[MW Forums]

So Leopard has secret features, eh? But why would Apple call attention to the fact that there are secret features? What's Steve Jobs up to? Andy Ihnatko thinks he has the answer. more

[leicaman]

Quote:

---

So Leopard has secret features, eh? But why would Apple call attention to the fact that there are secret features? What's Steve Jobs up to? Andy Ihnatko thinks he has the answer. <a href="/2006/08/opinion/ihnatko/index.php">[more]</a>

---

Interesting excogitation. Still, it could be a more mundane reason Apple held back.
His Steveness no doubt wishes not to repeat, at the upcoming MWSF '07, the "And Another Thing" tete--tete which took place ths past Spring, where the excitement would rival the frenzied fever of a curling bonspiel in the Great White North.
I suspect he's saving some Leopard goodness to make the biggest Keynote of the year a success. Considering, as we know, that Spring could mean as late as the third week of June, Apple needs a little something to get us whipped up into a Macintosh delectation halfway between now and then.
Besides Video iPods and Core Duo 2-chip MacBook Pros. Right?
Just a guess. /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[MacTel]

Quote:

---

What if the missing features from the demo would indeed have given too much away? Not to Microsoft, who could harvest features and concepts for Vista, but to users, journalists and analysts, who would figure out way too much about the hardware that Apple intends to release in the coming months?

---

That's exactly what I thought after watching the keynote! I'm just waiting for Apple to announce a special event to demo the rest of Leopard interacting with the new iPhone, Video iPod, Tablet, or tricorder. I'd bet mid-September. /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[FedesssMG]

I like the idea... for example, Time Machine needs another HD to work (not even a partition, but a whole HD), so, as it is right now, you couldn't use it with an iMac or a MB/MBP or a Mini... unless, of course, you have an external drive, but that is not maclike, it's not an out-of-the-box feature...
So they're promoting Time Machine as a big feature, but you can't use it unless you buy another hard drive (external), it's illogical!

[goron]

Quote:

---

I like the idea... for example, Time Machine needs another HD to work (not even a partition, but a whole HD), so, as it is right now, you couldn't use it with an iMac or a MB/MBP or a Mini... unless, of course, you have an external drive, but that is not maclike, it's not an out-of-the-box feature...
So they're promoting Time Machine as a big feature, but you can't use it unless you buy another hard drive (external), it's illogical!

---

First time you plug in an external drive, it asks you if you want to use it with Time Machine... well wouldn't an iPod in disk mode qualify? Many people backup to iPod anyway, so if TM worked with it, it wouldn't be so unmac-like.

[JEB]

OH, BOY, IT'S THAT MAC-ELECTRIC CAN OPENER AGAIN -- THE WHOOPASS IS EVERYWYERE (EVEN W/O THE ""SECRET FEATURES") . . .
GO APPLE!!! GO ANDY!!! /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif

[RASTERMAN]

[indent]Quote:

---

...but that is not maclike...

---

[/indent]
I don't agree. Since Apple introduced their first external hard disk drives in the late 80's I've found an external to be an integral part of each configuration I've owned, (nearly 20 to date.)
Then again, maybe I'm just one of those 4% actually do keep their systems backed up. Go figure!
Other system vendors can only dream of the ease with which you can backup much less clone a Mac to an external drive. It's only been recently that you could even boot a Windows box from an external hard disk drive. I can't remeber a time when you could'nt from a Mac.
Cheers!
---RASTER
P.S.
Great read Andy!

[HiRez]

There's no way in hell I'm going to lug around an external hard drive plus cables and keep it connected to my PowerBook just to use Time Machine. It's a great concept, I'd love to use it, but the "external drive required" part is a deal-killer for me. That doesn't mean I wouldn't keep an external drive at home and spin off a weekly backup, but I like to be able to pop my PowerBook open and use it, and stuff it quickly away when I'm done, not fumble around with a bulging bag of accessories. I really hope they find a way to make it work on a single drive, otherwise I think it's a terrible shortcoming for laptop users, which is most people nowadays. Why couldn't it work on one drive, can't that data just be stored somewhere in a protected folder? As I understand it, it's neither a disaster prevention nor backup solution, just a nifty revision-management tool. Apple likes to bill themselves as making elegant solutions. Time Machine in its current form is not elegant.

[moose_n_squirrel]

I kind of wonder. If you disconnect the Time Machine drive, does OS X defer updates until the drive is back online? I hope so. While it's a nice idea to have continuous backup, it's also dangerous. You might not want the backup to be always on and connected if that means it is vulnerable to the same power surge or burglar that takes out your entire system. Because then your backup is gone too.
I'm gonna love Time Machine...but I won't stop making a separate clone of the boot drive every once in a while and storing it offsite or at least in the fire safe.

