Time Machine: Spit!!!
Elliott Roper
giant hand crafted backups into my external drive array for the first
time ever and TIme Machine without so much as a by your leave deleted 2
months of history to make room for stuff I never wanted to be backed up
for the third time, and then, because I had the preference set to do
so, had the sheer hide to crow that it had pooched my daily history
record.
Is there any way to tell it to update itself from selected places only
instead of its brain-dead exclude mechanism? I never got a chance to
exclude the disk full of vault before it merrily destroyed all the
history I really wanted to keep.
Is there any way to get it to ask before laying waste to ones backup
strategy?
I'm not a happy bunny. I think I'll bin it for super duper. At least I
have some control over what gets backed up.
--
To de-mung my e-mail address:- fsnospam$elliott$$
PGP Fingerprint: 1A96 3CF7 637F 896B C810 E199 7E5C A9E4 8E59 E248
Andy Hewitt
> I chucked a 1TB drive full of stuff like Aperture vaults and other
> giant hand crafted backups into my external drive array for the first
> time ever and TIme Machine without so much as a by your leave deleted 2
> months of history to make room for stuff I never wanted to be backed up
> for the third time, and then, because I had the preference set to do
> so, had the sheer hide to crow that it had pooched my daily history
> record.
>
> Is there any way to tell it to update itself from selected places only
> instead of its brain-dead exclude mechanism? I never got a chance to
> exclude the disk full of vault before it merrily destroyed all the
> history I really wanted to keep.
>
> Is there any way to get it to ask before laying waste to ones backup
> strategy?
>
> I'm not a happy bunny. I think I'll bin it for super duper. At least I
> have some control over what gets backed up.
I think I just immediately hit the 'Cancel' button, then added my
'excludes'.
You could probably temporarily turn it off, connect drive, add it to the
excludes, and then turn it back on again.
I did notice that it has an option to notify you *after* it has deleted
old files. Nice!
--
Andy Hewitt
<http://web.me.com/andrewhewitt1/>
Elliott Roper
<thewil...@me.com> wrote:
> Elliott Roper <nos...@yrl.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > I chucked a 1TB drive full of stuff like Aperture vaults and other
> > giant hand crafted backups into my external drive array for the first
> > time ever and TIme Machine without so much as a by your leave deleted 2
> > months of history to make room for stuff I never wanted to be backed up
> > for the third time, and then, because I had the preference set to do
> > so, had the sheer hide to crow that it had pooched my daily history
> > record.
> >
> > Is there any way to tell it to update itself from selected places only
> > instead of its brain-dead exclude mechanism? I never got a chance to
> > exclude the disk full of vault before it merrily destroyed all the
> > history I really wanted to keep.
> >
> > Is there any way to get it to ask before laying waste to ones backup
> > strategy?
> >
> > I'm not a happy bunny. I think I'll bin it for super duper. At least I
> > have some control over what gets backed up.
>
> I think I just immediately hit the 'Cancel' button, then added my
> 'excludes'.
>
> You could probably temporarily turn it off, connect drive, add it to the
> excludes, and then turn it back on again.
That will work I guess. It is a royal pain as I start using the
external enclosure like a floppy drive on Viagra for managing my
offsite backups nicely. If I turn Time Machine off while playing
postman until it learns all my drives it will probably be OK.
> I did notice that it has an option to notify you *after* it has deleted
> old files. Nice!
That was the icing on this cow-pie cake!
Bella Jones
> In article <1j9ebuw.1wpcxgkr5al70N%thewil...@me.com>, Andy Hewitt
> <thewil...@me.com> wrote:
>
> > Elliott Roper <nos...@yrl.co.uk> wrote:
[...]
> > >
> > > Is there any way to get it to ask before laying waste to ones backup
> > > strategy?
> > >
> > > I'm not a happy bunny. I think I'll bin it for super duper. At least I
> > > have some control over what gets backed up.
> >
> > I think I just immediately hit the 'Cancel' button, then added my
> > 'excludes'.
> >
> > You could probably temporarily turn it off, connect drive, add it to the
> > excludes, and then turn it back on again.
>
> That will work I guess. It is a royal pain as I start using the
> external enclosure like a floppy drive on Viagra for managing my
> offsite backups nicely. If I turn Time Machine off while playing
> postman until it learns all my drives it will probably be OK.
> > I did notice that it has an option to notify you *after* it has deleted
> > old files. Nice!
> That was the icing on this cow-pie cake!
I HATE TIME MACHINE.
Thanks.
--
bellajonez at yahoo dot co dot uk
Hugh Browton
(in article <181120092051497178%nos...@yrl.co.uk>):
>
> I'm not a happy bunny. I think I'll bin it for super duper. At least I
> have some control over what gets backed up.
>
>
Not only that, but when TM fails it doesn't bother with useful error
messages. I use it in conjunction with another, more trustworthy backup
system for my home folder, and I won't recommend TM to any client who is
really concerned about backing up. It's a bit like other some Apple products
- looks pretty, doesn't do a bad job, but you can't actually TRUST it to do
what is needed.
--
regards
hugh
hugh at clarity point uk point co
(by the sea) (using Hogwasher)
"The question of whether Machines Can Think... is about as relevant as the
question of whether Submarines Can Swim." Edsger Dijkstra (1930-2002)
Sak Wathanasin
> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 20:51:49 +0000, Elliott Roper wrote
> (in article <181120092051497178%nos...@yrl.co.uk>):
>
>
>
> > I'm not a happy bunny. I think I'll bin it for super duper. At least I
> > have some control over what gets backed up.
>
> Not only that, but when TM fails it doesn't bother with useful error
> messages. I use it in conjunction with another, more trustworthy backup
> system for my home folder, and I won't recommend TM to any client who is
> really concerned about backing up. It's a bit like other some Apple products
> - looks pretty, doesn't do a bad job, but you can't actually TRUST it to do
> what is needed.
I'm not a big fan of TM either - you can't control the schedule except
by removing/turning off the backup drive. And why does the TM appl
have to take over the whole screen for Pete's sake? If you have a
simple workflow that fits the TM user model, it's fine, but as soon as
you deviate from that, TM doesn't have enough configurablility to
allow you to adjust it.
I use TM at home, where it's better than nothing, and Use Retrospect
in the office, but that has its foibles too (the worst is that it
won't wake the Mac up to do a backup).
Jon B
> Elliott Roper <nos...@yrl.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > In article <1j9ebuw.1wpcxgkr5al70N%thewil...@me.com>, Andy Hewitt
> > <thewil...@me.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Elliott Roper <nos...@yrl.co.uk> wrote:
> [...]
> > > >
> > > > Is there any way to get it to ask before laying waste to ones backup
> > > > strategy?
> > > >
> > > > I'm not a happy bunny. I think I'll bin it for super duper. At least I
> > > > have some control over what gets backed up.
> > >
> > > I think I just immediately hit the 'Cancel' button, then added my
> > > 'excludes'.
> > >
> > > You could probably temporarily turn it off, connect drive, add it to the
> > > excludes, and then turn it back on again.
> >
> > That will work I guess. It is a royal pain as I start using the
> > external enclosure like a floppy drive on Viagra for managing my
> > offsite backups nicely. If I turn Time Machine off while playing
> > postman until it learns all my drives it will probably be OK.
> > > I did notice that it has an option to notify you *after* it has deleted
> > > old files. Nice!
> > That was the icing on this cow-pie cake!
>
> I HATE TIME MACHINE.
>
> Thanks.
Probably why I've never looked at TM and stuck with ChronoSync as I've
never really seen any posts to encourage me otherwise.
--
Jon B
Above email address IS valid.
<http://www.bramley-computers.co.uk/> Apple Laptop Repairs.
Hugh Browton
(in article
<a5f17fd8-7d8a-4fdb...@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>):
I use Personal Backup from Intego - simple enough and doesn't encrypt the
backup. Previous version (4) had best settings and interface - current
version (5) a bit more tricksie - why do they do that?
zoara
> Is there any way to tell it to update itself from selected places only
> instead of its brain-dead exclude mechanism?
Not that I know of. What I do is have a folder which is already
excluded, and when I'm moving around huge and/or temporary files, I drop
then into this folder. Why am I so prepared? Because I've been bitten in
a very similar way to you.
I think this is one of those instances where Apple has chosen to do
something that's better for the numpty (backing everything up unless
specifically told not to means that stuff will actually end up being
backed up) but bites the more advanced user on the arse.
-zoara-
--
email: nettid1 at fastmail dot fm
Dorian Gray
Hugh Browton <useneth@**.not.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 10:49:49 +0000, Sak Wathanasin wrote
> (in article
> <a5f17fd8-7d8a-4fdb...@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>):
>
> > I use TM at home, where it's better than nothing, and Use Retrospect
> > in the office, but that has its foibles too (the worst is that it
> > won't wake the Mac up to do a backup).
>
> I use Personal Backup from Intego - simple enough and doesn't encrypt the
> backup. Previous version (4) had best settings and interface - current
> version (5) a bit more tricksie - why do they do that?
I use SugarSync, takes a long time in the background the first time, but
then keeps whatever you choose constantly remotely backed up, with
versioning, and syncing across machines of arbitrary platforms.
If you like, let me know if you want to sign up, if I send you an invite
we both get some free space.
Bella Jones
> Bella Jones <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
> > Elliott Roper <nos...@yrl.co.uk> wrote:
[...]
> > > That was the icing on this cow-pie cake!
> >
> > I HATE TIME MACHINE.
> >
> > Thanks.
>
> Probably why I've never looked at TM and stuck with ChronoSync as I've
> never really seen any posts to encourage me otherwise.
Time Machine is the fucktard of the software world.
Rowland McDonnell
[snip]
> I think this is one of those instances where Apple has chosen to do
> something that's better for the numpty (backing everything up unless
> specifically told not to means that stuff will actually end up being
> backed up) but bites the more advanced user on the arse.
Isn't that the thinking behind *everything* on Macs these days?
Apple provides stuff for numpties and for the Gods - the rest of us can
go hang.
Rowland.
--
Remove the animal for email address: rowland....@dog.physics.org
Sorry - the spam got to me
http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk
UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
Elliott Roper
<1259456736280317033.1...@news.individual.net>, zoara
<me...@privacy.net> wrote:
Yep. It is very cute to use for the first couple of times, then after
it has bitten you the cuteness evaporates. Tying up a 1TB disk slot and
then throwing stuff away unbidden is just not worth it. I'm off to get
SuperDuper or RsyncX to do a proper job. With a little effort I can
smarten up my offsite malarkey at the same time.
Tim Streater
Oh come on, the pair of you. You're confusing it with spinoza1111.
I'm backing up my Mini (in fact only parts of it) to SWMBO's Mini using
TM. I've had no noticeable issues with it.
Woody
Well, I think time machine is a lovely cuddly bear of an application
that has saved me a lot of hassle several times.
--
Woody
David Sankey
Tim Streater <timst...@waitrose.com> wrote:
Now that I'm emerging from upgrade from Tiger to Leopard I would say
that Time Machine seems to be doing exactly what I want so far.
Only thing I haven't figured out yet is correct incantation to run it
from the command line as root (backupd-helper starts it but then it's a
different process).
Not TM, but my biggest surprise was that upgrading Tiger to Leopard
turns the firewall off.
Kind regards,
Dave
Chris Ridd
> Not TM, but my biggest surprise was that upgrading Tiger to Leopard
> turns the firewall off.
The two firewalls are rather different, so that was probably the safest
and most compatible option.
--
Chris
R
> Isn't that the thinking behind *everything* on Macs these days?
>
> Apple provides stuff for numpties and for the Gods - the rest of us can
> go hang.
If it did not already exist, would Apple invent AppleScript today?
Andy Hewitt
> In article <dLydnWIL4vaWx5jW...@brightview.co.uk>,
> Tim Streater <timst...@waitrose.com> wrote:
>
> > Bella Jones wrote:
> > > Jon B <black...@jonbradbury.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Bella Jones <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Elliott Roper <nos...@yrl.co.uk> wrote:
> > > [...]
> > >>>> That was the icing on this cow-pie cake!
> > >>> I HATE TIME MACHINE.
> > >>>
> > >>> Thanks.
> > >> Probably why I've never looked at TM and stuck with ChronoSync as I've
> > >> never really seen any posts to encourage me otherwise.
> > >
> > > Time Machine is the fucktard of the software world.
> >
> > Oh come on, the pair of you. You're confusing it with spinoza1111.
> >
> > I'm backing up my Mini (in fact only parts of it) to SWMBO's Mini using
> > TM. I've had no noticeable issues with it.
>
> Now that I'm emerging from upgrade from Tiger to Leopard I would say
> that Time Machine seems to be doing exactly what I want so far.
Yes, similarly here. I agree it isn't without faults, but it does all I
need it too here.
Martin S Taylor
>>>> Time Machine is the fucktard of the software world.
>>>
>>> Oh come on, the pair of you. You're confusing it with spinoza1111.
>>>
>>> I'm backing up my Mini (in fact only parts of it) to SWMBO's Mini using
>>> TM. I've had no noticeable issues with it.
>>
>> Now that I'm emerging from upgrade from Tiger to Leopard I would say
>> that Time Machine seems to be doing exactly what I want so far.
>
> Yes, similarly here. I agree it isn't without faults, but it does all I
> need it too here.
I think the people who are so against it are those who don't do telephone
user support for their parents.
MST
Andy Hewitt
<grin>
Yes, I know where you're coming from there!
T i m
wrote:
>> >
>> > I'm backing up my Mini (in fact only parts of it) to SWMBO's Mini using
>> > TM. I've had no noticeable issues with it.
>>
>> Now that I'm emerging from upgrade from Tiger to Leopard I would say
>> that Time Machine seems to be doing exactly what I want so far.
>
>Yes, similarly here. I agree it isn't without faults, but it does all I
>need it too here.
As I mentioned a bit back I'm using one of these:
http://www.maplin.co.uk/module.aspx?moduleno=341961
Plug it into your PC/Mac and into yer USB drive and it does it all for
you.
I've been running it after every big batch of document scanning and
the file count seems to reflect pretty accurately what I've been
doing.
Probably not expensive or unpredictable (or white) enough for most Mac
users but that makes it perfect for me. ;-)
Cheers, T i m
Andy Hewitt
> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 19:20:59 +0000, thewil...@me.com (Andy Hewitt)
> wrote:
>
>
> >> >
> >> > I'm backing up my Mini (in fact only parts of it) to SWMBO's Mini using
> >> > TM. I've had no noticeable issues with it.
> >>
> >> Now that I'm emerging from upgrade from Tiger to Leopard I would say
> >> that Time Machine seems to be doing exactly what I want so far.
> >
> >Yes, similarly here. I agree it isn't without faults, but it does all I
> >need it too here.
>
> As I mentioned a bit back I'm using one of these:
>
> http://www.maplin.co.uk/module.aspx?moduleno=341961
But that's another �30 on top of a hard drive, and as far as I can see,
doesn't really have any advantage over Time Machine.
It also doesn't seem to have anyway to control what drives are backed up
either (reading the FAQ answers) - I have four external volumes here,
which I exclude from Time Machine, as they are for storage of large
stuff, like scratch file, my Aperture Library, and the backup Vaults for
that, as well as a Super Duper clone.
You actually need to exclude the Aperture Library from live backups
while Aperture is in use - that's more to do with how Aperture uses the
library though.
> Plug it into your PC/Mac and into yer USB drive and it does it all for
> you.
So does Time Machine if you leave it at default settings, which most
probably will do. OK, so it's one click to say 'Yes' (or 'No') to using
an external drive for Time Machine, but big deal.
> I've been running it after every big batch of document scanning and
> the file count seems to reflect pretty accurately what I've been
> doing.
>
> Probably not expensive or unpredictable (or white) enough for most Mac
> users but that makes it perfect for me. ;-)
Erm, it's *more* expensive than my current Mac setup! Time Machine is
included with the OS, and seems to work predictably enough on my system
- at least as *I* expect it to work anyway :-).
Possibly a good solution for those on older systems that don't have Time
Machine though.
T i m
wrote:
>>
>> http://www.maplin.co.uk/module.aspx?moduleno=341961
>
>But that's another �30 on top of a hard drive, and as far as I can see,
>doesn't really have any advantage over Time Machine.
Other than if you don't have TM or OSX you mean, ;-)
>
>It also doesn't seem to have anyway to control what drives are backed up
>either (reading the FAQ answers) -
I've looked into that a bit and I think you can add folders but then I
think it takes away it's automation to some degree. Or you can set it
to do a complete backup. Obviously not the same as a disk image but at
least it could be done by yer Nan. ;-)
> I have four external volumes here,
>which I exclude from Time Machine, as they are for storage of large
>stuff, like scratch file, my Aperture Library, and the backup Vaults for
>that, as well as a Super Duper clone.
I think this dongle would just see any 'data', although you can taylor
the file types considered as 'data' so may be able to exclude that
sort of stuff?
>
>You actually need to exclude the Aperture Library from live backups
>while Aperture is in use - that's more to do with how Aperture uses the
>library though.
Ok.
>
>> Plug it into your PC/Mac and into yer USB drive and it does it all for
>> you.
>
>So does Time Machine if you leave it at default settings, which most
>probably will do. OK, so it's one click to say 'Yes' (or 'No') to using
>an external drive for Time Machine, but big deal.
It appears this solution might also need a click to TM ... like 'No'
don't use it'. ;-) Unfortunately it also seems happy to restore the
existing data that's on there (telling me it's a windows backup) but
didn't give me any backup options., probably because there was no Mac
friendly space on the external drive. I'll pop it in W7 and shrink
that partition down and then use DU to put a suitable one on there as
well (what type would I need)?
>
>>
>> Probably not expensive or unpredictable (or white) enough for most Mac
>> users but that makes it perfect for me. ;-)
>
>Erm, it's *more* expensive than my current Mac setup!
Well, because you have TM on there.
> Time Machine is
>included with the OS,
10.5 + as I understand it?
> and seems to work predictably enough on my system
>- at least as *I* expect it to work anyway :-).
I'm sure you are right (although not so for some there).
>
>Possibly a good solution for those on older systems that don't have Time
>Machine though.
Or less tekky family members with Windows as well (to make full use of
it and do something TM couldn't do).
I also like it's portability. You could take your backup to any
machine with no matching backup software and restore your data. Or
backup that machine etc, and to any USB drive (they sell a ClickFree
drive as well).
How would TM cope under that scenario (multiple machines locally to
the same drive shared about)?
Cheers, T i m
Andy Hewitt
> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 21:47:13 +0000, thewil...@me.com (Andy Hewitt)
> wrote:
>
> >>
> >> http://www.maplin.co.uk/module.aspx?moduleno=341961
> >
> >But that's another �30 on top of a hard drive, and as far as I can see,
> >doesn't really have any advantage over Time Machine.
>
> Other than if you don't have TM or OSX you mean, ;-)
Quite, but this is a thread about TM!
> >It also doesn't seem to have anyway to control what drives are backed up
> >either (reading the FAQ answers) -
>
> I've looked into that a bit and I think you can add folders but then I
> think it takes away it's automation to some degree. Or you can set it
> to do a complete backup. Obviously not the same as a disk image but at
> least it could be done by yer Nan. ;-)
Yes, so can TM at it's most basic level though. Plug in a hard drive,
and click 'Yes'.
> > I have four external volumes here,
> >which I exclude from Time Machine, as they are for storage of large
> >stuff, like scratch file, my Aperture Library, and the backup Vaults for
> >that, as well as a Super Duper clone.
