I use both. I like to have a free standing clone because then, if my machine has to go to hospital, I can boot from the clone disc and keep working on my machine. Time machine keeps backups I don't get round to, and versions of files, which can be very useful.
Ranulph On 11 Jan 2010, at 12:16, Jason Davies wrote: > definitely > > you can't boot from a TM back-up. I clone every time I do a system update or > major install. Restoring from a clone is much quicker than from TM, I think. > It's certainly straightforward. Besides, remember the iPhoto fiasco of > theSnow Leopard upgrade, which managed to wipe out TM photo backups?! > > Ideal -- rotating clones (maybe two, alternating so you have this week's > clone and last week's), TM, and back-up of TM disk. That might seem top-heavy > but it has enough redundancy that things like the iPhoto thing wouldn't hit > you too bad (actually, it would have if you didn't spot it within a > fortnight). > > I've lost too much data over the last 15 years not to take precautions. > On 11 Jan 2010, at 11:50, Russell Brown wrote: > >> Is Time Machine sufficient, or should one also have a bootable clone of your >> Mac HDD? > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Sussex Mac User Group" group. > To post to this group, send an email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/smug?hl=en-GB. > >
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sussex Mac User Group" group. To post to this group, send an email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/smug?hl=en-GB.
