[Macworld]

Post your comments for SuperDuper adds Leopard support here

[SSGoku]

It's about time. I've been waiting for this update for a while now.

[AndrewRodney]

I too have waited for months (using Carbon Copy Cloner, a very nice product) but I'm really thrilled to see a Leopard version of SuperDuper. Its probably the last updated for Leopard I've been waiting for, sure its worth the wait. This is absolutely a superb, 5+ star product. Dave wasn't going to release it until it met his high standards.

[jughead]

Carbon Copy Cloner has worked for me so far in every situation. I'm sure this is a great product. But until CCC fails to do the job, I'm sticking with it.

[lwdupont]

I'm glad he waited.. I'd rather have my backup product be perfect than get it earlier. :)

[LSlugger]

It's academic now that 2.5 has finally been released, but perfect may have been the enemy of good in this case. The kinds of scenarios Dave described in his blog, such as cloning a Time Machine volume, are relatively obscure, compared to simply cloning the system drive. Meanwhile, SuperDuper users have had to delay upgrading to Leopard or adjust to new solutions, such as Time Machine. I've been using Time Machine, but I don't trust it.

I don't blame Dave as much as I blame Apple. If I dig out a CD for a Windows 95 program (an O/S over ten years old), there's a very good chance it will still work on Windows 2000, XP, and even Vista. On the other hand, it seems that half the stories here are about Leopard compatibility updates. My copy of Photoshop Elements 3.0, which is less than four years old, doesn't work at all.

[lwdupont]

That is a very good point - he might have delayed it too long for those potentially obscure cases.. I hope he writes some more about it on his blog. (The trade offs, thoughts behind it).

[El_Mengi]

I'm excited about this. So what if it took too long. Patience, grasshoppers, patience...

[AndrewRodney]

He may have delayed this too long for many users, we don't know the actual details of the development. CCC worked well for me while I waited and I gladly gave a donation but the second SD was out, I tossed it and am happy to be back with SD (which didn't appear to have any issues doing a daily back up).
As for Time Machine, I don't "trust it" for cloning and providing the same functionality as SD but for retrieving a few files, it works and works quite well. Having both seems a bit like wearing a belt and suspenders but you can't be too careful with your data.

[Tom_Diola]

Time machine came with Leopard and I have an extra external drive for that.
I still have my superduper drive with pre-leopard stuff on it so I'll use it for super duper 2.5 and leopard and give it a try because I'm a registered user.

[Tom_Diola]

Downloaded 2.5 Super Duper (I'm a long time user) and it took 2 hours for the initial backup... the next one was 28 mins.
I tried to use it as a Leopard External Boot Drive and it worked perfectly. I'm sooooo happy to see Super Duper is back!
Now I can turn Time Machine off and use that drive for something meaningful...

[Dan Frakes]

LSlugger said:

It's academic now that 2.5 has finally been released, but perfect may have been the enemy of good in this case. The kinds of scenarios Dave described in his blog, such as cloning a Time Machine volume, are relatively obscure, compared to simply cloning the system drive. Meanwhile, SuperDuper users have had to delay upgrading to Leopard or adjust to new solutions, such as Time Machine.

As I recall, Dave said that -- much to his surprise -- the ability for a SuperDuper clone to co-exist with a Time Machine backup was one of the most-requested features he had from Leopard users.

[TosaDeac]

I was glad to see the SuperDuper-Leopard version finally come out but I am still confused what the advantage of using BOTH SuperDuper and Time Machine would be? I have been using SuperDuper ever since I purchased a firewire external hard drive and basically just make a weekly clone of my internal hard drive for back up of all my files. Should I consider using Time Machine also? I guess I don't understand the difference. Thanks for any explanation.

[Tom_Diola]

Time machine does an hourly update (why they do this is unknown). You can restore from time machine but I don't think it makes a bootable external drive. I've seen snapshots that intimate that time machine options will change next update... I personally like the Super Duper interface better than Time Machine. . .