Forums | MacLife

somehow I doubt that time machine will just go until your HD is full.  that would be ridiculous.  I'm willing to bet that there will be a setting to set a limit on how far into the past it will travel.

Aqua OS X wrote:

MacBoy4139 wrote:

Dear Adobe:

Due to Apple insisting on backing up every version of every file, please make all layers seperate files.

Thank you.
MacBoy4139

Wait a minute - wouldn't that defeat the purpose of layers?  That is Apple's "official" solution, btw.

Adobe's already got a little Time machine called "history"

That was Adobe's answer to unlimited Undo, not file recovery.

MacFreak wrote:

In its promotional materials for Time Machine, Apple states that Time Machine works with “external hard drives” and servers. <snip> The one big catch is, the entire volume must be devoted to Time Machine—you can’t just stow Time Machine files inside a folder on a larger volume.

Hmmm, that would defeat the purpose of it for me. Perhaps Apple may change this?

I don't understand how that defeats the purpose?  The volume for Time Machine HAS to be dedicated...why would anyone not back everything up unless the drive lacked the capacity?  If it doesn't all fit, you have the option to pair down the backup.  I don't really see a drawback here.  Furthermore, we have no idea yet how much compression is used in this.  I am sure this is a feature that has no use requirement...if you have a different system, use it.  Use the terminal and Automator to backup only what you want.  While I can see TM as a huge HD eater, there are markets where it is probably a dream come true.  The ONLY issue I can see with this is the drawback of having external drives for it on iMacs/Laptops.

volk wrote:

MacFreak wrote:

In its promotional materials for Time Machine, Apple states that Time Machine works with “external hard drives” and servers. <snip> The one big catch is, the entire volume must be devoted to Time Machine—you can’t just stow Time Machine files inside a folder on a larger volume.

Hmmm, that would defeat the purpose of it for me. Perhaps Apple may change this?

I don't understand how that defeats the purpose?  The volume for Time Machine HAS to be dedicated...why would anyone not back everything up unless the drive lacked the capacity?  If it doesn't all fit, you have the option to pair down the backup.  I don't really see a drawback here.  Furthermore, we have no idea yet how much compression is used in this.  I am sure this is a feature that has no use requirement...if you have a different system, use it.  Use the terminal and Automator to backup only what you want.  While I can see TM as a huge HD eater, there are markets where it is probably a dream come true.  The ONLY issue I can see with this is the drawback of having external drives for it on iMacs/Laptops.

I have a laptop. Backing up is a huge issue for me. I plan on purchasing a 500 gig external for media and backup purposes. I don't want to take my whole 500 gig HD for a 80 gig internal hard drive.

Donkey Butter wrote:

h… I'll still be albe to partition the drive to allocate only a portion of it for TM right?

Hopefully, that way I could do what I want.

Hmm.  I would have thought Apple would have used some form of binary diff to capture the actual byte changes (since they're hooked in at a low level in the FS to "notice" the changes anyway), but the description makes it sound more like a regular (although probably compressed) full-file backup of anything changed each day.  If they were using some form of adaptive diff, then changing say 1000 bytes throughout a one gig file would take at most a few k.

Of course, the early descriptions might be over-simplified, and they are doing something like this.

Donkey Butter wrote:

oh… I'll still be albe to partition the drive to allocate only a portion of it for TM right?

It makes absolutely no sense to back up a drive to itself - even with how Time Machine is being touted. If that drive goes then you not only lose your files but your backup bites the dust as well.

A dedicated drive or server based backup is the way to go - if you're data is that important then its well worth the money.

Gipetto wrote:

Donkey Butter wrote:

oh… I'll still be albe to partition the drive to allocate only a portion of it for TM right?

It makes absolutely no sense to back up a drive to itself

well of course that doesn't make any sense.  that's not what I wanted to do.  I was talking about setting aside a chunck of my external 250 for TM.

well I'm glad someone understood what I was saying.   

MacFreak wrote:

Let's make a Time Machine fan club.

I call President

I would not be surprised but we won't know for sure until someone with some experience with it lets us know.

I think the program will be useful provided we can specify how far back TM saves files.  And of course you'd HAVE to partition your external for it, makes no sense to waste an entire HD on TM.

We've got plenty of actual cat names left.
Bobcat, Caracal, Ocelot, Cougar, Lion, Sabretooth

I hope they use Lynx, what a cool cat that one is. But I seriously think that Apple should look into that.

Last edited by barrfid_od (2006-08-11 11:15 pm)