Submit Hint Search The Forums LinksStatsPollsHeadlinesRSS
14,000 hints and counting!

Click here to return to the 'Not Mac-like...' hint
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
Not Mac-like...
Authored by: rgray on Feb 20, '09 06:42:13AM

It seems to me that this TM problem and the solution(s) are very unMac-like.. and a flaw in the whole TM concept that makes TM difficult for the less technically astute users. The problem stands in gross contrast to the way TM works generally to find and restore files. What would be wrong with having TM work so that one could just navigate to the desired 'archive' and double click to use??? Or am I missing something. The way it is most of my clients would be lost if a drive or a mobo was changed and that does not seem fair - besides as I said before it stands in gross contrast to the rest of the Mac experience.

[ Reply to This | # ]
Not Mac-like...
Authored by: only_solutions on Feb 20, '09 07:53:31AM

I can see where you're coming from, but Apple apparently went the way of the lowest risk (at least on the face of it).

When you're presenting a new harddisk to Time Machine, it is treated like a different harddisk. If you could assign it manually to an older backup you could wreak real havoc in case that assignment was really a mistake.

So they apparently erred on the side of caution, restricting the possibilities to accidentally mash together what's in fact not the same thing. In my case I was certain enough that it should work okay and I assumed the responsibility for any undesirable outcome; But many users would block the support hotline and/or threaten to sue because of data that was at least apparently lost to them.

On the other hand I would have lost older copies on my TM backup drive if I had just let it make another entire backup instead of a compact incremental one. Neither solution is perfect, both have their flaws and risks.

There are no problems...

[ Reply to This | # ]