rgonzal@elbereth.rutgers.edu (Ralph Gonzalez) (12/13/90)
I'm still trying to pick between SUM II and Norton, and wonder if anyone has any comments on SUM II's backup feature? In particular, does it allow backup in Finder format (non-compressed) like DiskFit does? Thanks! -Ralph rgonzal@chowder.rutgers.edu
steve@violet.berkeley.edu (Steve Goldfield) (12/14/90)
In article <Dec.12.18.22.47.1990.22081@elbereth.rutgers.edu> rgonzal@elbereth.rutgers.edu (Ralph Gonzalez) writes:
#>
#>I'm still trying to pick between SUM II and Norton, and wonder if
#>anyone has any comments on SUM II's backup feature? In particular,
#>does it allow backup in Finder format (non-compressed) like DiskFit
#>does?
#>
#>Thanks!
#>
#>-Ralph
#>rgonzal@chowder.rutgers.edu
I've been following this discussion with interest since I've had
SUM II for some time and recently got Norton. I don't find
SUM II particularly hard to use. But then I haven't crashed
a hard disk yet.
I have used the SUM II backup. It doesn't give a choice. I
don't think it compresses its backup. I just checked. It
creates three files: a directory, a files file, and a small
information file. The files file is slightly larger than the
capacity of the hard disk I backed up, so I doubt that it is
compressed. But I don't think you could access the contents
of that file easily without using SUM II.
I recently obtained Retrospect, which I mistakenly thought
I needed to backup over a network (SUM II could have done it,
too). My recollection is that Retrospect offers three choices,
one of which is a backup as a straight copy, one is like SUM II,
and one is compressed.
Steve Goldfieldmike@cc.sfu.ca (Mike Dustan) (12/15/90)
In article <Dec.12.18.22.47.1990.22081@elbereth.rutgers.edu> rgonzal@elbereth.rutgers.edu (Ralph Gonzalez) writes: > I'm still trying to pick between SUM II and Norton, and wonder if > anyone has any comments on SUM II's backup feature? In particular, > does it allow backup in Finder format (non-compressed) like DiskFit > does? This is a bit long, but here goes... I've been spoiled by DiskFit and disappointed by SUM Backup. I like DiskFit for several reasons: 1. I can restore files without using DiskFit. 2. I can get a printed log of what file is stored where by asking for an expanded report. This means I can restore by going directly to the disk required, instead of running SUM Backup and doing two or three disk swaps. 3. DiskFit is more stable. I've never been able to clobber it so badly it ruined my backup set. The first three times I ran SUM Backup it crashed as it was finishing up. Not very reassuring in a backup utility... 4. The backup format of DiskFit is more robust, IMHO. With SUM, if you lose your first diskette (to the dog, a bad drive or cosmic rays), your backup set is dead, since it contains the dirctory. With SUM, if you clobber any one disk *all* files on that disk are lost, since all files are backed up into a single backup file. If you can't recover the entire backup file, you're dead. With DiskFit, on the other hand, there is no directory file to clobber. Each disk is self-sufficient. Furthermore, each *file* on each disk is independent. If you toast a DiskFit disk, chances are you've lost only one or two files and the rest will be OK. 5. With DiskFit, I can "see" my files on the backup diskettes. Hmm. I must be getting old. Reminds me of the time I worked for a Data Centre whose manager refused to upgrade from cards to tape because he felt more secure having his data in the form of physical, visible holes than as invisible magnetic blips. We had *roomfuls* of cards and great physiques... :-) Thanks for your patience. Hope this helps!