Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

skybolt · Nov 2, 2009, 11:04 AM

Long story, but apple tech said I should do an archive and install to correct a problem I have been having. I have first gen. macbook, so disks are probably Tiger (or whatever came before Leopard). If I do the archive, will it keep my updates to things like Snow Leopard, iLife 09 etc? Or will I need to use Migration Assistant to get info back from a SuperDuper backup on an external drive? Or jwill I need to update all software first?

As an alternative, I thought I might just go ahead and do a complete clean install. Same question, will Migration Assistant bring back updates from an external, or would I need to do the clean install, update to Snow Leopard, iLife, etc., and then use Migration Assistant to bring the rest back.

Thanks for help and advice!

OreoCookie · Nov 2, 2009, 12:58 PM

If you do an Archive & Install, you won't have to use Migration Assistant at all. Your data is taken straight from the existing directory structure. Some apps need to be reinstalled, though.

By the way, once you have Snow Leopard, you should forego backups via Super Duper and use Time Machine instead.

Simon · Nov 2, 2009, 01:48 PM

There is no A&I in SL. In SL it's just a regular update.

Oreo is right about MA. It's only necessary when you start from a clean installation.

Also, get rid of Super Duper. Cloning can be done with OS X's built-in cloning tool. It's 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 destination to get a bootable clone in block-copy mode (fast!).

Big Mac · Nov 2, 2009, 02:52 PM

If you choose to do an Erase and Install, you use Migration Assistant after the installation as part of the main setup assistant when the system restarts after the installation. Or, you can launch it from the Finder afterward at any time.

Hal Itosis · Nov 2, 2009, 04:34 PM

Originally Posted by Simon

Also, get rid of Super Duper. Cloning can be done with OS X's built-in cloning tool. It's 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.

Cloning? Who says "cloning" is all SuperDuper is good for? Many people use it for a regular **bootable** backup. If the HD croaks (or the OS wanders off into Wonderland) during the middle of something, they can boot off the SuperDuper backup and get back to working [or whatever] in a matter of minutes. Later on -- when time permits -- they can see about finding and fixing the particular problem.

The occasional clone job for which Disk Utility is useful simply can't compare to what programs like SuperDuper (and CCC) offer.

Get over it already.

Art Vandelay · Nov 2, 2009, 04:52 PM

Sounds like what you'd use Disk Utility for too.

Simon · Nov 2, 2009, 05:38 PM

Of course! But while Disk Utility is just fast and rock stable, SuperDuper and CCC like to cause problems. That's just soo much more exciting. Especially when people are in trouble and need to restore from what they thought was a "good clone".

Hal Itosis · 08:13 PM

Originally Posted by Art Vandelay

Sounds like what you'd use Disk Utility for too.

Sure... if one wanted to recopy every.single.file on their disk 2 or 3 times a day.

[DU doesn't do incremental/differential backups... but you knew that, right?]

Originally Posted by Simon

Of course! But while Disk Utility is just fast and rock stable, SuperDuper and CCC like to cause problems. That's just soo much more exciting. Especially when people are in trouble and need to restore from what they thought was a "good clone".

If that were even close to being true, there would be dozens of posts to that effect every single day. I realize your myth and your mission have no bounds... but somewhere there is room for balanced *factual* information. One can dig up posts where "DU failed" here and there too you know. [Anyway, seems like 25% of all problems reported on the net is PEBKAC.]

So... apparently your solution for a bootable backup is to clone the entire HD, huh?
Okay. How many times a day should we do that then? [How many times a day do you?]

Art Vandelay · Nov 2, 2009, 08:13 PM

Originally Posted by Hal Itosis

Sure... if one wanted to recopy every.single.file on their disk 2 or 3 times a day.

[DU doesn't do *incremental* backups... but you knew that, right?]

You didn't mention running it multiple times a day and incrementals. Plus, back off!

I was just mentioning that what you described was no different than what Simon described with DU.

