I think I've found a great system that works, using TimeMachine, two externals and a folder of DVDs. I have a 160GB drive in my MacBook Pro, a Western Digital 250GB passport and a 1TB Western Digital MyBook Premium II (sorry to say I don't recommend this, go for a LaCie or Seagate). I use the 250 to backup my laptop to so that, if the worst should happen when I'm out and about or it simply breaks I have all my files right there for the past few days. Thus I'm also safe from the, "Damn I deleted that file didn't I," type situation. Likewise for important files that I'm going to keep permanently I keep them for a year on my external with other data that's too big to keep internally. Then I make a permanent backup on DVDs when I have enough data to fill one, which isn't often.

This works great for me and would probably work fine for someone else. The only software required is what comes standard with Leopard and, aside from that $500 to buy one small and one large external.

I'm with all those who complained that this article is needlessly negative. Time Machine is a great tool for all those who have been lax about backups, which includes probably over 98% of the Mac using population.

I don't understand the complaint about Time Machine's inability to use DVDs or CDs. Get real, with current hard drives over 100 GB no optical drive will realistically allow full backups without massive pain. I once archived my iTunes library to DVD, and even that required 5 disks and a LOT of time. Not something I am going to do routinely!

In general people mix several different needs into a fuzzy interpretation of "backup":

On the one hand, we have archival needs. Important data we don't want to loose ever, if possible. This is stuff you should copy to DVD or an external drive and store in a safe place, maybe offsite. Archiving is a selective process and cannot easily be done by a generic, automated tool, unless you are anal about where you store files and how you name them. Faulting Time Machine for a lack of archival functions is barking up the wrong tree. It's not an archiver.

On the other hand we have backups as a safety net for accidental file deletions, hard disk crashes and similar events. This is where Time Machine shines and makes most basic tasks incredibly easy for most users. Sure, it doesn't make my backup bootable, but with the Leopard DVD in hand on which Time Machine came, disaster recovery is simple enough compared to the alternative.

Finally we have checkpointing or versioning of files. While not made for the purpose at all, Time Machine can help recover previous versions of files if you're lucky enough that the history of the file fits well into Time Machine's backup schedule and file retention policy. Good enough for me.

Faulting a consumer level tool for not providing pro level features is generally uncool. Nobody says iPhoto is only good for a small subset of home users with the simplest of needs, and all others should look to a combination of Photoshop and Aperture. I applaud Apple for providing a credible backup tool as part fo the OS with dead simple setup. It'll bring comprehensive backups, even though slightly flawed in the eyes of a real pro, into the mainstream.

One last thought: When was the last time you copied all your real photos and negatives, cassette tapes, vinyl records and documents in your file cabinet, and stored them at your sister's, just in case your home burns down? For most of us, the barest of efforts to preserve what matters in the analog world has sufficed. Doing just slightly better in the digital world will be a vast improvement.

As far as I know, Time Capsule only works over local networks, via Bonjour, and is not accessible externally.

The complete backup Time Machine makes is nothing like a bootable duplicate. Yes, you can boot from a DVD and restore the whole thing, but that takes several hours. You can't just plug in your drive and get back to work immediately, which you can with a bootable duplicate.

I also use Chronosync as one of my backup methods--but just one of them...I've gotten somewhat paranoid about losing data in the last couple years, so I set up a (hopefully) foolproof backup system:

My main computer is a 24" iMac, provided by my employer. The work files are on a LaCie firewire portable drive and I keep freelance files on a Western Digital USB portable drive. I also have hooked up to this computer a Western Digital MyBook 500GB USB drive. And on the network I have my other computer: my own MacBook Pro 17".

Every day I run the same batch of back-ups:

Chronosync backs up my freelance files and other personal files from the WD USB drive to my laptop--providing "live" backups that I can access at a moment's notice. The same program also backs up both my personal e-mail (on my laptop) and my work e-mail (on the iMac) to the WD MyBook drive.

I use .mac Backup software to create archives for all my work files, both to the iMac and to the WD MyBook, and I also archive my freelance files to the MyBook drive, along with weekly archives for things like iLife and Documents folders from both computers (because of the way I work, there's not much new in the Documents folder from day to day).

Last month, I added Mozy online backups to the mix. Every day all those important files are also sent offsite to Mozy's backup servers.

I haven't upgraded yet to 10.5, so I haven't integrated Time Machine into the mix yet, but when I do upgrade, I'm sure I'll find a way to make use of yet another backup scheme.

Bottom line--it's not a matter of "if" you will lose your data...it's a matter of "when." Every single hard drive ever made will fail some day. Some after 5 years of use--some after 5 months of us...of 5 days! And no manufacturer's warranty that I'm aware of will replace the data on your drive--just the drive itself. Plan ahead! Backup! Backup!! Backup!!! The end is near!!!!!

I can't see using Time Machine for anything beyond home use, not professional.

In my graphics department at a weekly newspaper, we use Synchronize Pro to make a bootable clone of the department server's main hard drive to a second identical drive every night. Should the main drive fail on the day we go to press (or the day before), we don't have hours to waste reinstalling the OS and restoring 120 GB of data from a Retrospect tape or file backup -- we need to pull the bad drive, reboot the server and get back to work.

At home I use Retrospect running on a Mac mini with an external 500GB drive. It does daily backups of my G5's home folder, weekly backups of my Applications and Library folders, a weekly backup of the home folder on my laptop, nightly backups over the Internet of my Linux-based web server 1,400 miles away, and occasional on-demand backups of my partner's Windows PC.

I've been using Retrospect since 1990. It admittedly does have a lot of faults and quirks, always has. Also I've used Synchronize since 1994, originally to transfer files between work and home via Zip disks. So I'm old and set in my ways. You kids can have your TIme Machine, but get off my lawn!!

I disagree. Many people are describing Time Machine as the ultimate/perfect backup tool. Joe was simply pointing out some of the drawbacks/limitations of Time Machine -- things the typical user may not understand.

I really disagree on that one In my experience with users at various levels, hardly anyone who isn't a "computer geek" understands the need for an off-site backup. Once you explain the reasons for it to them, they get it, but they've simply never thought about it before.

---

Dan Frakes | Senior Editor, Macworld