>
> I think this dongle would just see any 'data', although you can taylor
> the file types considered as 'data' so may be able to exclude that
> sort of stuff?
Unless it has software included to control it, I don't see how. The
implications are that it has no such control.
[..]
> >So does Time Machine if you leave it at default settings, which most
> >probably will do. OK, so it's one click to say 'Yes' (or 'No') to using
> >an external drive for Time Machine, but big deal.
>
> It appears this solution might also need a click to TM ... like 'No'
> don't use it'. ;-) Unfortunately it also seems happy to restore the
> existing data that's on there (telling me it's a windows backup) but
> didn't give me any backup options., probably because there was no Mac
> friendly space on the external drive. I'll pop it in W7 and shrink
> that partition down and then use DU to put a suitable one on there as
> well (what type would I need)?
That may not work, although I'm not sure, as I've not tried it myself.
For TM to use a drive it does need to be formatted in HFS+ with a GUID
or Apple Partition map. Formatting a partition to HFS+ is fine, but
you'll have to set all partitions to the same partition map type - it
won't work on a MBR disk, or one formatted for Windows (according to
Help).
> >> Probably not expensive or unpredictable (or white) enough for most Mac
> >> users but that makes it perfect for me. ;-)
> >
> >Erm, it's *more* expensive than my current Mac setup!
>
> Well, because you have TM on there.
Yes.
> > Time Machine is
> >included with the OS,
>
> 10.5 + as I understand it?
Correct.
> > and seems to work predictably enough on my system
> >- at least as *I* expect it to work anyway :-).
>
> I'm sure you are right (although not so for some there).
Being a little pedantic, it works 'predictably', but not always in a
manner that some require. That's the same for most software though - you
can't please all of the people all of the time, etc.
> >Possibly a good solution for those on older systems that don't have Time
> >Machine though.
>
> Or less tekky family members with Windows as well (to make full use of
> it and do something TM couldn't do).
Would a 'less tekky' family member be likely to have both a Mac and
Windows machine? In the case of different family members having their
own machine, would you really want to risk all their backups on one
piece of hardware?
I have a Windows machine here, but it's not got anything on it that even
warrants the cost of a cheap backup drive, however, it has one, and I
just use the built in backup software as supplied with Windows (which
took a lot more effort than TM).
> I also like it's portability. You could take your backup to any
> machine with no matching backup software and restore your data. Or
> backup that machine etc, and to any USB drive (they sell a ClickFree
> drive as well).
>
> How would TM cope under that scenario (multiple machines locally to
> the same drive shared about)?
It's possible, although not necessarily cheaply. I can do it by
connecting a drive to my Airport Extreme, and then all Macs with TM can
backup to that drive. Personally I wouldn't do that, it's just increased
risk of losing backup data for multiple machines IMHO.
I certainly wouldn't want to be using a single backup drive as a source
for multiple machines though. Far too much risk of losing stuff for my
liking.
The whole point of TM is to be able to restore, whether it's a new hard
drive, or a reinstall, or to a newly purchased Mac. You can choose to
restore from a given point in time, and whether to restore an entire
system, or just user data.
All the best.
Flavio Matani
Same here. Quite a few times.
--
flavio matani
guitar tuition
http://www.flaviomatani.co.uk
http://fflavio.com
David Sankey
thewil...@me.com (Andy Hewitt) wrote:
Which raises the biggest flaw that I see with it, it ignores your Trash.
When we were running weekly snapshots it would invariably be the
Wastebasket that contained the file that we were trying to resurrect
after the event...
Kind regards,
Dave
T i m
wrote:
>Quite, but this is a thread about TM!
Since when has that made any difference. ;-)
>
>> >It also doesn't seem to have anyway to control what drives are backed up
>> >either (reading the FAQ answers) -
>>
>> I've looked into that a bit and I think you can add folders but then I
>> think it takes away it's automation to some degree. Or you can set it
>> to do a complete backup. Obviously not the same as a disk image but at
>> least it could be done by yer Nan. ;-)
>
>Yes, so can TM at it's most basic level though. Plug in a hard drive,
>and click 'Yes'.
Ok.
>
>> > I have four external volumes here,
>> >which I exclude from Time Machine, as they are for storage of large
>> >stuff, like scratch file, my Aperture Library, and the backup Vaults for
>> >that, as well as a Super Duper clone.
>>
>> I think this dongle would just see any 'data', although you can taylor
>> the file types considered as 'data' so may be able to exclude that
>> sort of stuff?
>
>Unless it has software included to control it, I don't see how.
It does and that's *the point* of this dongle. It has a virtual CD
thing like these USB BB dongles that autorun on insertion.
> The
>implications are that it has no such control.
Plug in, click 'Yes' to the agreement (the first time on that machine)
and away it goes.
>
>[..]
>> It appears this solution might also need a click to TM ... like 'No'
>> don't use it'. ;-) Unfortunately it also seems happy to restore the
>> existing data that's on there (telling me it's a windows backup) but
>> didn't give me any backup options., probably because there was no Mac
>> friendly space on the external drive. I'll pop it in W7 and shrink
>> that partition down and then use DU to put a suitable one on there as
>> well (what type would I need)?
>
>That may not work, although I'm not sure, as I've not tried it myself.
This backup dongle onto an external drive with a suitable Mac
partition?
>For TM to use a drive it does need to be formatted in HFS+ with a GUID
>or Apple Partition map. Formatting a partition to HFS+ is fine, but
>you'll have to set all partitions to the same partition map type - it
>won't work on a MBR disk, or one formatted for Windows (according to
>Help).
So what would you recommend for a file system for this Mini / Backup
(under OSX) then please?
>
>> > and seems to work predictably enough on my system
>> >- at least as *I* expect it to work anyway :-).
>>
>> I'm sure you are right (although not so for some there).
>
>Being a little pedantic, it works 'predictably', but not always in a
>manner that some require.
That's not quite what I'm reading here (but I could easily be reading
'it ate my data' and not realising that was what it was supposed to do
... under any circumstances).
> That's the same for most software though - you
>can't please all of the people all of the time, etc.
<Nods>
>
>> >Possibly a good solution for those on older systems that don't have Time
>> >Machine though.
>>
>> Or less tekky family members with Windows as well (to make full use of
>> it and do something TM couldn't do).
>
>Would a 'less tekky' family member be likely to have both a Mac and
>Windows machine?
Quite possibly (my Mum and Dad have one each). My point was more that
with the dongle you CAN do both.
> In the case of different family members having their
>own machine, would you really want to risk all their backups on one
>piece of hardware?
Versus not doing a backup at all, yes.
>
>I have a Windows machine here, but it's not got anything on it that even
>warrants the cost of a cheap backup drive, however, it has one, and I
>just use the built in backup software as supplied with Windows (which
>took a lot more effort than TM).
Indeed, 'takes effort'. I was just mentioning this dongle thing (in a
thread about backing up) as something that some might find handy for
their friends / family that they know they should do some sort of
backup but don't.
>
>> I also like it's portability. You could take your backup to any
>> machine with no matching backup software and restore your data. Or
>> backup that machine etc, and to any USB drive (they sell a ClickFree
>> drive as well).
>>
>> How would TM cope under that scenario (multiple machines locally to
>> the same drive shared about)?
>
>It's possible, although not necessarily cheaply. I can do it by
>connecting a drive to my Airport Extreme, and then all Macs with TM can
>backup to that drive. Personally I wouldn't do that, it's just increased
>risk of losing backup data for multiple machines IMHO.
And way way too complicated. This was just a practical down_n_dirty
solution that would allow even the most lazy and non technical person
actually have a reasonable chance of saving some of their most
important data.
>
>I certainly wouldn't want to be using a single backup drive as a source
>for multiple machines though. Far too much risk of losing stuff for my
>liking.
Me neither, so we share the dongle but have a drive each. ;-)
>
>The whole point of TM is to be able to restore, whether it's a new hard
>drive, or a reinstall, or to a newly purchased Mac. You can choose to
>restore from a given point in time, and whether to restore an entire
>system, or just user data.
Of course and from what I've read here (of those who have actually got
TM running and had to use it in earnest and it has behaved as they
expected ... which isn't everyone by the look of it) it's a very
clever / good solution.
I was only making light hearted comparisons. ;-)
Cheers, T i m
Tim Streater
> Of course and from what I've read here (of those who have actually got
> TM running and had to use it in earnest and it has behaved as they
> expected ... which isn't everyone by the look of it) it's a very
> clever / good solution.
Not sure what you mean by "got it working", as if I have to re-install
the OS with a magnifying glass and a bar magnet as my only tools.
If you backup to a disk on your own machine, its a couple of clicks (and
more if you want to exclude it from backing up everything, obviously).
If you back up to a disk *not* on your machine, then the extra
complication is limited to ensuring that the drive you want to back up
to is mounted and writeable.
I do both of these and it was dead simple. Occasionally the backup of
mine onto hers fails, but that is due to something fishy with how 10.5
seems not to find disks from time to time when the other machine is
asleep and I don't wake it up soon enough. Nothing to do with TM - when
that happens I can't access those disks, full stop. Then I have to
fiddle with Finder->Go->Connect to server which usually fixes it, and I
then tell it to back up and it does so. No data lost, you'll note.
T i m
<timst...@waitrose.com> wrote:
>On 20/11/2009 10:09, T i m wrote:
>
>> Of course and from what I've read here (of those who have actually got
>> TM running and had to use it in earnest and it has behaved as they
>> expected ... which isn't everyone by the look of it) it's a very
>> clever / good solution.
>
>Not sure what you mean by "got it working",
Nor do I ... where did I say that?
All I am suggesting is that TM isn't a suitable solution for everyone,
even those who have access to it and would like to like it.
>as if I have to re-install
>the OS with a magnifying glass and a bar magnet as my only tools.
?
>
>If you backup to a disk on your own machine, its a couple of clicks (and
>more if you want to exclude it from backing up everything, obviously).
Ok?
>
>If you back up to a disk *not* on your machine, then the extra
>complication is limited to ensuring that the drive you want to back up
>to is mounted and writeable.
>
Ok?
>I do both of these and it was dead simple.
It must have been! <ducks>
>Occasionally the backup of
>mine onto hers fails,
Ok.
> but that is due to something fishy with how 10.5
>seems not to find disks from time to time when the other machine is
>asleep and I don't wake it up soon enough. Nothing to do with TM - when
>that happens I can't access those disks, full stop.
Fair enough (well not but I know what you mean).
> Then I have to
>fiddle with Finder->Go->Connect to server which usually fixes it, and I
>then tell it to back up and it does so. No data lost, you'll note.
Because you get that fixed before her machine crashes I've noted, yes.
Anyway, I have no issues with TM and am glad it works for you.
Cheers, T i m
Sak Wathanasin
> If you backup to a disk on your own machine, its a couple of clicks (and
> more if you want to exclude it from backing up everything, obviously).
I agree that it works well for people who use OSX as it comes. The
trouble comes if you have a more complicated setup, or if, as Eliiot
found out, when you start running out of space on the backup drive.
There is no way to say to TM: "the 'Accounts' folder is important; if
you have to delete something, delete those episodes of 'Eastenders'
that I haven't time to watch" or v.v. as the case may be.
The more recent versions of iTunes has started doing something similar
when syncing to the iPhone, much to my annoyance. If I have less than
300 MB or so on the iPhone, when I sync, it'll decide to delete my
photos on the iPhone so that it can "squeeze" the latest podcast on.
To the untrained eye, 50 MB or so of podcast could fit into the 300 MB
of free space, but what the heck, let's delete 700 MB of photos just
to make sure we have enough room, and what's more, let's not bother
telling the user we've done this.
Steve Firth
> I'm not a happy bunny. I think I'll bin it for super duper. At least I
> have some control over what gets backed up.
I found rsync to be better for many of my requirements. I've been
running TM to see what it's like. Love the interface, completely bemused
by what it's doing. Just a month of backing up a 160GB disk that sees
very few changes of data (most of it is on a server) and Time Machine
has gobbled 500Gb and has announced that it needs more or it will start
deleting stuff. Huh?
Tim Streater
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 10:49:08 +0000, Tim Streater
> <timst...@waitrose.com> wrote:
>
>> On 20/11/2009 10:09, T i m wrote:
>>
>>> Of course and from what I've read here (of those who have actually got
>>> TM running and had to use it in earnest and it has behaved as they
>>> expected ... which isn't everyone by the look of it) it's a very
>>> clever / good solution.
>>
>> Not sure what you mean by "got it working",
>
> Nor do I ... where did I say that?
Oh, my mistake, you said "... got TM running ..." right above - as if
somehow its reeeely complicated.
>> Then I have to
>> fiddle with Finder->Go->Connect to server which usually fixes it, and I
>> then tell it to back up and it does so. No data lost, you'll note.
>
> Because you get that fixed before her machine crashes I've noted, yes.
You have an odd idea of what a "crash" is then, if you consider
sleep-and then-awake to be a crash. I never mentioned crashes and there
weren't any.
Even if hers crashed there still wouldn't be any data loss.
David Sankey
%steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
Entourage?
Big database file touched every time you check mail, so always needs to
be copied
Antivirus?
Certainly Sophos seems to update everything each time it updates
As these will be automatically recreated from servers should the need
arise I'm more than happy to exclude them and have subsequently seen the
size of each incremental backup plummet. Also MS recommend excluding
their database from TM...
Kind regards,
Dave
Tim Streater
> On 20 Nov, 10:49, Tim Streater<timstrea...@waitrose.com> wrote:
>
>> If you backup to a disk on your own machine, its a couple of clicks (and
>> more if you want to exclude it from backing up everything, obviously).
>
> I agree that it works well for people who use OSX as it comes. The
> trouble comes if you have a more complicated setup, or if, as Eliiot
> found out, when you start running out of space on the backup drive.
> There is no way to say to TM: "the 'Accounts' folder is important; if
> you have to delete something, delete those episodes of 'Eastenders'
> that I haven't time to watch" or v.v. as the case may be.
Agreed, but then TM isn't an archiving system, it's a backup system. For
older data you get a granularity of a week, and that's usually
sufficient. If 'accounts' is that important such that you *must* be able
to retrieve its state on 4th June 2009 at 12.00, then archive it some
other way.
Andy Hewitt
> In article <1j9g1ui.5rdwydrv9r0rN%thewil...@me.com>,
> thewil...@me.com (Andy Hewitt) wrote:
>
> > Martin S Taylor <m...@hRyEpMnOoVtEiTsHm.cIo.uSk> wrote:
[..]
> > > I think the people who are so against it are those who don't do telephone
> > > user support for their parents.
> >
> > <grin>
> >
> > Yes, I know where you're coming from there!
>
> Which raises the biggest flaw that I see with it, it ignores your Trash.
> When we were running weekly snapshots it would invariably be the
> Wastebasket that contained the file that we were trying to resurrect
> after the event...
Hmmm, hadn't though of that, although I empty my own trash very quickly
anyway, so the file I trashed should still be where it was in a past
backup. Is it not there in the hidden '.Trashes' file?
Andy Hewitt
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 00:14:09 +0000, thewil...@me.com (Andy Hewitt)
> wrote:
>
>
> >Quite, but this is a thread about TM!
>
> Since when has that made any difference. ;-)
Oh so true :-/
[..]
> >Unless it has software included to control it, I don't see how.
>
> It does and that's *the point* of this dongle. It has a virtual CD
> thing like these USB BB dongles that autorun on insertion.
OK, fair enough. The Maplin page doesn't make that clear.
> > The
> >implications are that it has no such control.
>
> Plug in, click 'Yes' to the agreement (the first time on that machine)
> and away it goes.
OK.
> >[..]
>
> >> It appears this solution might also need a click to TM ... like 'No'
> >> don't use it'. ;-) Unfortunately it also seems happy to restore the
> >> existing data that's on there (telling me it's a windows backup) but
> >> didn't give me any backup options., probably because there was no Mac
> >> friendly space on the external drive. I'll pop it in W7 and shrink
> >> that partition down and then use DU to put a suitable one on there as
> >> well (what type would I need)?
> >
> >That may not work, although I'm not sure, as I've not tried it myself.
>
> This backup dongle onto an external drive with a suitable Mac
> partition?
No, mixing a Windows partition with a Mac Partition. I expect you'll
have to choose one partition map system, although you can choose
different formats on each partition.
> >For TM to use a drive it does need to be formatted in HFS+ with a GUID
> >or Apple Partition map. Formatting a partition to HFS+ is fine, but
> >you'll have to set all partitions to the same partition map type - it
> >won't work on a MBR disk, or one formatted for Windows (according to
> >Help).
>
> So what would you recommend for a file system for this Mini / Backup
> (under OSX) then please?
For best results:
PPC Mac, partition Apple Partition Map
Intel Mac, Partition GUID
> >> > and seems to work predictably enough on my system
> >> >- at least as *I* expect it to work anyway :-).
> >>
> >> I'm sure you are right (although not so for some there).
> >
> >Being a little pedantic, it works 'predictably', but not always in a
> >manner that some require.
>
> That's not quite what I'm reading here (but I could easily be reading
> 'it ate my data' and not realising that was what it was supposed to do
> ... under any circumstances).
No, that was quite predictable, although maybe not expected by the OP. A
case of RTFM IMHO!
TM backs up your data, creating a timeline of everything you've saved,
or deleted. You can go back to any time or date and pick out a file you
deleted, or may have become corrupt, and restore it to the main system.
You can also reinstall a user, or a full bootable system, either from a
previous point, or just the latest. Obviously a file created and deleted
in between hourly saves isn't going to be in the backup.
The timeline extends back as far as the data will fit onto your backup
drive. Once it's full, TM has to, obviously, make room for new files to
be added, so the oldest files are deleted in a rolling fashion.
When the OP attatched an external drive, TM attempted to back this up
(any drives attached can be backed up), but before it could be excluded.
TM will have looked at the data on the new drive, and calculated the
space needed, so will have had to delete enough files in the existing
backup to make room for the new data.
Quite predictable, no?
I agree that this may not be ideal in some cases, particularly where a
TM backup drive is getting full. Apple do give recommendations about
capacity required for TM drives, based on the source drives.
A simple solution is to simply turn off TM while you attach an external
drive, and add it to the exclusion list. It should then ignore it each
time it's attached.
> > That's the same for most software though - you
> >can't please all of the people all of the time, etc.
>
> <Nods>
> >
> >> >Possibly a good solution for those on older systems that don't have Time
> >> >Machine though.
> >>
> >> Or less tekky family members with Windows as well (to make full use of
> >> it and do something TM couldn't do).
> >
> >Would a 'less tekky' family member be likely to have both a Mac and
> >Windows machine?
>
> Quite possibly (my Mum and Dad have one each). My point was more that
> with the dongle you CAN do both.
>
> > In the case of different family members having their
> >own machine, would you really want to risk all their backups on one
> >piece of hardware?
>
> Versus not doing a backup at all, yes.
There is that of course.
> >I have a Windows machine here, but it's not got anything on it that even
> >warrants the cost of a cheap backup drive, however, it has one, and I
> >just use the built in backup software as supplied with Windows (which
> >took a lot more effort than TM).
>
> Indeed, 'takes effort'. I was just mentioning this dongle thing (in a
> thread about backing up) as something that some might find handy for
> their friends / family that they know they should do some sort of
> backup but don't.
Fair enough.
> >> I also like it's portability. You could take your backup to any
> >> machine with no matching backup software and restore your data. Or
> >> backup that machine etc, and to any USB drive (they sell a ClickFree
> >> drive as well).
> >>
> >> How would TM cope under that scenario (multiple machines locally to
> >> the same drive shared about)?