Simon · 06:14 AM

A clone can only be considered a reliable clone as long as it's a one-time snapshot and bit-by-bit copy of another volume. As soon as you tamper with it (incrementals, space saving, etc.) it's by definition not a clone. It's actually rather a type of backup. One that TM obviously does much better than any cloning tool.

There is no doubt about how often hacks like SD and CCC have failed and left people with "clones" that don't work when they were supposed to. This board has seen it all. The best chances you'd have with such a tool is when you use it in a way that it invokes Apple's built-in asr command-line tool. And that's something Disk Utility does too, but for free.

There was a time when backups were complicated. Those were the times of tools like SD and CCC. But then asr was given a GUI in Disk Utility and eventually TM was launched. Backups and clones are now stable and easy. They're built-in functionality and they come for free on every Mac. Time to let thing like SD and CCC go. Considering how much trouble they caused in the past a great thing.

Hal Itosis · Nov 3, 2009, 03:29 AM

Originally Posted by Simon

A clone can only be considered a reliable clone as long as it's a one-time snapshot and bit-by-bit copy of another volume. As soon as you tamper with it (incrementals, space saving, etc.) it's by definition not a clone. It's actually rather a type of backup.

Right, backup. Precisely the point. As i said: SuperDuper is not a mere cloning tool. People also use it for regular bootable backups.

Originally Posted by Simon

One that TM obviously does much better than any cloning tool.

Except if the HD goes south or the OS goes totally bonkers... and you're at work in the middle of a project when it happens. With a backup like SD provides, we restart... option-boot into the backup (which may be only 3 hours, or 3 minutes old) and get back to finishing the job to meet the 4PM deadline. How does that work with Time Machine? Let's see... boot from the system dvd, and [after the 10 minutes it takes to give us a menu] then what? Restore to the HD plagued with bad blocks? No, i guess not. Well... what then? The clock is ticking.

Originally Posted by Simon

There is no doubt about how often hacks like SD and CCC have failed and left people with "clones" that don't work when they were supposed to. This board has seen it all.

Many boards have seen many things. How strange it is that i never had problems booting from any CCC clone i ever made... mostly in Jaguar & Panther. [What could get weird -sometimes- was repairing the HD when booted from a clone... but that can happen with any clone... though i never saw it.]

Originally Posted by Simon

The best chances you'd have with such a tool is when you use it in a way that it invokes Apple's built-in asr command-line tool. And that's something Disk Utility does to, but for free.

Disk Utility isn't the only tool that uses asr, so does CCC. And you know where a lot of users got confused? They would make clones to disk *images* thinking they could boot from the image file (not realizing it needs to be written out to a real disk first -- PEBKAC). And now you're taking their confusion and perpetuating myths to further confuse users. Many, many OSX utilities can make bootable backups. It's not rocket science. Although, SuperDuper did it better than most...

http://blog.plasticsfuture.org/2006/...nder-mac-os-x/
http://blog.plasticsfuture.org/2006/...tware-harmful/
http://blog.plasticsfuture.org/2006/...roken-in-1046/

Hmm, those links seem dead now, maybe the server is down [but google's cache seems to hold text-only versions: 1 2 3.] Anyway, your knowledge of history does seem pretty selective. Offhandedly telling the OP to "get rid of SuperDuper" is not exactly brilliant advice, IMO.

So, how often do *you* clone with DU then? [already asked, in case you missed it.]

skybolt · Nov 3, 2009, 11:27 AM

Originally Posted by Simon

There is no A&I in SL. In SL it's just a regular update.

Oreo is right about MA. It's only necessary when you start from a clean installation.

What you are missing is that I intended to use my ORIGINAL restore disks (that came with my computer) so that I will have all the apps that came with it originally. The question is, that if I do an archive and install (or even a clean install) from those disks, would migration assistant upgrade to snow leopard, iLife, etc, or would I need to manually do those upgrades?

Simon · Nov 3, 2009, 12:17 PM

No. MA will not do the SL upgrade for you.

You install the OS first, then you run MA. In your case that would mean installing 10.x, updating to SL, and then running MA.