rolee@jarthur.Claremont.EDU (Profess'nal Agitator) (04/21/91)
The WB2.0 bundle comes with BRU, Commodore's own backup utility.
How does this utility compare with commercial backup systems? Are there any
features of BRU (good or bad) that particularly stand out? Before I
acquired my A3000, I was using Quarterback with my A2000. At this stage of
the game, I probably will still use QB since I have an extensive library of
QB'd disks.
But, I'd still like to know how BRU compares to the competition.
Quarterback? Superback? Other PD?
Agitator
#->
"Caltech -- A Division of rolee@hmcvax.bitnet // BITNET
Harvey Mudd" rolee@jarthur.claremont.edu // InterNet
-------------- R E M E M B E R B E I J I N G ------------\\-//------------
IBM PC - Who wants a politically correct computer? \X/ Only AMIGA!
============================================================================
Roderick Lee "The Professional Agitator" Harvey Mudd Collegepeter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (04/22/91)
In article <11839@jarthur.Claremont.EDU> rolee@jarthur.Claremont.EDU (Profess'nal Agitator) writes: > The WB2.0 bundle comes with BRU, Commodore's own backup utility. > How does this utility compare with commercial backup systems? It *is* a commercial backup system. At least I've seen ads for the UNIX version of BRU. Having compatibility between your Amiga and UNIX would be a nice feature... -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>.
GHGAQZ4@cc1.kuleuven.ac.be (04/22/91)
But BRU is highly inefficient. I sure hope they are going to fix this
for the final (?) version. If you want to see how inefficient it is,
you should try to click on some files, and see how much
the archive grows (below left there is an indicator for that).
For me this is not acceptable. If you add ONE file with size 10K
the archive grows with 20K (this is from memory, I'm not so sure about
the exact numbers).
Jorrit Tybergheinbruce@zuhause.MN.ORG (Bruce Albrecht) (04/27/91)
In article <11839@jarthur.Claremont.EDU> rolee@jarthur.Claremont.EDU (Profess'nal Agitator) writes: >How does this utility compare with commercial backup systems? Are there any >features of BRU (good or bad) that particularly stand out? Before I >acquired my A3000, I was using Quarterback with my A2000. At this stage of >the game, I probably will still use QB since I have an extensive library of >QB'd disks. There are two things I dislike about BRU. If you backup to disks, and want to verify, you have to insert all the disks twice. The second thing is that when you insert a BRU disk that is not labeled (yeah, I know I should mark them), there's no easy way to tell which disk number of the archive it is. The disk number is not in the disk name. -- bruce@zuhause.mn.org
sutela@polaris.utu.fi (Kari Sutela) (04/30/91)
bruce@zuhause.MN.ORG (Bruce Albrecht) writes: >The second thing is that when >you insert a BRU disk that is not labeled (yeah, I know I should mark them), >there's no easy way to tell which disk number of the archive it is. Just insert your diskette into the drive and type "bru -t". Bru will give and error message: "Expecting volume 1, received xx" (where xx is the number of your disk) or something similar. -- Kari Sutela sutela@polaris.utu.fi