5 ms·
That is precisely what I was trying to say. Over time I found myself wanting and liking these replacements, but out of the box these machines work very well.
by subelsky 16y ago
That is precisely what I was trying to say. Over time I found myself wanting and liking these replacements, but out of the box these machines work very well. CrashPlan is better because it integrates off-site and local backup and lets you manage backup for a bunch of machines (I'm responsible for backing up family computers).
- sabat 16y agoTime Machine: replaced with CrashPlan Why not use both (as I do)? Local backup is faster; remote backup is ostensibly safer from disaster. Oh, and Time Machine is invaluable if you're upgrading your boot drive or are surrendering your Mac to AppleCare.
- loewenskind 16y agoOr you can time machine to a linux machine that does remote backups. That's my strategy.