Windows backup software?

[dennis]

Yes it is as you can keep versions of a file so no it isn't deleted.

Do you really think other people are as stupid as you?

It shows, you nut.

[dennis]

Of course it does, it wasn't written by some ex IT manager.

[Huge]

Which bit of "incremental" was it you failed to understand, you useless sack of shit?

[Tim Watts]

Why are you replying to my post?

[dennis]

Ohh, look the hugh idiot has done some creative snipping and made a complete hash of it like usual.

[dennis]

Hugh is an idiot and can't quite get the snipping correct while trying to distort the post. He probably hasn't worked out that people will probably have read the post he is replying to.

[Tim Streater]

That's archiving, not backup - two different ideas.

[Huge]

Sigh. Yet another n*****ts who can't count. I'm not. I'm replying to dennis, which you would realise if you could count the number of quotation ">".

[dennis]

Better tell users of time machine then, as time machine does the same but not as quickly. Like I said apple had to steal the ideas from somewhere, they have never done anything new AFAIK.

[Tim Streater]

Does the same as what?

Now you're being ironic.

[The Natural Philosopher]

why? who wants incrementals really? programmers? people wanting to find the last version but three.

IF you want version control of a file put version control on a file.

IF I delete a file 99 times ot of 100 its because I want rid of it.

Its the hundredth time where I didnt want rid of ot but hit the wrong button, that counts.

[dennis]

Here speaks an IT manager that doesn't understand the difference between backups and copies.

Hint: If you *copy* a file without it being a part of a proper backup system then its a copy. If you copy a file using part of a proper backup system its a backup.

A proper backup system can protect you against problems copies cannot.

[Reentrant]

One advantage of Acronis is that you can either restore a complete system image (eg if the disk fails or is unbootable), or individual files.

Mind you, given today's news it won't be long before our Government will be storing all our personal data for 12 months. So why bother backing up? Just ask GCHQ to do a restore for you.

[Tim Streater]

Time Machine does incrementals in the sense that it doesn't back up the full 50gig every time. But the user's GUI *view* of each incremental makes it look like a full backup. So if I go to the backup of yesterday at 12.52, it looks like a full backup to me even though the files presented will have been backed up at different times.

This means I don't have to furtle through a large number of backups to see the version I want.

For the stuff I'm developing, I use Cornerstone which, internally, uses Subversion.

[The Natural Philosopher]

even stupider as you now have a disk full of backups of stuff you deleted years ago.

[Jules Richardson]

s/i/mo/

[Tim Watts]

If I'm running backups for 20-40+ people, I don't like to assume anything.

But also, incrementals are fairly cheap in terms of storage of the whole backup, so why not?

[Huge]

Why should I care what hypothetical numpties think?

[John Rumm]

Count yourself lucky he has not started droning on about how you "can only do a proper backup to tape" again...

[dennis]

More lies John, I never said that. You are more and more like geof all the time.