[RASTERMAN]

[indent]Quote:

---

but the "external drive required" part is a deal-killer for me.

---

[/indent]
No one ever stated that it required an "external" drive. I'm thinking that was just an example used during the demo.
There's no technical reason why Time Machine could not be targeted to a partition of your internal drive. Of course using a partition would negate your ability to recover if the internal dies or becomes completely unaccessable.
It's still looks like it will be a useful, and to me an elegant restoration tool should you intentionally, or unintentionally trash something only to find you need it later.
It is possible that the "syncing-up" can be done once you've returned with the laptop back to your home or office. Then you're risking only the changes you've made while on the road. No more or less than what you currently do now, right?
You'll just have to remember not to make sweeping changes while on a road trip. In fact, I think I would prefer to have my "Temporal Backup" safely stored at the home office.
The whole concept certainly appears much more elegant than what we've seen from the other guys with the possible exception of IBM (I've not seen or used their system, but I understand they have something at least remotely similar.)
We'll just have to wait and see how it all plays out in the publicly released version of Leopard.
Cheers!
---RASTER

[RASTERMAN]

I really don't mind the concept of an appetizer at this stage. It only makes the anticipation that much sweeter!
While I would love to know what the complete feature set will be, there's no doubt that I'll upgrade at least one or two systems immediately when the Leopard Family Pack becomes available, even if it only included the 10 items mentioned.
The idea that fully disclosing Leopard's complete feature-set would prematurely tip Apple's hand with regard to upcomming unannounced products is an astute one, and I think quite likely.
I'm curious to know what all shipped in the developer release. Was it just the 10 enhancements we've seen, or are there NDA components that we'll only "hear" about peripherally?
More sitting and pondering!
Cheers!
---RASTER

[HiRez]

[indent]Quote:

---

No one ever stated that it required an "external" drive. I'm thinking that was just an example used during the demo.

---

[/indent]You must be using the Condoleeza Rice method when you say "no one ever" because in the article "What we wanted in Leopard: Request vs. reality", MacCentral did write:
[indent]Quote:

---

Unlike Windows System Restore, Time Machine requires an additional hard drive for storing and restoring your backed up data.

---

[/indent]If that's inaccurate then great, but as written required looks like it means required.

[Nobody]

It is your personal choice how and when you want to (or not) store and back-up your important or non-important data. Since you are adamant not to carry an extra HD or to use your words "not fumble around with a bulging bag of accessories", then your data is not that important to you. So you live with your choice and the consequences that follows. Any one individual or any company leadership or employee who actually puts value in making sure that their data can not be lost, will take any step necessary to safeguard the one and only reason we use the computer in the first place, which is: Creation and storage of data.
It is beyond me how people in general buy the most advanced, expensive top of the line (or bottom of the line) computer equipment, but when it comes to safeguarding the most essential reason for working with computers - data - they suddenly behave like stupid stupid stupid scrooges. USD100,- to USD250,- for an internal or external HD is peanuts after spending USD1200,- to USD3000,- and beyond on a laptop or desktop w monitor and other "important" accessories. Anyone who does not understand the importance and the obvious reason why at the very least adding into your budget any good and reliable backup devices(s) (and if needed other such related services) totally deserve loosing all their data just to learn for once in their life. It's like with children . . . they won't really learn what pain is until they hurt themselves. No matter how much teaching and advice is given they will not listen beforehand, because they are too young to pay attention or just don't care.
Maybe that is the reason why those who don't listen act the way they do . . . . . age = experience.

[RASTERMAN]

HiRez,
First, I'm sorry, but I don't follow much of what the Bush administration has to say these days. After awhile I just got so irritated with them I quit listening, so I'm afraid your Rice reference is lost on me.
Second, you assume that I had previouly read the MacCentral article you've referenced... I had not. I hope that MacCentral is mistaken.
Third, you have taken my statement out of context to where it has lost it's original intent. As stated originally;
"No one ever stated that it required an "external" drive. I'm thinking that was just an example used during the demo."
I may be mistaken, but it seems fairly obvious to me that I was referring to the actual demo by Scott Forstall. I suppose I should have said so for clarification.
If you take the time to review the video you'll note that Scott indicated that "in this case..." they were using an external hard disk drive. That is far different than saying that you "MUST" use an external.
Finally, you might also notice that I quailified my overall post by including the following;
"We'll just have to wait and see how it all plays out in the publicly released version of Leopard."
Update:
I see there is now another MacCentral article that supports your External Hard Disk requirement statement and if it ultimately turns out to be the case, then so be it.
As additional info comes out on this and other aspects of what amounts to an alpha or less release, I'm sure we'll have our answers.
Hope that clears up my original thinking on this for you!
Cheers!
---RASTER