leopard).

Exactly! So with SD you get to pay $28 for something that is free and built into OS X. Why pay those guys $28 when Time Machine is free? CCC and SD had their glory days. But they're over now. And people should stop wasting money and time when OS X offers better built-in solutions.

steve626 · Apr 19, 2009, 01:58 PM

Originally Posted by Simon

Exactly! So with SD you get to pay $28 for something that is free and built into OS X. Why pay those guys $28 when Time Machine is free? CCC and SD had their glory days. But they're over now. And people should stop wasting money and time when OS X offers better built-in solutions.

For those still using 10.4 (some people still are), Carbon Copy Cloner and SuperDuper offer an incremental update feature that Mac OS X does not offer.

And for those who wish to make a working "clone" of their disk (for some people, there are good reasons for doing this), Time Machine does not offer that feature, although it does offer incremental backups for the portions of the disk that it does back up.

B Gallagher · Apr 19, 2009, 02:25 PM

Exactly. Time Machine is amazing, and I could not recommend it strongly enough. However, I just started using CCC as well, simply for the fact that the clones it makes are bootable, whereas Time Machine's are not. If Apple made Time Machine backups bootable in 10.6 then I'd no longer have any need to use CCC.

Simon · Apr 19, 2009, 02:29 PM

Clones have been in OS X forever. No need for CCC (or it's bugs) there either.

OS X's built-in cloning tool is rock solid, it's very fast and it's of course free. You'll find it on every OS X installer DVD and on every OS X installation.

/Applications/Utilities/Disk Utility > Restore.

Select erase backup to get a bootable clone in block-copy mode (fast!).

steve626 · Apr 19, 2009, 03:13 PM

What you say is basically correct, except that the "smart update" type features in CCC and SD run more than an order of magnitude times faster than the Disk Utility/Restore approach (even with its fast block copies). It really depends how much disk space needs to be "smart updated." For me (and many others where I work), this time savings is way more than worth the $28 one-time payment (think about the value of peoples' time day after day). We all know about Disk Utility/Restore, have used it, we know it's free, and know about its pros and cons. For us, the pros of SD far outweigh any disadvantages (we don't see any in daily use frankly). By the way, I think CCC is still free (and its incremental updates run much faster than Disk Utility/Restore as well).

There's nothing wrong with Disk Utility. When it provides an incremental (changed files only) option, I'll start using it again.

Simon · Apr 20, 2009, 01:22 AM

Clones should never be incremental. Far to risky when you're relying on a 'clone' (as in 'exact copy'). Which is also why ASR cloning is not and will never be incremental.

TM is for incremental backups.

Clones and backups can (and should) exist side by side. They serve different purposes. And for both their are fast and reliable tools built into OS X. People are of course free to spend money on third-party solutions and deal with their bugs (just check the version notes of CCC and SD to get an idea of what kind of problems they have had), but anybody who wants reliability and efficiency will be glad to know that all he/she needs is already buit right into OS X for free.

bindigok · Apr 25, 2009, 10:43 PM

Originally Posted by mg196

3) I hope to hook up my new iMac wirelessly to my router. Is this a viable option, or should I still rely on ethernet?

This really depends on your router. What speed is it? ...b, g, or n? If it is not "n" and you have high speed internet, go with using the wired ethernet cable. Use the link below to determine which is the fastest connection. My router is so old, and my new iMac is so fast on high speed - but only when I'm wired.

http://www.speakeasy.net/speedtest/