> >
> >It's possible, although not necessarily cheaply. I can do it by
> >connecting a drive to my Airport Extreme, and then all Macs with TM can
> >backup to that drive. Personally I wouldn't do that, it's just increased
> >risk of losing backup data for multiple machines IMHO.
>
> And way way too complicated. This was just a practical down_n_dirty
> solution that would allow even the most lazy and non technical person
> actually have a reasonable chance of saving some of their most
> important data.
Not really that complicated, just too expensive (although I do have an
Airport Extreme).
> >I certainly wouldn't want to be using a single backup drive as a source
> >for multiple machines though. Far too much risk of losing stuff for my
> >liking.
>
> Me neither, so we share the dongle but have a drive each. ;-)
Righto - meaning that your backup isn't constant on one machine then?
> >The whole point of TM is to be able to restore, whether it's a new hard
> >drive, or a reinstall, or to a newly purchased Mac. You can choose to
> >restore from a given point in time, and whether to restore an entire
> >system, or just user data.
>
> Of course and from what I've read here (of those who have actually got
> TM running and had to use it in earnest and it has behaved as they
> expected ... which isn't everyone by the look of it) it's a very
> clever / good solution.
I think it behaves perfectly well, you just need to understand what it's
doing, that's all.
> I was only making light hearted comparisons. ;-)
I was actually quite puzzled that they've made a rare bit of Mac
supported hardware, that's actually pretty much redundant. For anyone
with 10.5 and and external drive, I can't see any reason for buying this
dongle.
However, for Windows users, particularly those before Vista, and those
with earlier than Mac OS 10.5, it is a good suggestion for sure.
T i m
<timst...@waitrose.com> wrote:
>Oh, my mistake, you said "... got TM running ..." right above - as if
>somehow its reeeely complicated.
Np. I've not tried TM so I don't know how complicated it is or isn't,
all I know is you can't use it if you don't have it. I've just found a
little USB laptop drive I'm about to format under OSX to see what this
dongle backup does when it finds something it can backup onto.
>>> Then I have to
>>> fiddle with Finder->Go->Connect to server which usually fixes it, and I
>>> then tell it to back up and it does so. No data lost, you'll note.
>>
>> Because you get that fixed before her machine crashes I've noted, yes.
>
>You have an odd idea of what a "crash" is then, if you consider
>sleep-and then-awake to be a crash.
The suggestion (had you not been a Vulcan) is that 'in the event of a
total data loss, a backup that was never done (due to some minor
technicality) is no use to anyone.
> I never mentioned crashes and there
>weren't any.
Nor did I. I was talking about a hypothetical crash.
>Even if hers crashed there still wouldn't be any data loss.
Oh dear ...
T i m
Tim Streater
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 12:30:45 +0000, Tim Streater
> <timst...@waitrose.com> wrote:
> The suggestion (had you not been a Vulcan) is that 'in the event of a
> total data loss, a backup that was never done (due to some minor
> technicality) is no use to anyone.
1) Hers is a complete backup (I may have excluded caches etc) so "in the
event of a total data loss" a complete restore onto a new disk from TM
should presumably work. As the TM disk is local to her machine the
backups don't fail, ever. If a backup is *never* done then you're
buggered anyway, as you have no backup.
2) Mine (over the network) is *not* a complete backup (and was never
meant to be). I've excluded almost everything and only backup my working
files. The stuff that's *really* important I'm also archiving onto a USB
stick from time to time.
T i m
wrote:
>> It does and that's *the point* of this dongle. It has a virtual CD
>> thing like these USB BB dongles that autorun on insertion.
>
>OK, fair enough. The Maplin page doesn't make that clear.
I thought I had though. 'You plug it in and it backs up all your data'
. ;-)
>
>> So what would you recommend for a file system for this Mini / Backup
>> (under OSX) then please?
>
>For best results:
>
>PPC Mac, partition Apple Partition Map
>Intel Mac, Partition GUID
Ok, I'll try that in a mo on this USB laptop drive.
>
>> That's not quite what I'm reading here (but I could easily be reading
>> 'it ate my data' and not realising that was what it was supposed to do
>> ... under any circumstances).
>
>No, that was quite predictable, although maybe not expected by the OP. A
>case of RTFM IMHO!
Ah <gulp>.
>
>TM backs up your data, creating a timeline of everything you've saved,
>or deleted. You can go back to any time or date and pick out a file you
>deleted, or may have become corrupt, and restore it to the main system.
>You can also reinstall a user, or a full bootable system, either from a
>previous point, or just the latest. Obviously a file created and deleted
>in between hourly saves isn't going to be in the backup.
Ok.
>
>The timeline extends back as far as the data will fit onto your backup
>drive. Once it's full, TM has to, obviously, make room for new files to
>be added, so the oldest files are deleted in a rolling fashion.
Ok.
>
>When the OP attatched an external drive, TM attempted to back this up
>(any drives attached can be backed up), but before it could be excluded.
>TM will have looked at the data on the new drive, and calculated the
>space needed, so will have had to delete enough files in the existing
>backup to make room for the new data.
>
>Quite predictable, no?
Maybe predictable but with no warning? Can you set it to warn you,
like you can with the Windows updates? ;-)
>
>I agree that this may not be ideal in some cases, particularly where a
>TM backup drive is getting full. Apple do give recommendations about
>capacity required for TM drives, based on the source drives.
K
>
>A simple solution is to simply turn off TM while you attach an external
>drive, and add it to the exclusion list. It should then ignore it each
>time it's attached.
Ok.
>
>
>>
>> Versus not doing a backup at all, yes.
>
>There is that of course.
And that's my point. I know *many* people who would never do a regular
backup, some who still wouldn't, even after losing a load of valuable
data. This dongle is the nearest thing I've ever come across to a
solution for those people.
>
>> >I certainly wouldn't want to be using a single backup drive as a source
>> >for multiple machines though. Far too much risk of losing stuff for my
>> >liking.
>>
>> Me neither, so we share the dongle but have a drive each. ;-)
>
>Righto - meaning that your backup isn't constant on one machine then?
Erm (not quite sure I understand your question) meaning that one
backup drive (automatically / intelligently) shared between several
machines is better than no backups on any machine. Better is one
backup drive per machine (and we nearly have that here) but that
would be option 2.
>
>> Of course and from what I've read here (of those who have actually got
>> TM running and had to use it in earnest and it has behaved as they
>> expected ... which isn't everyone by the look of it) it's a very
>> clever / good solution.
>
>I think it behaves perfectly well, you just need to understand what it's
>doing, that's all.
So those that don't use it (but have tried it) do so because they
understand it doesn't work for them.
>
>> I was only making light hearted comparisons. ;-)
>
>I was actually quite puzzled that they've made a rare bit of Mac
>supported hardware,
;-)
>that's actually pretty much redundant. For anyone
>with 10.5 and and external drive, I can't see any reason for buying this
>dongle.
I hadn't spotted that. As you say, not quite as much use *unless* you
just wanted this as a cross platform plug_and_play 'independent
solution.
>However, for Windows users, particularly those before Vista, and those
>with earlier than Mac OS 10.5, it is a good suggestion for sure.
No, as you mentioned up there ^ it' needs 10.5 to run so less use on
the Mac side. As for Vista / W7 I've not tried it on them as yet (but
can).
Interesting to see what Ubuntu makes of it. ;-)
Cheers, T i m
p.s. When I plug the dongle into this Mini under OSX, first TM offers
to use it then Crossover offers to deal with the Windows stuff it
finds on there. ;-)
T i m
<timst...@waitrose.com> wrote:
>On 20/11/2009 13:08, T i m wrote:
>> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 12:30:45 +0000, Tim Streater
>> <timst...@waitrose.com> wrote:
>
>> The suggestion (had you not been a Vulcan) is that 'in the event of a
>> total data loss, a backup that was never done (due to some minor
>> technicality) is no use to anyone.
>
>1) Hers is a complete backup (I may have excluded caches etc) so "in the
>event of a total data loss" a complete restore onto a new disk from TM
>should presumably work.
Presumably yep.
> As the TM disk is local to her machine the
>backups don't fail, ever.
Ok, so I should have said you not her 'crash' then?
> If a backup is *never* done then you're
>buggered anyway, as you have no backup.
Indeed.
>
>2) Mine (over the network) is *not* a complete backup (and was never
>meant to be). I've excluded almost everything and only backup my working
>files.
If the network glitch let's you etc.
> The stuff that's *really* important I'm also archiving onto a USB
>stick from time to time.
Good idea.
I've yet to test this dongle solution but browsing the backup drive
(it's just std files) seems to indicate that all my important data is
on there (and even stuff I didn't know I still had). ;-)
Cheers, T i m
Tim Streater
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 13:19:05 +0000, Tim Streater
> <timst...@waitrose.com> wrote:
>> As the TM disk is local to her machine the
>> backups don't fail, ever.
>
> Ok, so I should have said you not her 'crash' then?
But even if mine crashed its still no problem. It might be if it crashed
*during* a backup. But in any case I've got the backup from an hour ago,
two hours ago, etc. If I haven't, its because both machines were asleep
and who needs a backup then, eh, as no filed are changing.
>> 2) Mine (over the network) is *not* a complete backup (and was never
>> meant to be). I've excluded almost everything and only backup my working
>> files.
>
> If the network glitch let's you etc.
All that really does is delay the next backup. I wake up my machine,
find the backup doesn't work, find its because I can't mount any of her
disks, fix that, and away it goes.
> I've yet to test this dongle solution but browsing the backup drive
> (it's just std files) seems to indicate that all my important data is
> on there (and even stuff I didn't know I still had). ;-)
Certainly getting people to back up is important, no issue there.
--
Tim
"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" -- Bill of Rights 1689
Andy Hewitt
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 12:48:32 +0000, thewil...@me.com (Andy Hewitt)
> wrote:
>
> >> It does and that's *the point* of this dongle. It has a virtual CD
> >> thing like these USB BB dongles that autorun on insertion.
> >
> >OK, fair enough. The Maplin page doesn't make that clear.
>
> I thought I had though. 'You plug it in and it backs up all your data'
> . ;-)
No, I meant the bits about controlling it more.
> >> So what would you recommend for a file system for this Mini / Backup
> >> (under OSX) then please?
> >
> >For best results:
> >
> >PPC Mac, partition Apple Partition Map
> >Intel Mac, Partition GUID
>
> Ok, I'll try that in a mo on this USB laptop drive.
Oh, and format HFS+ (Journaled), which I forgot to add.
[..]
> >Quite predictable, no?
>
> Maybe predictable but with no warning? Can you set it to warn you,
> like you can with the Windows updates? ;-)
Updates? or backups?
But, no, no warning, which I agree can be a bit shit. However, my TM is
going back to August, and still have 170GB spare, so I'm happy that it
can delete stuff as it needs to when it happens. Again, if you RTFM
first, you'll be aware that this will happen as the drive gets full.
In fact it does say on the Control Panel "The oldest backups will be
deleted when your disk becomes full".
Fair warning I'd say, and if you've been sensible and used a decent
sized drive, then what gets deleted really won't matter. Really, how
often do you need to retrieve a file that might have been saved 6 months
ago, on and exact hour, on a particular day? (I couldn't even remember
that I'd have saved it).
You can monitor the drive space, and when it's near full, there's
nothing stopping you from disconnecting it, and starting a new TM backup
on a new drive.
Again, I agree that some kind of dialogue might be useful. However, I
suspect that Apple thought it may be safer to backup the newest files,
and lose old and probably out of date files, rather than have a file not
backed up in time for the sake of a user clicking OK in a dialogue.
I think I'm happy with that as an arrangement here.
[..]
> >> Versus not doing a backup at all, yes.
> >
> >There is that of course.
>
> And that's my point. I know *many* people who would never do a regular
> backup, some who still wouldn't, even after losing a load of valuable
> data. This dongle is the nearest thing I've ever come across to a
> solution for those people.
Erm, I just used the supplied Backup software, and set it with a
schedule.
I dunno, perhaps it's me, but I just find it goes against the grain to
pay for something, when there is a viable free solution.
> >> >I certainly wouldn't want to be using a single backup drive as a source
> >> >for multiple machines though. Far too much risk of losing stuff for my
> >> >liking.
> >>
> >> Me neither, so we share the dongle but have a drive each. ;-)
> >
> >Righto - meaning that your backup isn't constant on one machine then?
>
> Erm (not quite sure I understand your question) meaning that one
> backup drive (automatically / intelligently) shared between several
> machines is better than no backups on any machine. Better is one
> backup drive per machine (and we nearly have that here) but that
> would be option 2.
Er no. As I read it, you have two computers, and two backup drives, but
one dongle.
Surely that means that only one computer can be backing up at a given
time?
> >> Of course and from what I've read here (of those who have actually got
> >> TM running and had to use it in earnest and it has behaved as they
> >> expected ... which isn't everyone by the look of it) it's a very
> >> clever / good solution.
> >
> >I think it behaves perfectly well, you just need to understand what it's
> >doing, that's all.
>
> So those that don't use it (but have tried it) do so because they
> understand it doesn't work for them.
I think that could be a fair statement for some.
However, I do still see that there's a lot of confusion as to why you'd
use things like TM or SuperDuper (for example), or indeed both at once.
I think many that don't use TM now, that maybe tried it some time ago,
may have experienced some early unreliability. Understandably, they
wouldn't want to get bitten again, although I believe many early issues
were often caused by already corrupt files, which often caused TM to
fail a backup.
I actually have multiple copies of my data, in different methods, over 5
hard drives. It's not a simple solution, but that's no problem for me,
but it gives me what I feel is a fair chance of restoring any lost data
- I certainly wouldn't arrange such a setuop for my Mum.
> >> I was only making light hearted comparisons. ;-)
> >
> >I was actually quite puzzled that they've made a rare bit of Mac
> >supported hardware,
>
> ;-)
>
> >that's actually pretty much redundant. For anyone
> >with 10.5 and and external drive, I can't see any reason for buying this
> >dongle.
>
> I hadn't spotted that. As you say, not quite as much use *unless* you
> just wanted this as a cross platform plug_and_play 'independent
> solution.
>
> >However, for Windows users, particularly those before Vista, and those
> >with earlier than Mac OS 10.5, it is a good suggestion for sure.
>
> No, as you mentioned up there ^ it' needs 10.5 to run so less use on
> the Mac side. As for Vista / W7 I've not tried it on them as yet (but
> can).
Ah right, so it really is redundant for Mac only users then. It'll only
get those that are unhappy with TM, or maybe don't know what it's for!
> Interesting to see what Ubuntu makes of it. ;-)
Yes, that would be. I haven't even looked to see if there are any backup
solutions for Ubuntu, as I only use that for testing.
> Cheers, T i m
>
> p.s. When I plug the dongle into this Mini under OSX, first TM offers
> to use it then Crossover offers to deal with the Windows stuff it
> finds on there. ;-)
Neat :-)
T i m
<timst...@waitrose.com> wrote:
>On 20/11/2009 13:46, T i m wrote:
>> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 13:19:05 +0000, Tim Streater
>> <timst...@waitrose.com> wrote:
>
>>> As the TM disk is local to her machine the
>>> backups don't fail, ever.
>>
>> Ok, so I should have said you not her 'crash' then?
>
>But even if mine crashed its still no problem. It might be if it crashed
>*during* a backup. But in any case I've got the backup from an hour ago,
>two hours ago, etc. If I haven't, its because both machines were asleep
>and who needs a backup then, eh, as no filed are changing.
Indeed.
>
>>> 2) Mine (over the network) is *not* a complete backup (and was never
>>> meant to be). I've excluded almost everything and only backup my working
>>> files.
>>
>> If the network glitch let's you etc.
>
>All that really does is delay the next backup. I wake up my machine,
>find the backup doesn't work, find its because I can't mount any of her
>disks, fix that, and away it goes.
Sweet.
>
>> I've yet to test this dongle solution but browsing the backup drive
>> (it's just std files) seems to indicate that all my important data is
>> on there (and even stuff I didn't know I still had). ;-)
>
>Certainly getting people to back up is important, no issue there.
We agree then. ;-)
Cheers, T i m
Tim Streater
> We agree then. ;-)
Of course, you big soppy date :-)
T i m
wrote:
>> >PPC Mac, partition Apple Partition Map
>> >Intel Mac, Partition GUID
>>
>> Ok, I'll try that in a mo on this USB laptop drive.
>
>Oh, and format HFS+ (Journaled), which I forgot to add.
Right (thanks), just tried it like that and it trundled off and seemed
to do a backup of all the important stuff, even the .dmg files from my
downloads folder.
>
>[..]
>> >Quite predictable, no?
>>
>> Maybe predictable but with no warning? Can you set it to warn you,
>> like you can with the Windows updates? ;-)
>
>Updates? or backups?
Updates (see other thread). ;-)
>
>But, no, no warning, which I agree can be a bit shit. However, my TM is
>going back to August, and still have 170GB spare, so I'm happy that it
>can delete stuff as it needs to when it happens. Again, if you RTFM
>first, you'll be aware that this will happen as the drive gets full.
Ok.
>
>In fact it does say on the Control Panel "The oldest backups will be
>deleted when your disk becomes full".
I guess many would assume you still might get a warning though (I
would).
>
>Fair warning I'd say, and if you've been sensible and used a decent
>sized drive, then what gets deleted really won't matter. Really, how
>often do you need to retrieve a file that might have been saved 6 months
>ago, on and exact hour, on a particular day? (I couldn't even remember
>that I'd have saved it).
True.
>
>You can monitor the drive space, and when it's near full, there's
>nothing stopping you from disconnecting it, and starting a new TM backup
>on a new drive.
Ok.
>
>Again, I agree that some kind of dialogue might be useful. However, I
>suspect that Apple thought it may be safer to backup the newest files,
>and lose old and probably out of date files, rather than have a file not
>backed up in time for the sake of a user clicking OK in a dialogue.
Yup, given rock<>hard place etc.
>
>I think I'm happy with that as an arrangement here.
Ok.
>
>>
>> And that's my point. I know *many* people who would never do a regular
>> backup, some who still wouldn't, even after losing a load of valuable
>> data. This dongle is the nearest thing I've ever come across to a
>> solution for those people.
>
>Erm, I just used the supplied Backup software, and set it with a
>schedule.
You do yes, many wouldn't.
>
>I dunno, perhaps it's me, but I just find it goes against the grain to
>pay for something, when there is a viable free solution.
But there isn't, well not in such a flexible pnp way as this dongle
is. More so if you go for the one contained within a backup drive.
http://client.mcp-international.com/enfinity/Clickfree/welcome-WFS-en_GB-GBP
Even our daughter who is actually 'bothered' about losing her stuff
failed to bother sufficiently to run the backup I configured for her
(basically a couple of clicks). She managed to plug the dongle in
though. ;-)
Further there are a load of people I know who have no concept of the
risks so therefore the importance of doing backups who will just plug
one of these things in.
>
>> Erm (not quite sure I understand your question) meaning that one
>> backup drive (automatically / intelligently) shared between several
>> machines is better than no backups on any machine. Better is one
>> backup drive per machine (and we nearly have that here) but that
>> would be option 2.
>
>
>Er no. As I read it, you have two computers, and two backup drives, but
>one dongle.
Yes, that's what we have but worse case you could have one drive as it
stores the backup intelligently.
>
>Surely that means that only one computer can be backing up at a given
>time?
Yes? But as the Mrs has never backed up her PC and daughter hers only
a couple of times prior to her getting one of the dongles that's not
really as issue here. ;-)
>
>
>> So those that don't use it (but have tried it) do so because they
>> understand it doesn't work for them.
