#Carbon copy cloner vs synchronize pro x free
#Carbon copy cloner vs synchronize pro x mac

BackTrack 630 downloads 2 mos BackTrack and the companion application 'Configure BackTrack' work together to bring Mac users a new level of safety by logging all text that is typed for all applications.

#Carbon copy cloner vs synchronize pro x free

It saves information about each file in each project, and then uses this information to determine whether both versions of a document have been modified and to verify that documents are free of errors after synchronization.ĭeja Vu 5K downloads in 4 mos. You Synchronize does more than simply compare documents to each other. SuperDuper! 2.5 10K downloads in 1.5 mos. One of the most crucial differences is SuperDuper's excellent Sandbox feature. SuperDuper doesn't have this.ĬCC also offers an option to NOT erase 'existing data' when doing a clone or incremental backup. I used to be a SuperDuper fan (still use it on one computer), but CCC has gotten very good lately.ĬCC now does incremental backups with an easy-to-setup interface to let you select just what you want backed up. CCC would be and is my second choice, based on experiences as well as that test.įor complex backup schemes (especially those involving network-backups), SD because I can easily modify its behaviors and script it and because I get prompt support from the developer and the SD forums.įor quick clones and setting up newbies with scheduled backups, CCC because its interface is more conducive to each. What SD missed was relatively insignificant compared to the others. Super Duper did the most complete job/ had the greatest amount of critical items covered. That said, I use both CCC and the paid version of Super Duper.Īll of the 'contestants' had weaknesses, failing to copy some stuff that should have been copied. It did a more complete job than the others. I just tried but cannot find reference to that test. As far as I could tell, and I believe they made a statement to this effect, was that the testing was in no wsay, shape or form sponsored by or related to any of the apps tested or the sources. Carbon Copy Cloner-which, and why? 2008 at Ībout a year ago, I saw a site that had a 'shootout' among CCC, SuperDuper, Apple's Disk Restore function, and at least 3 others. This feature can be very useful when an older version of a given file gets to replace a newer version, eg after a mistaken 'save'. CC3 provides the option to save deleted/replaced files on the backup drive in a specific folder. CCC allows you great precision in what you back up each time. With TM file vault prevents updating on a file by file basis cause you have to backup the entire encrypted user folder. Time Machine allows me to jump back by the hour. I will probably never switch back as I have grown to like it. I always used Super Duper but since it has not been updated to Leopard I switched to Carbon Copy Cloner.

And a Genius told me that was standard.Īpple Support Forum - SuperDuper! vs.

Mac's Backup, which was a disaster: the few times I needed to use my backups, they didn't work. Sep 2007: Most of the Mac360 staff follow the lead of the site's founder, Tera Patricks, and we use a combination of SuperDuper! for cloning, and Chronosync for rapid file synchronizations, You pay more for those features in SuperDuper! SuperDuper! which also clones, but doesn't allow some of the file manipulation or scheduling available in CCC. CCC does a block-level copy of your Mac's hard drive to another hard drive so every file is duplicated. CC3 includes an optimized version of rsync, an open source utility that provides fast incremental file transfer. CCC Ver 3 which came out in early 2008 has fixed the problems and some people prefer it again. Carbon Copy Cloner (CCC) was the leader then had some problems with 10.3 and 10.4 and SuperDuper took over as the favorite. See a strategy using built in rsync below Backup and syncronization Utilities Don's Home Technology Macintosh Utilities Backup and syncronization