yea...that article is very bad. it totally misses the way time machine keeps space usage low, and its estimates on lost time are absurd. his q and a sounds pompous too. not worth reading! check out appleinsider's story on time machine (road to leopard series) for a really awesome explanation, or arstechnica's review.

Quine

Sorry, but that's about as "in-depth" as a Fox News Special Report. (And of the same quality.) If you really want in-depth, read the Ars Technica Leopard review:

[arstechnica.com]

lhmlco

And I still refuse to use this feature on my MacBook Pro until backup to NAS is supported, or reliably hacked. I don't care if it's "not a volume" as the article states. This feature is worthless to those of use who aren't carrying around our backup volume during the day.

UnStatusTheQuo

"including how much data you stand to lose if you restore from a TM backup."

that was a very misleading sentence.

thirdopticaltool

You know, it's funny with articles like that. It's like they want you to think "oh geez, maybe I really shouldn't be using Time Machine after all; it doesn't look like it does the job right!" But, how many people would be backing up otherwise? So those estimates on data loss aren't completely relevant, because if someone wasn't using Time Machine, do you think a majority would be using something else? And because of that simple fact, Time Machine is a godsend. It's easy, it works quite well, and it's at least _some_ form of backup.

brandonmartinez

I don't like leopard, I'm still a Windows and Linux guy

Ninehand

I find it's just easier to use a storage system that keeps me safe. I had 2 external hard drives mirrored, but that became a problem when I had 3 pair. I recently bought a Drobo and am beginning to migrate data over. Seems to be working fine.

Tried time machine - 5 minutes later I didn't like it and just went back to protecting my data the old fashioned way.

EddieTech