>
>I think that could be a fair statement for some.
Ok.
>
>However, I do still see that there's a lot of confusion as to why you'd
>use things like TM or SuperDuper (for example), or indeed both at once.
Ok.
>
>I think many that don't use TM now, that maybe tried it some time ago,
>may have experienced some early unreliability. Understandably, they
>wouldn't want to get bitten again, although I believe many early issues
>were often caused by already corrupt files, which often caused TM to
>fail a backup.
That does sound a little 'tender' to me?
>
>I actually have multiple copies of my data, in different methods, over 5
>hard drives. It's not a simple solution, but that's no problem for me,
>but it gives me what I feel is a fair chance of restoring any lost data
I would hope so! ;-)
>- I certainly wouldn't arrange such a setuop for my Mum.
So the dongle might be a solution for her? I've just MSN'd the link to
the all in one drive / Clickfree to my Nephew at Brighton UNI. He has
lost data previously and in spite of offering help and suggestions re
what he should now be doing to protect himself (UNI work etc) but I
know he will never do anything about it. I don't think he will even be
bothered to find PCW and get said, someone will have to get it for
him. He *might* just plug it in ...
>
>> No, as you mentioned up there ^ it' needs 10.5 to run so less use on
>> the Mac side. As for Vista / W7 I've not tried it on them as yet (but
>> can).
>
>Ah right, so it really is redundant for Mac only users then.
So it seems.
From the ClickFree help:
"What operating systems will the Clickfree work with?
All of our devices will run on Windows XP, Vista (32bit and 64bit),
and Windows 7 Beta. For Mac, any system running OS X 10.5 or higher
using Intel processors."
>It'll only
>get those that are unhappy with TM, or maybe don't know what it's for!
Indeed! ;-)
>
>> Interesting to see what Ubuntu makes of it. ;-)
>
>Yes, that would be. I haven't even looked to see if there are any backup
>solutions for Ubuntu, as I only use that for testing.
I'll let you know.
>
Cheers, T i m
David Sankey
thewil...@me.com (Andy Hewitt) wrote:
> David Sankey <David....@stfc.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > In article <1j9g1ui.5rdwydrv9r0rN%thewil...@me.com>,
> > thewil...@me.com (Andy Hewitt) wrote:
> >
> > > Martin S Taylor <m...@hRyEpMnOoVtEiTsHm.cIo.uSk> wrote:
> [..]
> > > > I think the people who are so against it are those who don't do
> > > > telephone
> > > > user support for their parents.
> > >
> > > <grin>
> > >
> > > Yes, I know where you're coming from there!
> >
> > Which raises the biggest flaw that I see with it, it ignores your Trash.
> > When we were running weekly snapshots it would invariably be the
> > Wastebasket that contained the file that we were trying to resurrect
> > after the event...
>
> Hmmm, hadn't though of that, although I empty my own trash very quickly
> anyway, so the file I trashed should still be where it was in a past
> backup. Is it not there in the hidden '.Trashes' file?
Not in the backup it isn't.
But there's a suggestion that removing /.Trashes from
StdExclusions.plist in CoreService's 'backupd.bundle' could do the trick.
Might give that a whirl later.
Kind regards,
Dave
Rowland McDonnell
> Rowland McDonnell <real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote:
>
> > Isn't that the thinking behind *everything* on Macs these days?
> >
> > Apple provides stuff for numpties and for the Gods - the rest of us can
> > go hang.
>
> If it did not already exist, would Apple invent AppleScript today?
Christ knows. AppleScript is appalling.
But - well, I'd like to learn to program my Mac using *SOMETHING* so
that I can perform simple automated jobs like I could on my BBC Micro
back in the early 1980s. I've got this super Mac, but in some ways a
BBC Micro is more use to me- simply because a Mac won't let me automate
it.
AppleScript's a washout. So's Automator.
At least, both are impossible for me to learn until I get well enough to
be able to attend some sort of course to teach me. Available learning
materials do not permit me to learn what's needful.
Speaking as a fully trained teacher, I have to tell you all that this is
the fault of the learning materials, which are crap.
Rowland.
--
Remove the animal for email address: rowland....@dog.physics.org
Sorry - the spam got to me
http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk
UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
Andy Hewitt
> In article <1j9hbfe.1n55lxy1nuup7nN%thewil...@me.com>,
> thewil...@me.com (Andy Hewitt) wrote:
>
> > David Sankey <David....@stfc.ac.uk> wrote:
[..]
> > Hmmm, hadn't though of that, although I empty my own trash very quickly
> > anyway, so the file I trashed should still be where it was in a past
> > backup. Is it not there in the hidden '.Trashes' file?
>
> Not in the backup it isn't.
OK, just asking.
> But there's a suggestion that removing /.Trashes from
> StdExclusions.plist in CoreService's 'backupd.bundle' could do the trick.
>
> Might give that a whirl later.
Hmm, might be worth a punt.
Andy Hewitt
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 14:16:20 +0000, thewil...@me.com (Andy Hewitt)
> wrote:
>
>
> >> >PPC Mac, partition Apple Partition Map
> >> >Intel Mac, Partition GUID
> >>
> >> Ok, I'll try that in a mo on this USB laptop drive.
> >
> >Oh, and format HFS+ (Journaled), which I forgot to add.
>
> Right (thanks), just tried it like that and it trundled off and seemed
> to do a backup of all the important stuff, even the .dmg files from my
> downloads folder.
Yes, it'll backup everything, bar a few unecessary cache files.
[..]
> >In fact it does say on the Control Panel "The oldest backups will be
> >deleted when your disk becomes full".
>
> I guess many would assume you still might get a warning though (I
> would).
Yes, that'd be fair.
[..]
> >Erm, I just used the supplied Backup software, and set it with a
> >schedule.
>
> You do yes, many wouldn't.
Oh indeed, in fact probably a very large majority of home users I'd
think.
> >I dunno, perhaps it's me, but I just find it goes against the grain to
> >pay for something, when there is a viable free solution.
>
> But there isn't, well not in such a flexible pnp way as this dongle
> is. More so if you go for the one contained within a backup drive.
>
> http://client.mcp-international.com/enfinity/Clickfree/welcome-WFS-en_GB-GBP
>
> Even our daughter who is actually 'bothered' about losing her stuff
> failed to bother sufficiently to run the backup I configured for her
> (basically a couple of clicks). She managed to plug the dongle in
> though. ;-)
>
> Further there are a load of people I know who have no concept of the
> risks so therefore the importance of doing backups who will just plug
> one of these things in.
It does start to sound like it's getting expensive though, at least to
an average punter. A new PC can be got for as little as �200 now, and
then they might be spending another �100 on a backup drive, that they
may never actually need to use (with luck).
Of course, that does depend on how you value your data, and with a
little knowledge one can reduce the extra cost by quite a bit, and still
be as safe.
I guess they just have to pay for being thick, or just lazy! ;-)
[..]
> >I think many that don't use TM now, that maybe tried it some time ago,
> >may have experienced some early unreliability. Understandably, they
> >wouldn't want to get bitten again, although I believe many early issues
> >were often caused by already corrupt files, which often caused TM to
> >fail a backup.
>
> That does sound a little 'tender' to me?
Yes, but it was in the early stages, it seems to be pretty reliable now.
> >I actually have multiple copies of my data, in different methods, over 5
> >hard drives. It's not a simple solution, but that's no problem for me,
> >but it gives me what I feel is a fair chance of restoring any lost data
>
> I would hope so! ;-)
>
> >- I certainly wouldn't arrange such a setuop for my Mum.
>
> So the dongle might be a solution for her? I've just MSN'd the link to
> the all in one drive / Clickfree to my Nephew at Brighton UNI. He has
> lost data previously and in spite of offering help and suggestions re
> what he should now be doing to protect himself (UNI work etc) but I
> know he will never do anything about it. I don't think he will even be
> bothered to find PCW and get said, someone will have to get it for
> him. He *might* just plug it in ...
My Mum does at least ask when something ain't right, and she is only
10mins away now, so popping round for a fix and a cuppa is not so bad
:-). Mind you, she does only have OS 10.4 at the moment, so no backups
at the moment - although she really doesn't have much that would be a
disaster if it got wiped.
> >It'll only
> >get those that are unhappy with TM, or maybe don't know what it's for!
>
> Indeed! ;-)
> >
> >> Interesting to see what Ubuntu makes of it. ;-)
> >
> >Yes, that would be. I haven't even looked to see if there are any backup
> >solutions for Ubuntu, as I only use that for testing.
>
> I'll let you know.
Ta. I only have it running as a VM too, so connecting to a USB drive
might be tricky too.
Elliott Roper
David Sankey <David....@stfc.ac.uk> wrote:
> In article <1j9haaa.shi4l5rium15N%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>,
> %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
>
> > Elliott Roper <nos...@yrl.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > I'm not a happy bunny. I think I'll bin it for super duper. At least I
> > > have some control over what gets backed up.
> >
> > I found rsync to be better for many of my requirements. I've been
> > running TM to see what it's like. Love the interface, completely bemused
> > by what it's doing. Just a month of backing up a 160GB disk that sees
> > very few changes of data (most of it is on a server) and Time Machine
> > has gobbled 500Gb and has announced that it needs more or it will start
> > deleting stuff. Huh?
>
> Entourage?
> Big database file touched every time you check mail, so always needs to
> be copied
Entourage? Big-Mega-Double-Spit!!!
No one in their right mind would trust all their mail to that steaming
pile of NO CARRIER
> Antivirus?
> Certainly Sophos seems to update everything each time it updates
Antivirus??
Who do you think I am? Nice but D i m?
Oh hang on, you are replying to Steve...
I'm just back from setting up Time Machine and SuperDuper to co-operate
with one another. I decided to keep TM for the nice interface and
hourly backups, and to trust SuperDuper for anything longer than a day
old. I'm scheduling SuperDuper to keep a pair of sparsebundles updated
daily and weekly. First copy took just over an hour for 100GB,
subsequent smart update is all of 10 minutes. All my big stuff, like
Aperture vaults and movie assets and iTunes music, I have decided to
keep replicating by hand when it makes sense to do so. The sparsebundle
is well cool. I don't waste a whole disk, nor do I have to partition,
which is near enough the same as wasting a whole disk. But best of all,
I can simply copy the sparsebundle clone off somewhere else, including
networked storage if I want to preserve some longer term history.
It is going to make offsite backup a breeze. I just schedule a few
giant overnight copies onto a removable 1TB disk of vaults, movies,
music and the arsebundle clone and swap it out to my mate down the
road.
Painless.
--
To de-mung my e-mail address:- fsnospam$elliott$$
PGP Fingerprint: 1A96 3CF7 637F 896B C810 E199 7E5C A9E4 8E59 E248
T i m
wrote:
>> Right (thanks), just tried it like that and it trundled off and seemed
>> to do a backup of all the important stuff, even the .dmg files from my
>> downloads folder.
>
>Yes, it'll backup everything, bar a few unecessary cache files.
Sorry, this was my dongle under OSX. I'm a hardware eng///technician
so prefer a hardware solution. ;-)
>
>Oh indeed, in fact probably a very large majority of home users I'd
>think.
And that's where this dongle (or TM for a smaller percentage of the
domestic market) could be so useful. Many wouldn't even know what /
where their important files were or why taking a copy of the entire
drive might not actually be any use to them.
>
>> Further there are a load of people I know who have no concept of the
>> risks so therefore the importance of doing backups who will just plug
>> one of these things in.
>
>It does start to sound like it's getting expensive though, at least to
>an average punter. A new PC can be got for as little as �200 now, and
>then they might be spending another �100 on a backup drive, that they
>may never actually need to use (with luck).
Well you can get a perfectly serviceable one for �63 but I get your
point.
http://preview.tinyurl.com/yhubxd4
The thing is I've witnessed people who won't spend a penny on their PC
but will spend a fortune on the peripherals ... or the desk for it?
For this the 'value' is the ease and what it provides. I could sell 10
of them a day by simply asking people how they would feel if they lost
all the photos of their kids [1], their invoices and other 'important'
stuff.
>
>Of course, that does depend on how you value your data, and with a
>little knowledge one can reduce the extra cost by quite a bit, and still
>be as safe.
Ah ...
>
>I guess they just have to pay for being thick, or just lazy! ;-)
Indeed. Maybe it's because of the time I've spent 'in support' (25
years) or socialising with my mate in his PC shop that I have
witnessed yer average computer user at their worst. I would prefer the
terms 'uninterested' (till it bites them) or 'untrained' to those you
offer but the outcome is the same. ;-(
>
>
>My Mum does at least ask when something ain't right, and she is only
>10mins away now, so popping round for a fix and a cuppa is not so bad
>:-).
Nice.
> Mind you, she does only have OS 10.4 at the moment, so no backups
>at the moment - although she really doesn't have much that would be a
>disaster if it got wiped.
Same with mine. Not the same with Dad though but since he was burned
by a drive going bad (and a �500 bill to have it recovered) he
regularly backs up his OS9 system/eMac.
>
>
>Ta. I only have it running as a VM too, so connecting to a USB drive
>might be tricky too.
Ok.
Cheers, T i m
[1] I've been there with the 'your hard drive has died therefore
*everything* is gone, where are your backups' and seen 'her' crying
profusely.
Andy Hewitt
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 19:34:57 +0000, thewil...@me.com (Andy Hewitt)
> wrote:
>
>
> >> Right (thanks), just tried it like that and it trundled off and seemed
> >> to do a backup of all the important stuff, even the .dmg files from my
> >> downloads folder.
> >
> >Yes, it'll backup everything, bar a few unecessary cache files.
>
> Sorry, this was my dongle under OSX. I'm a hardware eng///technician
> so prefer a hardware solution. ;-)
Ah, right, I thought you were trying TM.
> >Oh indeed, in fact probably a very large majority of home users I'd
> >think.
>
> And that's where this dongle (or TM for a smaller percentage of the
> domestic market) could be so useful. Many wouldn't even know what /
> where their important files were or why taking a copy of the entire
> drive might not actually be any use to them.
Hmm, yes, although we shouldn't exclude all the software options too -
even OSX has a number of them available. Probably not as easy, but in
most cases cheaper, and not all that hard to get working.
> >> Further there are a load of people I know who have no concept of the
> >> risks so therefore the importance of doing backups who will just plug
> >> one of these things in.
> >
> >It does start to sound like it's getting expensive though, at least to
> >an average punter. A new PC can be got for as little as �200 now, and
> >then they might be spending another �100 on a backup drive, that they
> >may never actually need to use (with luck).
>
> Well you can get a perfectly serviceable one for �63 but I get your
> point.
>
> http://preview.tinyurl.com/yhubxd4
Of course depending on your storage capacity requirements - I'm
currently thinking of upgrading my Time Machine to 1TB, and adding some
of my other drives to the backup. But in my case, it's just a matter of
sticking a bare drive into the casing.
> The thing is I've witnessed people who won't spend a penny on their PC
> but will spend a fortune on the peripherals ... or the desk for it?
> For this the 'value' is the ease and what it provides. I could sell 10
> of them a day by simply asking people how they would feel if they lost
> all the photos of their kids [1], their invoices and other 'important'
> stuff.
Oh for sure. Although you do have to be careful not to sound too much
like a PCW salesman :-)
> >Of course, that does depend on how you value your data, and with a
> >little knowledge one can reduce the extra cost by quite a bit, and still
> >be as safe.
>
> Ah ...
> >
> >I guess they just have to pay for being thick, or just lazy! ;-)
>
> Indeed. Maybe it's because of the time I've spent 'in support' (25
> years) or socialising with my mate in his PC shop that I have
> witnessed yer average computer user at their worst. I would prefer the
> terms 'uninterested' (till it bites them) or 'untrained' to those you
> offer but the outcome is the same. ;-(
Yeah, I was just being blunt there :-)
> >My Mum does at least ask when something ain't right, and she is only
> >10mins away now, so popping round for a fix and a cuppa is not so bad
> >:-).
>
> Nice.
Hmm, perhaps I could have worded that better ;-)
> > Mind you, she does only have OS 10.4 at the moment, so no backups
> >at the moment - although she really doesn't have much that would be a
> >disaster if it got wiped.
>
> Same with mine. Not the same with Dad though but since he was burned
> by a drive going bad (and a �500 bill to have it recovered) he
> regularly backs up his OS9 system/eMac.
Good to hear, it's not so bad on OS9, you can get away with simply
dragging stuff.
> >Ta. I only have it running as a VM too, so connecting to a USB drive
> >might be tricky too.
>
> Ok.
>
> Cheers, T i m
>
>
> [1] I've been there with the 'your hard drive has died therefore
> *everything* is gone, where are your backups' and seen 'her' crying
> profusely.
I haven't - yet!
I have had a Mac die [1] on my Mum, and I just put the hard drive into a
newer one, and away she went again.
[1] It was an ex-business machine, and about 12 years old.
T i m
wrote:
>> And that's where this dongle (or TM for a smaller percentage of the
>> domestic market) could be so useful. Many wouldn't even know what /
>> where their important files were or why taking a copy of the entire
>> drive might not actually be any use to them.
>
>Hmm, yes, although we shouldn't exclude all the software options too -
>even OSX has a number of them available. Probably not as easy, but in
>most cases cheaper, and not all that hard to get working.
Hmm, maybe my experience of 'users' is very different to yours. For
me, those most likely to lose their data are the least likely to know
about let alone know to get / install / configure / run any backup
software.
>
>> http://preview.tinyurl.com/yhubxd4
>
>Of course depending on your storage capacity requirements
Again, IMHO most *ordinary* users wouldn't have anything like that
much data (160G)? FWIW my backup including the now 3G of scanned
documents and 5G of pictures is only 35G.
>- I'm
>currently thinking of upgrading my Time Machine to 1TB, and adding some
>of my other drives to the backup. But in my case, it's just a matter of
>sticking a bare drive into the casing.
There the difference then. I can back up all the data on all three of
our day to day PC's on one 250G drive. ;-)
You see not all of us have 3TB of music or 10,000 500MB RAW photo
files. ;-)
>
>Oh for sure. Although you do have to be careful not to sound too much
>like a PCW salesman :-)
Hehe, I don't care what I sound like if it stops people losing their
data. On that, I asked a mate over MSN earlier if he still had the
500G external drive we bought for his backups a couple of years ago
and if so was he still using it?
His reply, "Was I supposed to be ... ".
As our local Maplin are out of stock of the dongle I pointed him to
the ClickFree website and he's ordered 4 of them (one for him, one for
his Son in France, one for me and another for ? (but he gets free
postage on 4 apparently)).
>
>> >My Mum does at least ask when something ain't right, and she is only
>> >10mins away now, so popping round for a fix and a cuppa is not so bad
>> >:-).
>>
>> Nice.
>
>Hmm, perhaps I could have worded that better ;-)
No, I meant 'nice' that time (round the corner, cuppa, help with her
computer etc etc). ;-)
>
>>
>> Same with mine. Not the same with Dad though but since he was burned
>> by a drive going bad (and a �500 bill to have it recovered) he
>> regularly backs up his OS9 system/eMac.
>
>Good to hear, it's not so bad on OS9, you can get away with simply
>dragging stuff.
Oh, apps as well you mean?
>
>> [1] I've been there with the 'your hard drive has died therefore
>> *everything* is gone, where are your backups' and seen 'her' crying
>> profusely.
>
>I haven't - yet!
And I hope you never do. Can you see now why to me this gadget could
be seen as such a breakthrough?
