Clone HD

[MacInWin]

Not that it's critical, Sly, both of them are good, but the original quote was

In general, we try to do things the way Apple basically documents - or implies - they should be done. They don't have a supported way of copying the recovery partition - which is hidden by them - so we decided not to work around that, and to support *their* way of doing it instead.

The fact that the developer of SD wanted documentation and didn't do any independent research is what struck me. He left the user to have to remember to create the recovery partition and to find out how to do that, whereas the CCC approach was to figure it out and provide an option not only as a reminder, but as a tool to create the RP on a new clone.

But, hey, as I said, both products are fine and either is better than not having any clone at all. How the developers got to where they are now is not really important.

 

[pm-r]

Not that it's critical, Sly, both of them are good, …

Not meaning to get in any crossfire, but I've been a long time user of CCC but at one time I did try SD!, it didn't work properly, something that has never happened with CCC, or at least the problem was not due to CCC.

Also Mike Bombich was a developer and engineer who worked for Apple and stated some years ago that he followed their guidelines for backing up and cloning and did not do some of the cloning stuff that SD! did do.

Adding to that as I recall, SD! took ages to update when it was needed some years ago, and that scared me off as well.

Anyway, that's my two bits worth and why I still use CCC.

PS: I was also a bit surprised by some of Randy's comments, or at least the way I took to understanding them.




Patrick
=====

 

[Randy B. Singer]

Reading what the SD developer said, what I took away that unlike Bombich, he was too lazy to look into the Recovery Partition. You quoted him as saying, which translates, to me, to be "Apple didn't spoon feed me a way to backup the Recovery Partition and I don't want to mess with figuring it out." That is, to me, not a perfectionist, just someone who wants it easy.

It sounds to me as if you translated that to meet your already made up preference.

I won't argue the point any further.

 

[IWT]

C'mon guys. Both products are excellent.

I suspect that personal preferences are more to do with loyalty. And that is a great thing.

It certainly applies in my case. I bought one of these products many years ago because, at that time, it seemed to a novice like me that it had an easier-to-understand user interface.

Since then, both have upped their game, but I stayed with the one I bought through loyalty to the product and its developer.

Being loyal also recognises that an alternative has certain nice feature or advantages, but we're happy with what we've got and grown accustomed to it.

And this applies to just about everything in life from cars to holiday destinations.

Ian

 

[MacInWin]

Randy, as I said, I have both, have recommended both to folks here, and both work just fine. I didn't mean to drive you off, just to comment on my different impression from the article you quoted. My preference is based on one, and only one, factor. CCC backs up the RP, SD does not. Otherwise, both are great products that work well to accomplish the same thing (except for RP). Your history with the developer of SD is different, and the RP isn't important to you, so you have different preference. That's fine! That's why there are horse races!

 

[Randy B. Singer]

Randy, as I said, I have both, have recommended both to folks here, and both work just fine. I didn't mean to drive you off, just to comment on my different impression from the article you quoted. My preference is based on one, and only one, factor. CCC backs up the RP, SD does not. Otherwise, both are great products that work well to accomplish the same thing (except for RP). Your history with the developer of SD is different, and the RP isn't important to you, so you have different preference. That's fine! That's why there are horse races!

You obviously are extremely biased. You have totally ignored that if you want a recovery partition with SD, there is a free, dead easy to use tool to do do. SD not duplicating the recovery partition isn't any kind of disadvantage. You've twisted what I've quoted into an unrecognizable conclusion, and now you are saying that I have "a relationship" with the developer of SD. Your posts sound more like political commentary than anything else.

 

[MacInWin]

I'm not biased. I've said both products are good and that I have both. I happen to prefer to use one for a technical reason in the way they both work. To a reasonable man that is not being biased, just having preference. For me, while I *could* do the two-step dance you suggest by getting yet another tool to do what CCC already does, I choose to have it done automatically for me by CCC. I see little to no reason to do what a computer can do faster and quicker, and I have the advantage of not having to remember (or create a script) to do it. But hey, if you want to do two steps, go ahead, it's a free country.

Don't twist my words to try to say I implied any "relationship" with the developer. You were the one to say you had communicated with the developer of SD, not me. (Post #4).

 

[Randy B. Singer]

Don't twist my words to try to say I implied any "relationship" with the developer. You were the one to say you had communicated with the developer of SD, not me. (Post #4).

You said:

"Your history with the developer of SD is different..."

I have no "history" with the developer of SD. "History" implies that I have a relationship with him. Indeed, I've presented no evidence that I have any sort of history with him. That's something that you pulled out of thin air.

I think that anyone can see the you are extremely biased and that you are twisting things.

 

[pm-r]

I do a twice weekly ccc backup and my wife who is permanently connected to a EHD does a daily scheduled ccc backup.
Neither of us have ever had an OS crash. (touch wood) if as Randy's quotation suggests there is a possibility that a problem at the sector level could be duplicated rendering the backup useless after a system crash then I might seriously consider using SD for my wife's device.
If her MBP were to crash irrevocably it would be disastrous.

I'm a bit late here, but if you have any qualms about her CCC cloned backup, by all means try booting from it and test it. And maybe also consider having at least a second cloned drive kept and stored separately.




Patrick
=====

 

[Slydude]

Gentlemen, I'm afraid this thread is on the verge of going off the rails. Let's all go to neutral corners otherwise I'll have to conclude that the thread has served its purpose and I'll close it.

 

[Slydude]

I'm a bit late here, but if you have any qualms about her CCC cloned backup, by all means try booting from it and test it. And maybe also consider having at least a second cloned drive kept and stored separately.


Patrick
=====

Here's my effort toward getting things back on track

I wholeheartedly agree with that Patrick. I've used a couple of different cloning programs and have had a clone fail before. It has only happened once but was rather annoying to say the least. Unfortunately, I don't remember which one failed. It could have been one of these but could easily have been something else.

 

[MacInWin]

I vote close it.

 

[Slydude]

I took this up with the rest of the team and we agree. Any unanswered questions about cloning can be addressed in a future thread.