 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#9
10-17-2007, 06:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
This is what is so confusing for me (and I'm sure others). The link to the article above says that:
"Time Machine is designed to provide automatic “temporal” backup" As I understood it the main reason why we still needed SuperDuper is because Time Machine does not make a bootable backup. However since Apple has updated their Time Machine page it now says: "Time Machine copies the entire contents of the computer to your backup drive. It copies every file exactly (without compression), skipping caches and other files that aren’t required to restore your Mac to its original state." So if it's copying the entire contents and every file, why wouldn't the backup drive be bootable? 
|
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Future of SuperDuper? (in light of Leopard Time Machine) | backerupper3160 | General | 10 | 10-20-2007 10:18 PM |
| A SuperDuper Back Up Strategy | Bagelturf | General | 3 | 09-09-2007 01:23 PM |
| Why is SuperDuper not running at scheduled time? | Chris_Porter | General | 18 | 07-15-2007 03:33 AM |
| Leopard Time Machine vs. SuperDuper | MMM | General | 5 | 07-05-2007 05:20 PM |
| write problems after cloning machine | mkrueger | General | 13 | 12-31-2004 07:17 PM |
Threaded Mode