|
|
Mac to Mac Time Machine?
|
|
|
|
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Tomorrow
Status:
Offline
|
|
Can a Time Machine backup be used to transfer files from one Mac to another? Hoping for migration using a simpler process than cloning a whole drive. Only looking to move documents, music and photos from an old Macbook to a new MBP. Old MB was running TM on an external. Can I just plug the drive into the MBP, select what I want to move and restore?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Madison, WI (College) and Frankfurt, Germany (Home)
Status:
Offline
|
|
If you have a firewire cable, just use the target disk mode.
Shut down the old MBP (new MBP should be on) and connect the two laptops using the firewire cable. Now start the old MBP while pressing T. Now a Firewire Symbol should appear on the old MBP and the HDD should appear as an external on the new MBP.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Tomorrow
Status:
Offline
|
|
Thanks Biest. I'll give that a try.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status:
Offline
|
|
Yes, of course, you can use a Time Machine backup to migrate your computer. All you need to do is make sure that your last backup is up to date
|
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2004
Status:
Offline
|
|
restoring to a new mac via time machine backups is definitely the second choice route. Use it only if you have a new Mac because the old ones hard drive up and died. TM restores are slooooow and leave out myriads of cache files etc.
Using migration assistant via firewire target disk mode is much faster. It also works via ethernet for later versions of the OS but it's not as fast as firewire for some reason and I've had a few migrations flake out using ethernet but no problems ever using firewire.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status:
Offline
|
|
I don't think they're any slower than restores via Target Disk Mode: usually the interface limits the data transfer rate. The cache files that aren't backed up are also not needed (they'll be recreated when needed). I don't think it's a good idea to spread FUD about this.
|
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by oreocookie
i don't think it's a good idea to spread fud about this.
qft.
|
•
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2004
Status:
Offline
|
|
Time machine restores are designed to be used as a restore when your old drive has failed. That's the whole point of time machine. While you can restore a new machine from it, the fact remains that it is way way way slower than using firewire. I've dome both (many times) and the fire wire method gets the job doen in a couple of hours. The TM route, that's an overnighter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Andrew Stephens
Time machine restores are designed to be used as a restore when your old drive has failed. That's the whole point of time machine. While you can restore a new machine from it, the fact remains that it is way way way slower than using firewire. I've dome both (many times) and the fire wire method gets the job doen in a couple of hours. The TM route, that's an overnighter.
I haven't seen much of a difference. If you restore 100~200 GB of data, then it makes no sense to sit next to the machine. It will take hours. It doesn't really matter if it takes an hour longer. I haven't restored from Time Machine all that often (maybe twice, three times), but I didn't feel such a substantial difference to block copies (I bought a cheap USB enclosure, perhaps that's why?).
|
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Dec 2000
Status:
Offline
|
|
When I got my MBP and restored it from Time Machine, it was faster than TDM. Why? Because my external hard drive supported FireWire 800, whereas my old iMac only supported 400.
I, too, don't get the FUD. Target Disk Mode is great, but if you've already got the hard drive there and you're going to hook it up to your new Mac anyway, it's much easier just to restore from that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Andrew Stephens
While you can restore a new machine from it, the fact remains that it is way way way slower than using firewire.
Who says you don't also use FW when you restore from TM. What does the bus have to do with the type of backup? Nothing.
What I gather from this thread is that you have no idea what you are talking about.
|
•
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
I don't understand the distinction you're drawing between Time Machine and Firewire either. One is a backup technology and the other is a serial bus interface.
|
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Wasilla, Alaska
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Andrew Stephens
Time machine restores are designed to be used as a restore when your old drive has failed. That's the whole point of time machine.
So I'm not supposed to use Time Machine to retrieve a file I deleted by mistake?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2004
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by AKcrab
So I'm not supposed to use Time Machine to retrieve a file I deleted by mistake?
Well dur! But we were talking about full restores here.
However...(dunces cap on), I realise that I had mentally read time capsule for time machine, which I only twigged when I read simons pointy stick post. oops
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Rules
|
|
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|