>
>I have had a Mac die [1] on my Mum, and I just put the hard drive into a
>newer one, and away she went again.
Yeah, I did that when my Mac died, luckily it wasn't the drive that
died.
>
>[1] It was an ex-business machine, and about 12 years old.
Mine was given to me (the first one I bought for �100) when the owner
upgraded to an XP / PC. I don't get any calls from him asking why he
can't book his flight tickets or why his grand kids can't get MSN or
play their games now. ;-)
Cheers, T i m
Andy Hewitt
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 21:37:56 +0000, thewil...@me.com (Andy Hewitt)
> wrote:
[..]
> >Hmm, yes, although we shouldn't exclude all the software options too -
> >even OSX has a number of them available. Probably not as easy, but in
> >most cases cheaper, and not all that hard to get working.
>
> Hmm, maybe my experience of 'users' is very different to yours. For
> me, those most likely to lose their data are the least likely to know
> about let alone know to get / install / configure / run any backup
> software.
Not at all. I just tend to be the one that actually sets up and installs
stuff for my family, and some friends, so it doesn't really matter what
it is, as long as it works once I've gone.
> >> http://preview.tinyurl.com/yhubxd4
> >
> >Of course depending on your storage capacity requirements
>
> Again, IMHO most *ordinary* users wouldn't have anything like that
> much data (160G)? FWIW my backup including the now 3G of scanned
> documents and 5G of pictures is only 35G.
Hmm, maybe, although it is becoming more common....
>
> >- I'm
> >currently thinking of upgrading my Time Machine to 1TB, and adding some
> >of my other drives to the backup. But in my case, it's just a matter of
> >sticking a bare drive into the casing.
>
> There the difference then. I can back up all the data on all three of
> our day to day PC's on one 250G drive. ;-)
>
> You see not all of us have 3TB of music or 10,000 500MB RAW photo
> files. ;-)
...as I'm finding with my Brother-in-Law in particular. He's quite a
keen photographer himself, and although essentially a computer numpty,
is filling up his disk space very rapidly. It's not 160GB for sure -
yet!
(actually, Raw files aren't too bad, probably less than double the size
of some JPGs on the newest cameras).
> >Oh for sure. Although you do have to be careful not to sound too much
> >like a PCW salesman :-)
>
> Hehe, I don't care what I sound like if it stops people losing their
> data. On that, I asked a mate over MSN earlier if he still had the
> 500G external drive we bought for his backups a couple of years ago
> and if so was he still using it?
>
> His reply, "Was I supposed to be ... ".
Yes, I've heard that one said all too often as well :-/
> As our local Maplin are out of stock of the dongle I pointed him to
> the ClickFree website and he's ordered 4 of them (one for him, one for
> his Son in France, one for me and another for ? (but he gets free
> postage on 4 apparently)).
Must be expensive postage then!
> >> >My Mum does at least ask when something ain't right, and she is only
> >> >10mins away now, so popping round for a fix and a cuppa is not so bad
> >> >:-).
> >>
> >> Nice.
> >
> >Hmm, perhaps I could have worded that better ;-)
>
> No, I meant 'nice' that time (round the corner, cuppa, help with her
> computer etc etc). ;-)
Oh, yes, I know, I just reread it and wondered if I really should have
put 'round for a fix' ;-)
> >> Same with mine. Not the same with Dad though but since he was burned
> >> by a drive going bad (and a �500 bill to have it recovered) he
> >> regularly backs up his OS9 system/eMac.
> >
> >Good to hear, it's not so bad on OS9, you can get away with simply
> >dragging stuff.
>
> Oh, apps as well you mean?
Yes, and the System Folder too (unless he has any Adobe stuff).
> >> [1] I've been there with the 'your hard drive has died therefore
> >> *everything* is gone, where are your backups' and seen 'her' crying
> >> profusely.
> >
> >I haven't - yet!
>
> And I hope you never do. Can you see now why to me this gadget could
> be seen as such a breakthrough?
I can see the merits of it for sure. It just looks expensive to me.
> >I have had a Mac die [1] on my Mum, and I just put the hard drive into a
> >newer one, and away she went again.
>
> Yeah, I did that when my Mac died, luckily it wasn't the drive that
> died.
>
> >[1] It was an ex-business machine, and about 12 years old.
>
> Mine was given to me (the first one I bought for �100) when the owner
> upgraded to an XP / PC. I don't get any calls from him asking why he
> can't book his flight tickets or why his grand kids can't get MSN or
> play their games now. ;-)
Nor do I!
T i m
wrote:
>> Hmm, maybe my experience of 'users' is very different to yours. For
>> me, those most likely to lose their data are the least likely to know
>> about let alone know to get / install / configure / run any backup
>> software.
>
>Not at all. I just tend to be the one that actually sets up and installs
>stuff for my family, and some friends, so it doesn't really matter what
>it is, as long as it works once I've gone.
They aren't the great unwashed then are they. That are folk who have
been through your loving and considered hands.
>
>> Again, IMHO most *ordinary* users wouldn't have anything like that
>> much data (160G)? FWIW my backup including the now 3G of scanned
>> documents and 5G of pictures is only 35G.
>
>Hmm, maybe, although it is becoming more common....
It's not less common for sure. ;-)
>
>> You see not all of us have 3TB of music or 10,000 500MB RAW photo
>> files. ;-)
>
>...as I'm finding with my Brother-in-Law in particular. He's quite a
>keen photographer himself, and although essentially a computer numpty,
>is filling up his disk space very rapidly. It's not 160GB for sure -
>yet!
;-)
>
>(actually, Raw files aren't too bad, probably less than double the size
>of some JPGs on the newest cameras).
Ok, ok, I assumed they would be much bigger (ta).
>
>> >Oh for sure. Although you do have to be careful not to sound too much
>> >Hmm, perhaps I could have worded that better ;-)
>>
>> No, I meant 'nice' that time (round the corner, cuppa, help with her
>> computer etc etc). ;-)
>
>Oh, yes, I know, I just reread it and wondered if I really should have
>put 'round for a fix' ;-)
Ah, see not being a smack head I didn't spot that ... <weg> (and
certainly wouldn't think your Mum was a dealer!). ;-)
>
>> Oh, apps as well you mean?
>
>Yes, and the System Folder too (unless he has any Adobe stuff).
Ah yes, I sort of remember that now. System folder and Finder
constitutes the OS or some such?
>
>> And I hope you never do. Can you see now why to me this gadget could
>> be seen as such a breakthrough?
>
>I can see the merits of it for sure. It just looks expensive to me.
Do you back your stuff up onto air then? I didn't think �62 for a 160G
external *and* the (automatic) software and system was that expensive?
Cheers, T i m
Andy Hewitt
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 23:31:18 +0000, thewil...@me.com (Andy Hewitt)
> wrote:
>
>
> >> Hmm, maybe my experience of 'users' is very different to yours. For
> >> me, those most likely to lose their data are the least likely to know
> >> about let alone know to get / install / configure / run any backup
> >> software.
> >
> >Not at all. I just tend to be the one that actually sets up and installs
> >stuff for my family, and some friends, so it doesn't really matter what
> >it is, as long as it works once I've gone.
>
> They aren't the great unwashed then are they. That are folk who have
> been through your loving and considered hands.
Aye :-)
[..]
> >(actually, Raw files aren't too bad, probably less than double the size
> >of some JPGs on the newest cameras).
>
> Ok, ok, I assumed they would be much bigger (ta).
My 10 Megapixel DSLR Raw files are about 9-10MB. The JPGs from my old 5
Megapixel compact are about 5MB, I know more modern ones (with higher
megapixies) are about 6-7MB.
[..]
> >Oh, yes, I know, I just reread it and wondered if I really should have
> >put 'round for a fix' ;-)
>
> Ah, see not being a smack head I didn't spot that ... <weg> (and
> certainly wouldn't think your Mum was a dealer!). ;-)
I'd really hope not, but... ;-)
> >> Oh, apps as well you mean?
> >
> >Yes, and the System Folder too (unless he has any Adobe stuff).
>
> Ah yes, I sort of remember that now. System folder and Finder
> constitutes the OS or some such?
More or less, there's a few key files, and some folders that are
required, but basically, you can just copy these to a new drive, or Mac,
and get a bootable system up.
> >> And I hope you never do. Can you see now why to me this gadget could
> >> be seen as such a breakthrough?
> >
> >I can see the merits of it for sure. It just looks expensive to me.
>
> Do you back your stuff up onto air then? I didn't think �62 for a 160G
> external *and* the (automatic) software and system was that expensive?
I think it is when I can get a Terabyte drive for less than that, and
have a working backup system with what I have available already.
For sure I do put value on backing up my data, but I still look at doing
it the most economical and efficient way I can. For my family, I'd bung
on an external drive, and set up something like SuperDuper, or Carbon
Copy Cloner (in the abscence of TM). OK SuperDuper is a few �s (�18) to
get the scheduling, but it does offer the ability to control more than
one backup of your data: for example, you can schedule a daily backup of
the user folder, and a weekly clone of the whole drive. Similarly with
CCC, but for free (but nothing like as easy to set up).
However, yes, the dongle approach is nice, I do like it as an idea, and
I do see that it could be very useful for a bit more distant support (in
the grand scheme, much cheaper than a journey in the car perhaps), and
actually, I do appreciate your suggesting the device :-).
YMMV applies as usual of course :-)
T i m
wrote:
>> Do you back your stuff up onto air then? I didn't think �62 for a 160G
>> external *and* the (automatic) software and system was that expensive?
>
>I think it is when I can get a Terabyte drive for less than that,
I guess.
> and
>have a working backup system with what I have available already.
But not truly automated.
>
>For sure I do put value on backing up my data, but I still look at doing
>it the most economical and efficient way I can.
As do I and like I said, any other solution (so far) would mean no
backup at all (so not actually 'a solution'). ;-(
> For my family, I'd bung
>on an external drive, and set up something like SuperDuper, or Carbon
>Copy Cloner (in the abscence of TM). OK SuperDuper is a few �s (�18) to
>get the scheduling, but it does offer the ability to control more than
>one backup of your data:
The software from the dongle offers scheduling and more. I didn't
mention it because within the constraints of it's use for the people
I'm talking about it would never be used.
> for example, you can schedule a daily backup of
>the user folder, and a weekly clone of the whole drive. Similarly with
>CCC, but for free (but nothing like as easy to set up).
Oh I have no doubts there are 'better' and better vfm options out
there but as you say, none so easy to set up.
>
>However, yes, the dongle approach is nice, I do like it as an idea, and
>I do see that it could be very useful for a bit more distant support (in
>the grand scheme, much cheaper than a journey in the car perhaps), and
>actually, I do appreciate your suggesting the device :-).
Np. It's not often that I find a gadget that I believe would / could
really make peoples lives that much easier but I think this is one of
them.
The best I have come up with so far is a series of pen drives (marked
Mon / Sat) for the local bike shop and garage to stop them having to
save Sage several floppies!
I've also had a mate write (I'm no programmer) a couple of batch
files that allow another mate with a shop (at a click) a backup of key
data to a little NAS.
As I have been scanning my documents I have been backing them up via
the dongle before shredding them (paper thinning exercise). I've also
been turning the backup drive off (and disconnecting it) in case both
Mini and backup get taken out by a power spike etc. I also burn the
file structure to CD now DVD at longer intervals. For those subjects
that are being scanned > shredded but have some residual paperwork I
put a CD of just that folder in the file as well. DVD copies of the
full system will be taken down the garage and put in a small safe I
have there.
>
>YMMV applies as usual of course :-)
Of course. ;-)
Cheers, T i m
Andy Hewitt
> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 08:35:50 +0000, thewil...@me.com (Andy Hewitt)
> wrote:
>
>
> >> Do you back your stuff up onto air then? I didn't think £62 for a 160G
> >> external *and* the (automatic) software and system was that expensive?
> >
> >I think it is when I can get a Terabyte drive for less than that,
>
> I guess.
>
> > and
> >have a working backup system with what I have available already.
>
> But not truly automated.
Huh! Apart from clicking on 'Use this drive', it is.
> >For sure I do put value on backing up my data, but I still look at doing
> >it the most economical and efficient way I can.
>
> As do I and like I said, any other solution (so far) would mean no
> backup at all (so not actually 'a solution'). ;-(
Fair point.
> > For my family, I'd bung
> >on an external drive, and set up something like SuperDuper, or Carbon
> >Copy Cloner (in the abscence of TM). OK SuperDuper is a few £s (£18) to
> >get the scheduling, but it does offer the ability to control more than
> >one backup of your data:
>
> The software from the dongle offers scheduling and more. I didn't
> mention it because within the constraints of it's use for the people
> I'm talking about it would never be used.
Quite possibly.
> > for example, you can schedule a daily backup of
> >the user folder, and a weekly clone of the whole drive. Similarly with
> >CCC, but for free (but nothing like as easy to set up).
>
> Oh I have no doubts there are 'better' and better vfm options out
> there but as you say, none so easy to set up.
Super Duper isn't so bad.
I'm not so sure it's really a case of which is the easier to use, it's
getting them to understand the importance of a backup in the first
place.
> >However, yes, the dongle approach is nice, I do like it as an idea, and
> >I do see that it could be very useful for a bit more distant support (in
> >the grand scheme, much cheaper than a journey in the car perhaps), and
> >actually, I do appreciate your suggesting the device :-).
>
> Np. It's not often that I find a gadget that I believe would / could
> really make peoples lives that much easier but I think this is one of
> them.
I agree, it's a real shame it won't work with older Mac OSs, otherwise I
may have been keener :-) — It would actually have some value for those
of my family that haven't got Time Machine.
> The best I have come up with so far is a series of pen drives (marked
> Mon / Sat) for the local bike shop and garage to stop them having to
> save Sage several floppies!
>
> I've also had a mate write (I'm no programmer) a couple of batch
> files that allow another mate with a shop (at a click) a backup of key
> data to a little NAS.
>
> As I have been scanning my documents I have been backing them up via
> the dongle before shredding them (paper thinning exercise). I've also
> been turning the backup drive off (and disconnecting it) in case both
> Mini and backup get taken out by a power spike etc. I also burn the
> file structure to CD now DVD at longer intervals. For those subjects
> that are being scanned > shredded but have some residual paperwork I
> put a CD of just that folder in the file as well. DVD copies of the
> full system will be taken down the garage and put in a small safe I
> have there.
Nice setup. I gave up on DVD backups a while back. I think I'd need a
pack of 50 for every backup (assuming a full backup, rather than
incremental).
zoara
[Non-TM backup system]
> it does it all for you.
>
> I've been running it
If you have to run it, then it isn't doing it all for you.
-zoara-
--
email: nettid1 at fastmail dot fm
T i m
wrote:
>> But not truly automated.
>
>Huh! Apart from clicking on 'Use this drive', it is.
Ok, for OSX 10.5 - agreed. ;-) I wonder what percentage of Macs out
there are running 10.5?
Out of interest, are the files on a TM backup accessible from a Mac
that doesn't have TM?
>
>> The software from the dongle offers scheduling and more. I didn't
>> mention it because within the constraints of it's use for the people
>> I'm talking about it would never be used.
>
>Quite possibly.
Quite definitely! If you couldn't get them to do a backup that didn't
involve any more than just plugging summat in you won't get them
configuring anything! ;-)
>
>> Oh I have no doubts there are 'better' and better vfm options out
>> there but as you say, none so easy to set up.
>
>Super Duper isn't so bad.
Maybe my 'Mac backup' experience is tainted by the time I tried to
duplicate the internal drive onto an external drive (with your
assistance if I remember) and just ended up with corrupted drives and
millions of permissions errors. I've done the same process probably
hundreds of times on Windows (and Novell) stuff with rarely an issue.
I'm sure it was just me or the particular hardware I was using but as
I don't have any background or real exposure to Mac's outside what
I've got here it wasn't very encouraging.
>
>I'm not so sure it's really a case of which is the easier to use, it's
>getting them to understand the importance of a backup in the first
>place.
Oh indeed, and the grist of my point with this. Easy whilst being
competent.
>
>
>> Np. It's not often that I find a gadget that I believe would / could
>> really make peoples lives that much easier but I think this is one of
>> them.
>
>I agree, it's a real shame it won't work with older Mac OSs, otherwise I
>may have been keener :-)
Oh, fully understood and I didn't realise how limited it's Mac support
was until you mentioned. I should have known I guess. <ducks>
> � It would actually have some value for those
>of my family that haven't got Time Machine.
Yup, shame.
A bit American and 'sales' but he does cover the key points and their
products. No good for you gurus but think of the great unwashed. The
viewer and restore features are nearly as easy as the backup (as I'm
sure they would be under TM, if you had it etc).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7yimoD9IoA
>Nice setup. I gave up on DVD backups a while back. I think I'd need a
>pack of 50 for every backup (assuming a full backup, rather than
>incremental).
Doh!
Cheers, T i m
Andy Hewitt
> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 10:34:23 +0000, thewil...@me.com (Andy Hewitt)
> wrote:
>
> >> But not truly automated.
> >
> >Huh! Apart from clicking on 'Use this drive', it is.
>
> Ok, for OSX 10.5 - agreed. ;-) I wonder what percentage of Macs out
> there are running 10.5?
Quite a lot I suspect. IIRC 10.5 was the fastest selling OS from Apple
so far. One article I found says 18% of Mac users for 10.6 in the first
month.
It might be possible that there's proportionally more Mac users on the
latest OS than there are with Windows - IYSWIM?
> Out of interest, are the files on a TM backup accessible from a Mac
> that doesn't have TM?
Yes, they're just stored in a standard folder structure. A
'sparsebundle' if it's on a network, which is still openable on any Mac.
> >> The software from the dongle offers scheduling and more. I didn't
> >> mention it because within the constraints of it's use for the people
> >> I'm talking about it would never be used.
> >
> >Quite possibly.
>
> Quite definitely! If you couldn't get them to do a backup that didn't
> involve any more than just plugging summat in you won't get them
> configuring anything! ;-)
Well, yes, there is that. I tend to find it's more a 'afraid to break
something', than ' can't be arsed'.
> >> Oh I have no doubts there are 'better' and better vfm options out
> >> there but as you say, none so easy to set up.
> >
> >Super Duper isn't so bad.
>
> Maybe my 'Mac backup' experience is tainted by the time I tried to
> duplicate the internal drive onto an external drive (with your
> assistance if I remember) and just ended up with corrupted drives and
> millions of permissions errors. I've done the same process probably
> hundreds of times on Windows (and Novell) stuff with rarely an issue.
> I'm sure it was just me or the particular hardware I was using but as
> I don't have any background or real exposure to Mac's outside what
> I've got here it wasn't very encouraging.
Hmm, no idea what you did there, my experiene is exactly the opposite.
> >I'm not so sure it's really a case of which is the easier to use, it's
> >getting them to understand the importance of a backup in the first
> >place.
>
> Oh indeed, and the grist of my point with this. Easy whilst being
> competent.
>
> >> Np. It's not often that I find a gadget that I believe would / could
> >> really make peoples lives that much easier but I think this is one of
> >> them.
> >
> >I agree, it's a real shame it won't work with older Mac OSs, otherwise I
> >may have been keener :-)
>
> Oh, fully understood and I didn't realise how limited it's Mac support
> was until you mentioned. I should have known I guess. <ducks>
That's got nowt to do with this case. Here we have a supported device,
which actually has no point, as it's only duplicating what's already
available to all users of Mac OS 10.5>, but at extra cost.
> > ˜ It would actually have some value for those
> >of my family that haven't got Time Machine.
>
> Yup, shame.
>
> A bit American and 'sales' but he does cover the key points and their
> products. No good for you gurus but think of the great unwashed. The
> viewer and restore features are nearly as easy as the backup (as I'm
> sure they would be under TM, if you had it etc).
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7yimoD9IoA
Hmm, yes, much clearer actually, and I think clear it isn't in fact a
direct replacement for Time Machine. As I read it, from what he was
saying, it searches and finds specific files on the source drive, such
as photos, music, documents, etc. It does not appear to copy
*everything*, so you couldn't, for example' restore to recreate a
bootable system disk again (the QA at Maplins confirms this too).
Time Machine actually does make a copy of the entire drive, so you can
recreate a complete bootable copy of your original system disk, or any
disks attached.
Still, it does at least enable restoration of the most important files,
it is better than no backup, as you say.
Cheers.
T i m
wrote:
>> Ok, for OSX 10.5 - agreed. ;-) I wonder what percentage of Macs out
>> there are running 10.5?
>
>Quite a lot I suspect. IIRC 10.5 was the fastest selling OS from Apple
>so far. One article I found says 18% of Mac users for 10.6 in the first
>month.
Quite good as you say.
>
>It might be possible that there's proportionally more Mac users on the
>latest OS than there are with Windows - IYSWIM?
You are probably right again. I wonder if proportionally more Mac
users are 'interested' in such things?
>
>> Out of interest, are the files on a TM backup accessible from a Mac
>> that doesn't have TM?
>
>Yes, they're just stored in a standard folder structure.
Ok good.
> A
>'sparsebundle' if it's on a network, which is still openable on any Mac.
OK.
>
>
>Well, yes, there is that. I tend to find it's more a 'afraid to break
>something', than ' can't be arsed'.
Oh, ok.
>
>> >> Oh I have no doubts there are 'better' and better vfm options out
>> >> there but as you say, none so easy to set up.
>> >
>> >Super Duper isn't so bad.
>>
>> Maybe my 'Mac backup' experience is tainted by the time I tried to
>> duplicate the internal drive onto an external drive (with your
>> assistance if I remember) and just ended up with corrupted drives and
>> millions of permissions errors. I've done the same process probably
>> hundreds of times on Windows (and Novell) stuff with rarely an issue.
>> I'm sure it was just me or the particular hardware I was using but as
>> I don't have any background or real exposure to Mac's outside what
>> I've got here it wasn't very encouraging.
>
>Hmm, no idea what you did there,
You did, you talked me though it, several times / ways! ;-)
> my experiene is exactly the opposite.
I thought it was going to be really easy and the actual procedure was
... just that it didn't actually work and I ended up just fitting the
new drive internally and re-installing OSX from scratch. The old
internal drive still works happily in the same external enclosure
though.
>
>> >I agree, it's a real shame it won't work with older Mac OSs, otherwise I
>> >may have been keener :-)
>>
>> Oh, fully understood and I didn't realise how limited it's Mac support
>> was until you mentioned. I should have known I guess. <ducks>
>
>That's got nowt to do with this case.
This case as in your case or as we are talking now?
> Here we have a supported device,
>which actually has no point, as it's only duplicating what's already
>available to all users of Mac OS 10.5>, but at extra cost.
Indeed, but I was including older versions of OSX in the 'limited'
case, it supports Windows back as far as 2000. And it isn't
duplicating what 'all users of 10.5> have' as 10.5> doesn't also come
with an external drive does it, so what are folk going TM onto if they
only have one machine? So they could buy the ClickFree 'Drive'.
Except as you say, there is no point over a basic drive (bigger for
less etc) if you have and like TM.
>
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7yimoD9IoA
>
>Hmm, yes, much clearer actually, and I think clear it isn't in fact a
>direct replacement for Time Machine. As I read it, from what he was
>saying, it searches and finds specific files on the source drive, such
>as photos, music, documents, etc. It does not appear to copy
>*everything*, so you couldn't, for example' restore to recreate a
>bootable system disk again (the QA at Maplins confirms this too).
Absolutely. I have said all along 'data' (although it will back up an
entire machine, not I suspect a disk image).
>
>Time Machine actually does make a copy of the entire drive, so you can
>recreate a complete bootable copy of your original system disk, or any
>disks attached.
I wasn't trying to suggest is was as good as TM. I was suggesting it
might be better than TM for those people who didn't like TM or hadn't
got it and wanted a hands off backup solution with drive. ;-)
>
>Still, it does at least enable restoration of the most important files,
>it is better than no backup, as you say.
Zakly. ;-)
Cheers, T i m
p.s. I originally posted about this in the hope it might be of use to
those who also have some input to friends / family with (primarily)
Windows machines and that it might give said an easy solution for at
least their data. I mentioned it here because at the time I thought it
'also did Mac's'. It turns out (when you mentioned and I looked into
it. I had no data to back up on a Mac so didn't try it up to then)
that support is less than it could have been (<< fact not dig). I
mean, it would have been so much nicer had it even worked on 10.4 for
example (and I don't know that it won't, just they don't say that it
will).
Andy Hewitt
> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 13:05:01 +0000, thewil...@me.com (Andy Hewitt)
> wrote:
[..]
> >Hmm, no idea what you did there,
>
> You did, you talked me though it, several times / ways! ;-)
Ah yes!
[..]
> >That's got nowt to do with this case.
>
> This case as in your case or as we are talking now?
I think I misunderstood your use of 'support'....
> > Here we have a supported device,
> >which actually has no point, as it's only duplicating what's already
> >available to all users of Mac OS 10.5>, but at extra cost.
>
> Indeed, but I was including older versions of OSX in the 'limited'
> case, it supports Windows back as far as 2000. And it isn't
> duplicating what 'all users of 10.5> have' as 10.5> doesn't also come
> with an external drive does it, so what are folk going TM onto if they
> only have one machine? So they could buy the ClickFree 'Drive'.
> Except as you say, there is no point over a basic drive (bigger for
> less etc) if you have and like TM.
...obviously I did. I understand now, and yes, you're right.
From an ease of use, and a 'I want to backup the most important stuff'
perspective, I see little difference between the two solutions.
One thing also not clear about the Clickfree box, and touching slightly
on an earlier issue, what happens with files deleted off the source? Is
this a true 'incremental' backup, so that the backup will match the
source at all times, including removing files no longer existing on the
source. Or does it keep all files regardless, in the same manner as Time
Machine, so that you have a rolling history?
Which brings me back to the earlier 'warning dialogue' issue that came
up. AFAIK, with some incremental backups you don't get any more warnings
about files being deleted after the initial 'this backup will delete
files to match the original disk' during setup.
Just something that may be worth checking. I know with SuperDuper, for
example, I can set a 'Smart Update', that matches the backup with the
source, or it can just add files that have changed, causing the backup
to grow in size.
> >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7yimoD9IoA
> >
> >Hmm, yes, much clearer actually, and I think clear it isn't in fact a
> >direct replacement for Time Machine. As I read it, from what he was
> >saying, it searches and finds specific files on the source drive, such
> >as photos, music, documents, etc. It does not appear to copy
> >*everything*, so you couldn't, for example' restore to recreate a
> >bootable system disk again (the QA at Maplins confirms this too).
>
> Absolutely. I have said all along 'data' (although it will back up an
> entire machine, not I suspect a disk image).
What about the System files?
> >Time Machine actually does make a copy of the entire drive, so you can
> >recreate a complete bootable copy of your original system disk, or any
> >disks attached.
>
> I wasn't trying to suggest is was as good as TM. I was suggesting it
> might be better than TM for those people who didn't like TM or hadn't
> got it and wanted a hands off backup solution with drive. ;-)
For sure. I wasn't really trying to say either was better, indeed I
reckon there's probably little difference in many ways. It just seems
unecessary for Mac users, that's all.
> >Still, it does at least enable restoration of the most important files,
> >it is better than no backup, as you say.
>
> Zakly. ;-)
>
> Cheers, T i m
>
> p.s. I originally posted about this in the hope it might be of use to
> those who also have some input to friends / family with (primarily)
> Windows machines and that it might give said an easy solution for at
> least their data. I mentioned it here because at the time I thought it
> 'also did Mac's'. It turns out (when you mentioned and I looked into
> it. I had no data to back up on a Mac so didn't try it up to then)
> that support is less than it could have been (<< fact not dig). I
> mean, it would have been so much nicer had it even worked on 10.4 for
> example (and I don't know that it won't, just they don't say that it
> will).
Hmm, it does quite often turn out that some of these things will
actually work on older systems, it's just that they may have not tested
it, so can't guarantee reliability (in which case you probably don't
want to be using it as a sole backup method).
T i m
wrote:
>From an ease of use, and a 'I want to backup the most important stuff'
>perspective, I see little difference between the two solutions.
That's not bad then, considering it's a unit for dummy's etc. ;-)
>
>One thing also not clear about the Clickfree box, and touching slightly
>on an earlier issue, what happens with files deleted off the source? Is
>this a true 'incremental' backup, so that the backup will match the
>source at all times, including removing files no longer existing on the
>source. Or does it keep all files regardless, in the same manner as Time
>Machine, so that you have a rolling history?
Good question. I'll have to try it. ;-)
>
>Which brings me back to the earlier 'warning dialogue' issue that came
>up. AFAIK, with some incremental backups you don't get any more warnings
>about files being deleted after the initial 'this backup will delete
>files to match the original disk' during setup.
Well I copied some stuff onto my PC yesterday (just as a stepping
stone) then did some scanning then a backup and noticed it also backed
up the stuff I put on there temporarily (someone's 'My Docs' I was
holding for them). I'll stick them on DVD then delete them from my PC
and do another backup and let you know. ;-)
>
>Just something that may be worth checking. I know with SuperDuper, for
>example, I can set a 'Smart Update', that matches the backup with the
>source, or it can just add files that have changed, causing the backup
>to grow in size.
Understood.
>
>
>> Absolutely. I have said all along 'data' (although it will back up an
>> entire machine, not I suspect a disk image).
>
>What about the System files?
I think it will do every file it can see / get at. Exactly what that
means under (say) XP I don't know but I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be
enough for any hope of a full system restore. But then that's not what
it's designed for.
>
>For sure. I wasn't really trying to say either was better, indeed I
>reckon there's probably little difference in many ways. It just seems
>unecessary for Mac users, that's all.
Even if many of them had the option. (not 10.5 > yet etc). ;-(
>
>
>Hmm, it does quite often turn out that some of these things will
>actually work on older systems, it's just that they may have not tested
>it, so can't guarantee reliability (in which case you probably don't
>want to be using it as a sole backup method).
No indeed (all points).
Cheers, T i m
Bruce Horrocks
> Jon B <black...@jonbradbury.com> wrote:> [...]
>>>> That was the icing on this cow-pie cake!
>>> I HATE TIME MACHINE.
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>> Probably why I've never looked at TM and stuck with ChronoSync as I've
>> never really seen any posts to encourage me otherwise.
>
> Time Machine is the fucktard of the software world.
Can I offer you a cup of tea and a damp towel to put over your forehead?
--
Bruce Horrocks
Surrey
England
(bruce at scorecrow dot com)
Bruce Horrocks
> R <me...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>> Rowland McDonnell <real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> Isn't that the thinking behind *everything* on Macs these days?
>>>
>>> Apple provides stuff for numpties and for the Gods - the rest of us can
>>> go hang.
>> If it did not already exist, would Apple invent AppleScript today?
>
> Christ knows. AppleScript is appalling.
>
> But - well, I'd like to learn to program my Mac using *SOMETHING* so
> that I can perform simple automated jobs like I could on my BBC Micro
> back in the early 1980s. I've got this super Mac, but in some ways a
> BBC Micro is more use to me- simply because a Mac won't let me automate
> it.
What sort of jobs? (And feel free to contact me off line if you'd
prefer) I quite like AppleScript (having scripted in virtually every OS
and language over the years). The biggest problem I find is where the
app doesn't support AppleScript fully so the promise is tantalising but
the reality less so. That said, if something can't be scripted in
AppleScript then it is unlikely to be scriptable in Bash or Perl on the
Mac either.
Andy Hewitt
> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 14:46:29 +0000, thewil...@me.com (Andy Hewitt)
> wrote:
[..]
> >One thing also not clear about the Clickfree box, and touching slightly
> >on an earlier issue, what happens with files deleted off the source? Is
> >this a true 'incremental' backup, so that the backup will match the
> >source at all times, including removing files no longer existing on the
> >source. Or does it keep all files regardless, in the same manner as Time
> >Machine, so that you have a rolling history?
>
> Good question. I'll have to try it. ;-)
Er, yes, it could be worth knowing about :-)
> >Which brings me back to the earlier 'warning dialogue' issue that came
> >up. AFAIK, with some incremental backups you don't get any more warnings
> >about files being deleted after the initial 'this backup will delete
> >files to match the original disk' during setup.
>
> Well I copied some stuff onto my PC yesterday (just as a stepping
> stone) then did some scanning then a backup and noticed it also backed
> up the stuff I put on there temporarily (someone's 'My Docs' I was
> holding for them). I'll stick them on DVD then delete them from my PC
> and do another backup and let you know. ;-)
Righto.
T i m
wrote:
>>
>> stone) then did some scanning then a backup and noticed it also backed
>> up the stuff I put on there temporarily (someone's 'My Docs' I was
>> holding for them). I'll stick them on DVD then delete them from my PC
>> and do another backup and let you know. ;-)
>
hdd, on the backup, sorta what I expected to happen (is that right)?
Modifying a test file leaves the last version on the backup.
Not as sophisticated as TM I know but better than nuffink. ;-)
T i m
Andy Hewitt
> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 17:34:12 +0000, thewil...@me.com (Andy Hewitt)
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Well I copied some stuff onto my PC yesterday (just as a stepping
> >> stone) then did some scanning then a backup and noticed it also backed
> >> up the stuff I put on there temporarily (someone's 'My Docs' I was
> >> holding for them). I'll stick them on DVD then delete them from my PC
> >> and do another backup and let you know. ;-)
> >
> Erm, well, it seemed to leave the copies of the files deleted on the
> hdd, on the backup, sorta what I expected to happen (is that right)?
>
> Modifying a test file leaves the last version on the backup.
Yes, that's a pretty standard backup.
> Not as sophisticated as TM I know but better than nuffink. ;-)
Not really, it's 'different'. I think that's the bit that many don't get
with TM, it is different to most other backup solutions. It's kind of a
hybrid between an archival backup, and a clone of your current system.
There's nothing wrong with running TM *and* something like SuperDuper
together, indeed, it can be desirable.
One thing to consider as a possibility is the chance of copying a
corrupt file into a backup. With the types that overwrite existing
files, this is a very high possibility, and means you could easily copy
a corrupt file at the time of an imminent system failure.
I had this happen years ago when I worked off floppies, and copied the
disks each session, so I had a duplicate. This worked fine, until I
opened a file to find it had corrupted, but found that I'd backed up the
corrupt file too.
That's why I like TM, you have a chance to retrieve an earlier version
of any file, as it keeps a complete history of the changes.
I also keep a clone copy, using SuperDuper's "Smart Update", so I have a
bootable system I could get working quickly, and maybe use to recover
the main disk. It can be handy to have a non-current backup when you run
a major update.
Tim Streater
> That's why I like TM, you have a chance to retrieve an earlier version
> of any file, as it keeps a complete history of the changes.
Yes. I've used this to look back at old versions of some PHP or
JavaScript file, where I've suddenly panicked that I may have recently
deleted some code, and or to confirm why I made some change or other.
What's nice is that you don't even have to restore the file to look at
it. Text files at least you can examine from within TM.
And TextWrangler 3.0's file compare is reeeely nice, in the case where a
more detailed comparison is required.
--
Tim
"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines
imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted"
Bill of Rights 1689
Andy Hewitt
> On 21/11/2009 22:11, Andy Hewitt wrote:
>
> > That's why I like TM, you have a chance to retrieve an earlier version
> > of any file, as it keeps a complete history of the changes.
>
> Yes. I've used this to look back at old versions of some PHP or
> JavaScript file, where I've suddenly panicked that I may have recently
> deleted some code, and or to confirm why I made some change or other.
> What's nice is that you don't even have to restore the file to look at
> it. Text files at least you can examine from within TM.
>
> And TextWrangler 3.0's file compare is reeeely nice, in the case where a
> more detailed comparison is required.
Aye, and that's another reason why TM shouldn't be your sole backup.
Rooting around in it must introduce some element of risk.
Tim Streater
You mean 'cos I might dork it over? I only root around inside the
backups using TM itself. If I need to do a TW-type comparison then I
restore the file first (e.g. to my desktop, where it's not gonna
overwrite my working copy).
Andy Hewitt
> On 21/11/2009 22:34, Andy Hewitt wrote:
> > Tim Streater<timst...@waitrose.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 21/11/2009 22:11, Andy Hewitt wrote:
> >>
> >>> That's why I like TM, you have a chance to retrieve an earlier version
> >>> of any file, as it keeps a complete history of the changes.
> >>
> >> Yes. I've used this to look back at old versions of some PHP or
> >> JavaScript file, where I've suddenly panicked that I may have recently
> >> deleted some code, and or to confirm why I made some change or other.
> >> What's nice is that you don't even have to restore the file to look at
> >> it. Text files at least you can examine from within TM.
> >>
> >> And TextWrangler 3.0's file compare is reeeely nice, in the case where a
> >> more detailed comparison is required.
> >
> > Aye, and that's another reason why TM shouldn't be your sole backup.
> > Rooting around in it must introduce some element of risk.
>
> You mean 'cos I might dork it over? I only root around inside the
> backups using TM itself. If I need to do a TW-type comparison then I
> restore the file first (e.g. to my desktop, where it's not gonna
> overwrite my working copy).
Yes, and no. Yes, it's possible to 'dork it over', but not necessarily
yourself, it could be anyone. Maybe the kind of person that likes to
root around their iPhoto or Aperture library and edit images directly
(it happens).
Rowland McDonnell
> Rowland McDonnell wrote:
> > R <me...@privacy.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Rowland McDonnell <real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Isn't that the thinking behind *everything* on Macs these days?
> >>>
> >>> Apple provides stuff for numpties and for the Gods - the rest of us can
> >>> go hang.
> >> If it did not already exist, would Apple invent AppleScript today?
> >
> > Christ knows. AppleScript is appalling.
> >
> > But - well, I'd like to learn to program my Mac using *SOMETHING* so
> > that I can perform simple automated jobs like I could on my BBC Micro
> > back in the early 1980s. I've got this super Mac, but in some ways a
> > BBC Micro is more use to me- simply because a Mac won't let me automate
> > it.
>
> What sort of jobs?
Hmm. I've given up thinking about automation since it's nearly
impossible to do any more - decades of `improvements' and that's one
thing which is definitely worse.
So... Let's see. I can think of two jobs I do manually a lot which are
really annoying.
I'd like a script that'd dive down a directory tree recursively and move
all files matching a specific pattern to the trash.
(Job to be done: delete all *.log, *.aux, *.toc, *.lot, *lof, etc files
if they are in a directory with a *.tex file of the same filename root)
And one to open a pdf file in Preview, change page size/orientation to
DL envelope/landscape, identify which pages in the pdf file have a paper
size matching DL envelope (job made easier by the fact that they're all
at the end - and I'd not mind typing in a single number if the machine
couldn't work that bit out), print 'em out using single sided best
quality printing (defined by a preset), and then put page
size/orientation back to A4 portrait.
>(And feel free to contact me off line if you'd
> prefer) I quite like AppleScript (having scripted in virtually every OS
> and language over the years). The biggest problem I find is where the
> app doesn't support AppleScript fully so the promise is tantalising but
> the reality less so.
The biggest problem is simply persuading AppleScript to perform *ANY*
tasks, I find. I've found it nearly impossible to figure out what
scripting dictionary entries do or how to use them. One other problem
is the lack of ability to control data types, and AppleScript's tendency
to pick the wrong data type for the job in hand. Not to mention the
fact that I found out the hard way Apple's totally uninterested in
keeping AppleScript stable, or so it seems.
I did once manage to cobble together some AppleScripts I found useful to
use with LaTeX.
I downloaded, printed out, and read a lot in the AppleScript reference
manual from Apple, I bought AppleScript for Dummies which I read all of
(it's very bad), I read many on-line guides.
It took several weeks to figure out how to write scripts to delete -
look, you run TeX on a *.tex file, you get a *.pdf output (shutup), and
also a *.log file, usually a *.aux file, and often other debris too. I
found out how to write a script that'd delete such files, but never
could work out how to get it to work recursively.
Anyway, like I say, after several weeks hard slog, I got the above
script working, and a few others. Never could get it working
recursively - but I could have written a Basic program to do the job in
minutes. Recursively, too - dead easy. Impossible with AppleScript, so
it seemed.
Anyway, then I went from MacOS 7.6.1 to 9.0.4 and all my scripts broke.
Since I had no idea why they worked in the first place, I couldn't fix
'em.
> That said, if something can't be scripted in
> AppleScript then it is unlikely to be scriptable in Bash or Perl on the
> Mac either.
For me, the problem is that there seem to be no good learning resources
for *ANY* scripting language or indeed any programming language I can
find out about on Macs.
Rowland.
--
Remove the animal for email address: rowland....@dog.physics.org
Sorry - the spam got to me
http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk
UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
Tim Streater
[snip]
> For me, the problem is that there seem to be no good learning resources
> for *ANY* scripting language or indeed any programming language I can
> find out about on Macs.
Have you tried PHP? That has a large set of APIs to all sorts of things,
a reasonable C-like syntax, easy string handling, and a very good
website where the docs appear to be written in an adult fashion (unlike
perl). I use no other.
Woody
That one should be pretty simple in any of the scripting languages such
as python or php, or even non scripting languages such as java on the
mac. I am sure it is probably simple in some of the shell languages or
built in commands for those who know them (I say probably, as I don't do
the unix scripting languages).
I would have thought python would have a large number of online manuals
for it as it is getting a lot of use in universities and the like - some
of them must be up to standard.
> And one to open a pdf file in Preview, change page size/orientation to
> DL envelope/landscape, identify which pages in the pdf file have a paper
> size matching DL envelope (job made easier by the fact that they're all
> at the end - and I'd not mind typing in a single number if the machine
> couldn't work that bit out), print 'em out using single sided best
> quality printing (defined by a preset), and then put page
> size/orientation back to A4 portrait.
That sounds like an applescript thing. Never managed to get anything
useful out of applescript.
--
Woody
Bruce Horrocks
>
> Hmm. I've given up thinking about automation since it's nearly
> impossible to do any more - decades of `improvements' and that's one
> thing which is definitely worse.
>
> So... Let's see. I can think of two jobs I do manually a lot which are
> really annoying.
>
> I'd like a script that'd dive down a directory tree recursively and move
> all files matching a specific pattern to the trash.
>
>
> (Job to be done: delete all *.log, *.aux, *.toc, *.lot, *lof, etc files
> if they are in a directory with a *.tex file of the same filename root)
Here's a Bash shell script version:
---begin---
:
for T in `find $1 -name "*.tex" -print`
do
for E in .log .aux .toc .lot .lof
do
R=`echo $T | sed s/\.tex$/$E/`
echo rm $R
done
done
---end---
Copy all the lines between begin and end into a file called whatever you
want (let's assume it's "TeXtidy.sh").
You invoke it from Terminal as
$ . ./TeXtidy.sh start_dir_name
where start_dir_name is the directory you want to start the recursion
from. (Note that is "dot space dot slash" at the beginning.)
I haven't commented it at all but the way it works is to find the full
pathname of all files in dirs below the start dir that end with the
extension .tex. E.g. T = ~/start_dir/dir1/dir2/my_tex_file.tex
The inner loop replaces the ".tex" at the end with ".log", ".aux" etc in
turn and tries to remove the file. If it succeeds then great; if not
then it doesn't matter - ignore any error message and just move onto the
next.
As it stands above, it only lists out the files that it will try to
delete. Just remove the echo before the rm to actually delete when you
are happy that it does actually do what you want.
To add more file extension types to match the "etc" in your post, just
extend the list in the line starting "for E". Note that it doesn't do
anything smart about files with extensions that don't exist so rm might
give lots of 'not found' type errors. You can always re-direct errors to
/dev/null.
If you want to see an AppleScript version as well then I could knock one
up in the next day or so when I have a bit of spare time.
>
> And one to open a pdf file in Preview, change page size/orientation to
> DL envelope/landscape, identify which pages in the pdf file have a paper
> size matching DL envelope (job made easier by the fact that they're all
> at the end - and I'd not mind typing in a single number if the machine
> couldn't work that bit out), print 'em out using single sided best
> quality printing (defined by a preset), and then put page
> size/orientation back to A4 portrait.
This is harder because it depends on what scripting support is
built-into Preview and/or the print dialogue handler. I'll have a go but
it might end up being specific to my printer rather than yours.
Haven't got time now but will have a look.
>> (And feel free to contact me off line if you'd
>> prefer) I quite like AppleScript (having scripted in virtually every OS
>> and language over the years). The biggest problem I find is where the
>> app doesn't support AppleScript fully so the promise is tantalising but
>> the reality less so.
>
> The biggest problem is simply persuading AppleScript to perform *ANY*
> tasks, I find. I've found it nearly impossible to figure out what
> scripting dictionary entries do or how to use them. One other problem
> is the lack of ability to control data types, and AppleScript's tendency
> to pick the wrong data type for the job in hand. Not to mention the
> fact that I found out the hard way Apple's totally uninterested in
> keeping AppleScript stable, or so it seems.
Agreed that finding the dictionaries for applications can be a right
royal pain. As for data types - I just develop patiently one small bit
at a time and looking carefully at the results.
> I did once manage to cobble together some AppleScripts I found useful to
> use with LaTeX.
>
> I downloaded, printed out, and read a lot in the AppleScript reference
> manual from Apple, I bought AppleScript for Dummies which I read all of
> (it's very bad), I read many on-line guides.
It is very much a case of: you are expected to know which command to
use, and only need the manual to remind yourself how to use it. I just
delved through all the examples to get me started and experimented from
there.
> It took several weeks to figure out how to write scripts to delete -
> look, you run TeX on a *.tex file, you get a *.pdf output (shutup), and
> also a *.log file, usually a *.aux file, and often other debris too. I
> found out how to write a script that'd delete such files, but never
> could work out how to get it to work recursively.
>
> Anyway, like I say, after several weeks hard slog, I got the above
> script working, and a few others. Never could get it working
> recursively - but I could have written a Basic program to do the job in
> minutes. Recursively, too - dead easy. Impossible with AppleScript, so
> it seemed.
Standard way to do recursion in AppleScript is to define a function that
calls itself. I do remember (back in MacOS 7 days) taking ages and ages
to find an example of how to create a funtion though. :-)
> Anyway, then I went from MacOS 7.6.1 to 9.0.4 and all my scripts broke.
> Since I had no idea why they worked in the first place, I couldn't fix
> 'em.
>
>> That said, if something can't be scripted in
>> AppleScript then it is unlikely to be scriptable in Bash or Perl on the
>> Mac either.
>
> For me, the problem is that there seem to be no good learning resources
> for *ANY* scripting language or indeed any programming language I can
> find out about on Macs.
Haven't looked for one so can't really help here. Maybe someone else has
some suggestions?
Regards
Ben Shimmin
> On 22/11/2009 22:09, Rowland McDonnell wrote:
>> For me, the problem is that there seem to be no good learning resources
>> for *ANY* scripting language or indeed any programming language I can
>> find out about on Macs.
>
> Have you tried PHP? That has a large set of APIs to all sorts of things,
> a reasonable C-like syntax, easy string handling, and a very good
> website where the docs appear to be written in an adult fashion (unlike
> perl). I use no other.
PHP has 53 built-in functions which start with `array'. I think that's
quite a good indication of the sort of language it is.
b.
--
<b...@bas.me.uk> <URL:http://bas.me.uk/>
`Property, marriage, the law; as the bed to the river, so rule
and convention to the instinct; and woe to him who tampers with
the banks while the flood is flowing.' -- Samuel Butler, _Erewhon_
zoara
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 12:48:32 +0000, thewil...@me.com (Andy Hewitt)
> wrote:
>
> >> It does and that's *the point* of this dongle. It has a virtual CD
> >> thing like these USB BB dongles that autorun on insertion.
> >
> >OK, fair enough. The Maplin page doesn't make that clear.
>
> I thought I had though. 'You plug it in and it backs up all your data'
> . ;-)
Probably most of us were confused, because who in their right mind
leaves those autorun seetings turned on?
-z-
--
"And the tiny universe compiles."
http://powazek.com/posts/1655
zoara
> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 10:34:23 +0000, thewil...@me.com (Andy Hewitt)
> wrote:
>
> >> But not truly automated.
> >
> >Huh! Apart from clicking on 'Use this drive', it is.
>
> Ok, for OSX 10.5 - agreed. ;-) I wonder what percentage of Macs out
> there are running 10.5?
95% of Daring Fireball readers adopted 10.5 or 10.6 within three weeks
of 10.6's release (caveat noted).
<http://daringfireball.net/2009/09/snow_leopard_adoption_rate>
Vowe.net agrees, on the same timescale:
<http://vowe.net/archives/010927.html>
MacWorld; more like 90%:
<http://www.macworld.com/article/142933/2009/09/snow_leopard_adoption.ht
ml>
Ars Technica: 85-90%
<http://clintecker.com/ars_snow_leopard_users.gif>
Adium usage stats: 83%
http://adium.im/sparkle/?year=2009&week=48&graph=bar#osVersion
Omnigroup usage stats: 65%
<http://update.omnigroup.com/>
And the most likely to be representative figure; Net Applications
reckons around 80% are running 10.5 or 10.6, as of October this year:
<http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2009/10/how-fast-are-mac-users-adopti
ng-snow-leopard-pretty-fast.ars>
(also 90% of Ars Technica readers are on 10.5 or better)
There's a general idea of marketshare (ie Mac, Windows, Linux) here:
<http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2009/11/october-2009-os-stats-win
dows-7-passes-snow-leopard-linux-1.ars>
> Out of interest, are the files on a TM backup accessible from a Mac
> that doesn't have TM?
Yes.
-zoara-
zoara
> wrote:
>
> >Time Machine actually does make a copy of the entire drive, so you
> > can
> >recreate a complete bootable copy of your original system disk, or
> > any
> >disks attached.
>
> I wasn't trying to suggest is was as good as TM. I was suggesting it
> might be better than TM for those people who didn't like TM or hadn't
> got it and wanted a hands off backup solution with drive. ;-)
It sounds pretty pointless, actually. If you don't have (or don't like)
Time Machine there are plenty of apps out there that actually perform a
backup, rather than this half-arsed "copy only those files that it
recognises" process that your little toy seems to do.
There are plenty that cost less than this, and plenty that are as
automated or more so, and plenty that will automatically back up when
you plug in the drive if you insist on adding some manual interaction to
an automated process. And they will back up *all* your files, not just
the "over 400 types of files" that ClickFree "supports" (what if
ClickFree doesn't understand Python or OmniGraffle or m4v or XML or
.band or .pkg or... or... or...?)
It also isn't very reassuring when a "backup" application also has
features to set the desktop
wallpaper (sic) to an image in your backup, to allow printing of
backed-up files, or to share a backed-up image on Facebook.
What's worst of all is that it provides an entirely false sense of
security because - unless I've just completely missed it (and I did try
to find it) - it stores no history. Let's say you back up twice a week,
and each Saturday you update some "plan for the week" or some other such
weekly file. One Saturday you accidentally screw up the file, but don't
notice. Come the next Saturday you try to open it and it's corrupt or
had all the content accidentally replaced with a witty joke you must
have copy-pasted in by mistake. Never mind, you can just go to the
backup and restore it, and you'll have only lost last week's changes,
right? Nope, because your twice-weekly backup has replaced the decent
copy with the screwed-up copy. In other words, this backup device is
actually useless for backup unless you notice that there is a problem
with your (supported) file before the next backup occurs. Do you check
all your files before backing them up?
As usual, a recommendation from T i m is a sure sign that something is
shit and should be avoided.
Rowland McDonnell
> Rowland McDonnell <real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote:
>
> > Bruce Horrocks <07....@scorecrow.com> wrote:
[snip]
> > Hmm. I've given up thinking about automation since it's nearly
> > impossible to do any more - decades of `improvements' and that's one
> > thing which is definitely worse.
> >
> > So... Let's see. I can think of two jobs I do manually a lot which are
> > really annoying.
> >
> > I'd like a script that'd dive down a directory tree recursively and move
> > all files matching a specific pattern to the trash.
> >
> > (Job to be done: delete all *.log, *.aux, *.toc, *.lot, *lof, etc files
> > if they are in a directory with a *.tex file of the same filename root)
>
> That one should be pretty simple in any of the scripting languages such
> as python or php, or even non scripting languages such as java on the
> mac.
Simple for experts in those languages, I'm sure.
>I am sure it is probably simple in some of the shell languages or
> built in commands for those who know them (I say probably, as I don't do
> the unix scripting languages).
Of course it is - but I need teaching to learn how to do any of it.
Available written materials have proven impossible for me to learn from
and believe me I've tried - lots. I can't get started with *ANY* of
them. I need human assistance to get me started. With that, I can
usually carry on alone once I've got over the initial `hump'.
But of course these days, if you can't understand the written docs,
almost all the experts who know how to help will just sneer at you and
insult you. And every time I explain that, I'm told that it's my fault
that they behave in such a nasty antisocial and generally totally
unacceptable fashion.
Which claim is bullshit - but there you, the experts apparently are
allowed to behave appallingly (I've been told that this is `correct
etiquette' on one forum) and have licence to shit on clueless newbies.
Allegedly. Fuck the modern world, sez I, it's shite.
> I would have thought python would have a large number of online manuals
> for it as it is getting a lot of use in universities and the like - some
> of them must be up to standard.
I have found precisely no such manuals to be useful. Not one. Modern
programming teaching/learning materials just plain don't work with me.
I always need a human being to explain what the hell the docs mean. If
I've not got one, I'm stuck.
> > And one to open a pdf file in Preview, change page size/orientation to
> > DL envelope/landscape, identify which pages in the pdf file have a paper
> > size matching DL envelope (job made easier by the fact that they're all
> > at the end - and I'd not mind typing in a single number if the machine
> > couldn't work that bit out), print 'em out using single sided best
> > quality printing (defined by a preset), and then put page
> > size/orientation back to A4 portrait.
>
> That sounds like an applescript thing. Never managed to get anything
> useful out of applescript.
I did, once, after huge effort - then it all broke when I upgraded the
OS. Not very useful of either of us to make such comments though, is
it?
Rowland McDonnell
> Rowland McDonnell wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > For me, the problem is that there seem to be no good learning resources
> > for *ANY* scripting language or indeed any programming language I can
> > find out about on Macs.
>
> Have you tried PHP? That has a large set of APIs to all sorts of things,
> a reasonable C-like syntax,
Yeah, well, a C like syntax does rather make it tricky to use - I've
never found a way to learn C, which appears to be intended to be
machine-readable rather than human-readable. It's as bad as TeX for
being hard to work out what the code does, and harder than TeX to write
in the first place AFAICT.
A large set of APIs which are sure to be inadequately documented (as is
everything these days) is exactly the opposite of any bloody use at all.
> easy string handling, and a very good
> website where the docs appear to be written in an adult fashion (unlike
> perl). I use no other.
I expect so, but I also assume that any suggestion you are making is
made in bad faith for the purposes of causing me bother.
Rowland McDonnell
> Tim Streater <timst...@waitrose.com>:
> > On 22/11/2009 22:09, Rowland McDonnell wrote:
> >> For me, the problem is that there seem to be no good learning resources
> >> for *ANY* scripting language or indeed any programming language I can
> >> find out about on Macs.
> >
> > Have you tried PHP? That has a large set of APIs to all sorts of things,
> > a reasonable C-like syntax, easy string handling, and a very good
> > website where the docs appear to be written in an adult fashion (unlike
> > perl). I use no other.
>
> PHP has 53 built-in functions which start with `array'. I think that's
> quite a good indication of the sort of language it is.
It might be a good indicator to an expert programmer who knows that
language and several other programming languages.
The rest of us are - as expected - utterly without clue as to what you
might be suggesting.
But of course Ben has to make a uselessly annoying post, doesn't he?
Rowland McDonnell
> Rowland McDonnell wrote:
> > Bruce Horrocks <07....@scorecrow.com> wrote:
> >> What sort of jobs?
> >
> > Hmm. I've given up thinking about automation since it's nearly
> > impossible to do any more - decades of `improvements' and that's one
> > thing which is definitely worse.
> >
> > So... Let's see. I can think of two jobs I do manually a lot which are
> > really annoying.
> >
> > I'd like a script that'd dive down a directory tree recursively and move
> > all files matching a specific pattern to the trash.
> >
> >
> > (Job to be done: delete all *.log, *.aux, *.toc, *.lot, *lof, etc files
> > if they are in a directory with a *.tex file of the same filename root)
>
> Here's a Bash shell script version:
Oooh! Thanks.
> ---begin---
> :
> for T in `find $1 -name "*.tex" -print`
> do
> for E in .log .aux .toc .lot .lof
Okay, I've read your post - but what exactly does the above line do,
*exactly*? And can you explain the for loop syntax? Yes, I've read
bash docs and no I can't work it out from them, which is why I'm asking
you.
> do
> R=`echo $T | sed s/\.tex$/$E/`
Hmm - and this line, for that matter. It's the sed bit I'm curious
about.
> echo rm $R
> done
> done
> ---end---
>
> Copy all the lines between begin and end into a file called whatever you
> want (let's assume it's "TeXtidy.sh").
>
> You invoke it from Terminal as
>
> $ . ./TeXtidy.sh start_dir_name
>
> where start_dir_name is the directory you want to start the recursion
> from. (Note that is "dot space dot slash" at the beginning.)
Hmm - I'd rather be able to invoke it by dropping the directory I want
on to something. Maybe I'll be able to figure something out about that.
> I haven't commented it at all but the way it works is to find the full
> pathname of all files in dirs below the start dir that end with the
> extension .tex. E.g. T = ~/start_dir/dir1/dir2/my_tex_file.tex
Uhuh.
> The inner loop replaces the ".tex" at the end with ".log", ".aux" etc in
> turn and tries to remove the file. If it succeeds then great; if not
> then it doesn't matter - ignore any error message and just move onto the
> next.
Righto.
> As it stands above, it only lists out the files that it will try to
> delete. Just remove the echo before the rm to actually delete when you
> are happy that it does actually do what you want.
Uhuh.
> To add more file extension types to match the "etc" in your post, just
> extend the list in the line starting "for E".
> Note that it doesn't do
> anything smart about files with extensions that don't exist so rm might
> give lots of 'not found' type errors. You can always re-direct errors to
> /dev/null.
Might? Given the way the script works and the way I use LaTeX, it will
/certainly/ generate lots more errors than files it deletes
> If you want to see an AppleScript version as well then I could knock one
> up in the next day or so when I have a bit of spare time.
Thank you kindly for your help so far and for that offer - but one
solution is all that's needed, and I think it'll be hard enough for me
to get my head round this one on its own.
> > And one to open a pdf file in Preview, change page size/orientation to
> > DL envelope/landscape, identify which pages in the pdf file have a paper
> > size matching DL envelope (job made easier by the fact that they're all
> > at the end - and I'd not mind typing in a single number if the machine
> > couldn't work that bit out), print 'em out using single sided best
> > quality printing (defined by a preset), and then put page
> > size/orientation back to A4 portrait.
>
> This is harder because it depends on what scripting support is
> built-into Preview and/or the print dialogue handler. I'll have a go but
> it might end up being specific to my printer rather than yours.
Anything like that would have to do with selecting a particular named
printer preset, so could be changed easily, surely? There is no need to
invoke printer peculiarities to get the job done in this case - except
for selecting a given preset. Or at least, that's the idea I've got in
my head.
> Haven't got time now but will have a look.
Well, just a fragment of help would do.
> >> (And feel free to contact me off line if you'd
> >> prefer) I quite like AppleScript (having scripted in virtually every OS
> >> and language over the years). The biggest problem I find is where the
> >> app doesn't support AppleScript fully so the promise is tantalising but
> >> the reality less so.
> >
> > The biggest problem is simply persuading AppleScript to perform *ANY*
> > tasks, I find. I've found it nearly impossible to figure out what
> > scripting dictionary entries do or how to use them. One other problem
> > is the lack of ability to control data types, and AppleScript's tendency
> > to pick the wrong data type for the job in hand. Not to mention the
> > fact that I found out the hard way Apple's totally uninterested in
> > keeping AppleScript stable, or so it seems.
>
> Agreed that finding the dictionaries for applications can be a right
> royal pain. As for data types - I just develop patiently one small bit
> at a time and looking carefully at the results.
>
> > I did once manage to cobble together some AppleScripts I found useful to
> > use with LaTeX.
> >
> > I downloaded, printed out, and read a lot in the AppleScript reference
> > manual from Apple, I bought AppleScript for Dummies which I read all of
> > (it's very bad), I read many on-line guides.
>
> It is very much a case of: you are expected to know which command to
> use, and only need the manual to remind yourself how to use it. I just
> delved through all the examples to get me started and experimented from
> there.
Quite.
Programming in Applescript it's fun and easy according to Apple
(frustrating, annoying, and near impossible according to me), so
obviously there's no need for much user documentation.
> > It took several weeks to figure out how to write scripts to delete -
> > look, you run TeX on a *.tex file, you get a *.pdf output (shutup), and
> > also a *.log file, usually a *.aux file, and often other debris too. I
> > found out how to write a script that'd delete such files, but never
> > could work out how to get it to work recursively.
> >
> > Anyway, like I say, after several weeks hard slog, I got the above
> > script working, and a few others. Never could get it working
> > recursively - but I could have written a Basic program to do the job in
> > minutes. Recursively, too - dead easy. Impossible with AppleScript, so
> > it seemed.
>
> Standard way to do recursion in AppleScript is to define a function that
> calls itself.
Yeah, I know that - it's the same using BBC Basic, which I can drive.
The problem with AppleScript is that it was impossible to get the data
required into a variable.
Recursion was impossible because while I could get pointers to files
into variables (took an enormous amout of work, but I got there), I
couldn't do the same with pointers to folders. Just point blank
couldn't manipulate folders at all.
I simply couldn't understand how AppleScript could be that crap, but it
was. I knew - and still know - how to write the program I want using
BBC Basic. No damned use, 'cos I can't get a Beeb to drive anything on
my Macs but if I could I would do it that way. Can I do it using
anything modern? Nope.
> I do remember (back in MacOS 7 days) taking ages and ages
> to find an example of how to create a funtion though. :-)
Oh, that wasn't a problem at all. The problem was making a function to
anything useful at all.
> > Anyway, then I went from MacOS 7.6.1 to 9.0.4 and all my scripts broke.
> > Since I had no idea why they worked in the first place, I couldn't fix
> > 'em.
> >
> >> That said, if something can't be scripted in
> >> AppleScript then it is unlikely to be scriptable in Bash or Perl on the
> >> Mac either.
> >
> > For me, the problem is that there seem to be no good learning resources
> > for *ANY* scripting language or indeed any programming language I can
> > find out about on Macs.
>
> Haven't looked for one so can't really help here. Maybe someone else has
> some suggestions?
I need a human being next to me who can explain the manual as I work
through it. There are no modern programming resources which I can use
without a human being to explain them to me. Generally, though, once
I've had a bit of help to get me started so I can understand the docs, I
can carry on to the end myself. It's just that I can never get started
on my own - too many invalid assumptions on the part of the authors, I
feel.
Cheers,
Woody
> Woody <use...@alienrat.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Rowland McDonnell <real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > > Bruce Horrocks <07....@scorecrow.com> wrote:
> [snip]
>
> > > Hmm. I've given up thinking about automation since it's nearly
> > > impossible to do any more - decades of `improvements' and that's one
> > > thing which is definitely worse.
> > >
> > > So... Let's see. I can think of two jobs I do manually a lot which are
> > > really annoying.
> > >
> > > I'd like a script that'd dive down a directory tree recursively and move
> > > all files matching a specific pattern to the trash.
> > >
> > > (Job to be done: delete all *.log, *.aux, *.toc, *.lot, *lof, etc files
> > > if they are in a directory with a *.tex file of the same filename root)
> >
> > That one should be pretty simple in any of the scripting languages such
> > as python or php, or even non scripting languages such as java on the
> > mac.
>
> Simple for experts in those languages, I'm sure.
It is, and people that casually know them. If you want a script to do
that, just say what you want and I am sure many people here would write
you one.
> >I am sure it is probably simple in some of the shell languages or
> > built in commands for those who know them (I say probably, as I don't do
> > the unix scripting languages).
>
> Of course it is - but I need teaching to learn how to do any of it.
> Available written materials have proven impossible for me to learn from
> and believe me I've tried - lots. I can't get started with *ANY* of
> them. I need human assistance to get me started. With that, I can
> usually carry on alone once I've got over the initial `hump'.
>
> But of course these days, if you can't understand the written docs,
> almost all the experts who know how to help will just sneer at you and
> insult you.
In which case they aren't experts who know how to help.
> > > And one to open a pdf file in Preview, change page size/orientation to
> > > DL envelope/landscape, identify which pages in the pdf file have a paper
> > > size matching DL envelope (job made easier by the fact that they're all
> > > at the end - and I'd not mind typing in a single number if the machine
> > > couldn't work that bit out), print 'em out using single sided best
> > > quality printing (defined by a preset), and then put page
> > > size/orientation back to A4 portrait.
> >
> > That sounds like an applescript thing. Never managed to get anything
> > useful out of applescript.
>
> I did, once, after huge effort - then it all broke when I upgraded the
> OS. Not very useful of either of us to make such comments though, is
> it?
No, it is just a comment, hardly meant to be 'useful'
--
Woody
Tim Streater
> Tim Streater<timst...@waitrose.com>:
>> On 22/11/2009 22:09, Rowland McDonnell wrote:
>>> For me, the problem is that there seem to be no good learning resources
>>> for *ANY* scripting language or indeed any programming language I can
>>> find out about on Macs.
>>
>> Have you tried PHP? That has a large set of APIs to all sorts of things,
>> a reasonable C-like syntax, easy string handling, and a very good
>> website where the docs appear to be written in an adult fashion (unlike
>> perl). I use no other.
>
> PHP has 53 built-in functions which start with `array'. I think that's
> quite a good indication of the sort of language it is.
And over 90 for string handling. And we haven't even started on those to
allow access to the file system, or to interface to other packages such
as SQLite, mysql, etc, and so on. Why do you think I use it? Just for
that reason! So your point is what, exactly?
Tim Streater
> Tim Streater<timst...@waitrose.com> wrote:
>
>> Rowland McDonnell wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> For me, the problem is that there seem to be no good learning resources
>>> for *ANY* scripting language or indeed any programming language I can
>>> find out about on Macs.
>>
>> Have you tried PHP? That has a large set of APIs to all sorts of things,
>> a reasonable C-like syntax,
>
> Yeah, well, a C like syntax does rather make it tricky to use - I've
> never found a way to learn C, which appears to be intended to be
> machine-readable rather than human-readable. It's as bad as TeX for
> being hard to work out what the code does, and harder than TeX to write
> in the first place AFAICT.
PHP is in fact simpler that C in as much as you don't have to declare
variables. You just use a variable for whatever purpose you want. And
string handling is quite easy (unlike C).
> A large set of APIs which are sure to be inadequately documented (as is
> everything these days) is exactly the opposite of any bloody use at all.
Not the case, in fact. You can be sure I'd be the first to bin any
language like that. I don't like shell languages because they look like
line-noise, so I find PHP to be a good replacement.
>> easy string handling, and a very good
>> website where the docs appear to be written in an adult fashion (unlike
>> perl). I use no other.
>
> I expect so, but I also assume that any suggestion you are making is
> made in bad faith for the purposes of causing me bother.
Here we're dealing with a technical question. If however you make a
statement like "there are people I'd like to shove red hot pokers up the
bums of", then you can expect a different reaction.
Bella Jones
Bella Jones
> Bella Jones wrote:
> > Jon B <black...@jonbradbury.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Bella Jones <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Elliott Roper <nos...@yrl.co.uk> wrote:
> > [...]
> >>>> That was the icing on this cow-pie cake!
> >>> I HATE TIME MACHINE.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks.
> >> Probably why I've never looked at TM and stuck with ChronoSync as I've
> >> never really seen any posts to encourage me otherwise.
> >
> > Time Machine is the fucktard of the software world.
>
> Can I offer you a cup of tea and a damp towel to put over your forehead?
Yes please.
Ben Shimmin
> On 23/11/2009 01:07, Ben Shimmin wrote:
>> Tim Streater<timst...@waitrose.com>:
>>> On 22/11/2009 22:09, Rowland McDonnell wrote:
>>>> For me, the problem is that there seem to be no good learning resources
>>>> for *ANY* scripting language or indeed any programming language I can
>>>> find out about on Macs.
>>>
>>> Have you tried PHP? That has a large set of APIs to all sorts of things,
>>> a reasonable C-like syntax, easy string handling, and a very good
>>> website where the docs appear to be written in an adult fashion (unlike
>>> perl). I use no other.
>>
>> PHP has 53 built-in functions which start with `array'. I think that's
>> quite a good indication of the sort of language it is.
>
> And over 90 for string handling. And we haven't even started on those to
> allow access to the file system, or to interface to other packages such
> as SQLite, mysql, etc, and so on. Why do you think I use it? Just for
> that reason! So your point is what, exactly?
If your only criterion for the excellence of a programming language is
having thousands of functions (with completely inconsistent names) that
do everything under the sun in a vague attempt to make your life easier,
rather than to help you do things in anything approaching a sensible,
orderly way, then I'm sure PHP is the perfect language for you.
Peter Ceresole
> > Can I offer you a cup of tea and a damp towel to put over your forehead?
>
> Yes please.
English Breakfast, or Lapsang Souchong?
--
Peter
Tim Streater
> Tim Streater<timst...@waitrose.com>:
>> On 23/11/2009 01:07, Ben Shimmin wrote:
>>> Tim Streater<timst...@waitrose.com>:
>>>> On 22/11/2009 22:09, Rowland McDonnell wrote:
>>>>> For me, the problem is that there seem to be no good learning resources
>>>>> for *ANY* scripting language or indeed any programming language I can
>>>>> find out about on Macs.
>>>>
>>>> Have you tried PHP? That has a large set of APIs to all sorts of things,
>>>> a reasonable C-like syntax, easy string handling, and a very good
>>>> website where the docs appear to be written in an adult fashion (unlike
>>>> perl). I use no other.
>>>
>>> PHP has 53 built-in functions which start with `array'. I think that's
>>> quite a good indication of the sort of language it is.
>>
>> And over 90 for string handling. And we haven't even started on those to
>> allow access to the file system, or to interface to other packages such
>> as SQLite, mysql, etc, and so on. Why do you think I use it? Just for
>> that reason! So your point is what, exactly?
>
> If your only criterion for the excellence of a programming language is
> having thousands of functions (with completely inconsistent names) that
> do everything under the sun in a vague attempt to make your life easier,
> rather than to help you do things in anything approaching a sensible,
> orderly way, then I'm sure PHP is the perfect language for you.
My criteria include:
1) ease of use
2) usability in the real world (so, people have provided APIs for things
(such as SQLite) that I might actually want to use it with)
3) it comes free with the OS
4) there is decent documentation
5) errr ...
6) that's probably not it.
Sure, the naming conventions for some of the functions are inconsistent.
So life's not perfect.
Jochem Huhmann
> If your only criterion for the excellence of a programming language is
> having thousands of functions (with completely inconsistent names) that
> do everything under the sun in a vague attempt to make your life easier,
> rather than to help you do things in anything approaching a sensible,
> orderly way, then I'm sure PHP is the perfect language for you.
Well, you don't *have* do use all these fancy functions. And while I'd
agree that PHP is a total mess here, this just reflects what's done with
PHP most of the time (messing around with strings, arrays, files and
databases). Other languages have much more diversified uses and add
thousands of functions via thousands of optional libraries instead.
Convenient functions for lazy hackers coughing out bad HTML is exactly
what PHP was made for. And it's quite good at that. I think nobody ever
meant it to be an "excellent programming language".
Jochem
--
"A designer knows he has arrived at perfection not when there is no
longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
Ben Shimmin
> On 23/11/2009 10:55, Ben Shimmin wrote:
[...]
>> If your only criterion for the excellence of a programming language
>> is having thousands of functions (with completely inconsistent
>> names) that do everything under the sun in a vague attempt to make
>> your life easier, rather than to help you do things in anything
>> approaching a sensible, orderly way, then I'm sure PHP is the
>> perfect language for you.
>
> My criteria include:
>
> 1) ease of use
>
> 2) usability in the real world (so, people have provided APIs for
> things (such as SQLite) that I might actually want to use it with)
>
> 3) it comes free with the OS
>
> 4) there is decent documentation
>
> 5) errr ...
>
> 6) that's probably not it.
Java matches all of those too, and you might even end up with a
program that is actually well-structured and maintainable (not that
that's *impossible* with PHP, just that I've almost never seen it
because PHP lets you get away with anything you want).
Ben Shimmin
> Ben Shimmin <b...@llamaselector.com> writes:
>> If your only criterion for the excellence of a programming language is
>> having thousands of functions (with completely inconsistent names) that
>> do everything under the sun in a vague attempt to make your life easier,
>> rather than to help you do things in anything approaching a sensible,
>> orderly way, then I'm sure PHP is the perfect language for you.
>
> Well, you don't *have* do use all these fancy functions. And while I'd
> agree that PHP is a total mess here, this just reflects what's done with
> PHP most of the time (messing around with strings, arrays, files and
> databases). Other languages have much more diversified uses and add
> thousands of functions via thousands of optional libraries instead.
>
> Convenient functions for lazy hackers coughing out bad HTML is exactly
> what PHP was made for. And it's quite good at that. I think nobody ever
> meant it to be an "excellent programming language".
And it certainly isn't.
I will be the first to admit that PHP is extremely convenient -- it's
installed on most web servers and does lots of things that you want to
do, often very easily, and there's almost always a function for doing
something: you want to parse a CSV file, you'll find there's a function
called fgetcsv(), and so on.
The problem is that people are lazy and PHP gives you an enormous
amount of rope with which to hang yourself in all manner of lazy ways,
generally resulting in absolutely appallingly written programs that
are a complete nightmare to work with.
Elliott Roper
<m...@privacy.net> wrote:
Progress report:
Since I started this thread I have been working out a better way to get
my backups done reliably.
The problems with Time Machine happen when it runs out of disk, so
making sure it runs out of disk slowly and making sure it does not
leave you in the lurch when it does was the approach I took.
The short version: SuperDuper and Time Machine working in tandem each
doing what they are best at.
I pruned my boot drive down to just over 100GB by migrating iTunes
Music, manuals, and all pictures and movies to different discs. I was
excluding that stuff before from Time Machine, but all that detritus
made cloning the system very time and space consuming.
I set up SuperDuper scripts and schedules to do daily smart updates to
one disk and weekly to another. In each case I use sparsebundles as the
target. I chose this because I figure the probability of a catastrophic
system disk failure is small enough to wear the pain of a Disk Utility
restore after it happens. With only 100GB of system a restore takes
about an hour. Sparsebundles let me dip into them at any time with
Spotlight or otherwise. Each takes seconds to mount, and they keep out
of searches when not mounted.
The smart updates are very acceptably quick, about 5 -10 minutes
depending on how active each source has been since the last backup. I
have 'em scheduled for the early hours of the morning when it is
unlikely the source volumes are very active.
I have a similar scheme for my music heap. I leave the iTunes library
on the system, but the music folder is off on another disk. I have a
SuperDuper script to smart update it to a sparsebundle on yet another
disk every coupla days.
I manage my Aperture library and its vaults using its inbuilt tools. I
alternate vaults on different disks and the library itself is on a RAID
0 stripe. This is clunky, but since Aperture locks you out of it while
a vault update is in progress, it is hard to automate it any better.
Movies that I'm storing and editing guzzle the lion's share of my
storage and I'm still thinking of better ways of keeping stuff safe. At
the moment I'm holding raw assets on one stripe and ProRes pre-renders
on another and juggling finished work around the gaps as best I can. I
march the raw assets off to a removable disk whenever I get nervous.
I'll get it automated once I have set proper default locations for all
the stuff that FCP and its little mates leave lying around. And when I
get my head around EDLs so I can recover without preserving so many
intermediate steps. It is a delicate balance of speed versus security
and not tripping over yourself. My sparsebundles happily nestle in
little corners of all the non-striped video disks. Had I not used
sparsebundles I would have gone through a partitioning nightmare and
still ended up buying more disk enclosures.
Time Machine remains my hourly finger trouble recovery. I take special
care to turn it off while introducing a disk to the system and make
sure I have the damn thing excluded before I let the little sniveller
loose again.
The sparsebundle trick lets me get all that done with only 8 drives
spinning and still leaves me room to juggle an offsite backup, which I
can do by ripping out the Time Machine disk and copying all the
sparsebundles to one or more offsite drives while it isn't looking.
I really like SuperDuper. It is easy to drive and configure and its
progress sheet is wonderfully re-assuring. So many sync type programs
leave me in a state of panic thinking I have set up to copy bad over
good with no way to review before committing, but SuperDuper cuddles me
through every step.
I think I have worked out how to get the best from Time Machine,
basically by not relying on it. Its hourly backups and elegant recovery
interface I don't really need any more, but perhaps I work a bit faster
knowing the safety net is there.
--
To de-mung my e-mail address:- fsnospam$elliott$$
PGP Fingerprint: 1A96 3CF7 637F 896B C810 E199 7E5C A9E4 8E59 E248
Bella Jones
Peter Ceresole
> > English Breakfast, or Lapsang Souchong?
>
> Oh, always English breakfast!
I now have Lapsang Souchong tea bags. Since Sainsbury's at Dog Kennel
Hill started to stock them, my breakfasts have been transformed. It's
like drinking a cup of hot bacon. Divine.
--
Peter