CCC vs SuperDuper

[davemchine]

CCC is free, SuperDuper is $28. Any users out there who can testify to the $28 advantage?

Dave

[jdc]

does CCC do incremental backups?

[Racer X]

Super Duper can be used for free with basic functionality I thought, and the advanced stuff needed a license key.

[MacMagus]

The registered version of SuperDuper permits scheduling, incremental copying and scripting.

I use CCC for FireWire backups and SuperDuper for nightly scheduled incremental backups.

[Buckeye_Sean]

I like CCC, but use Lacie's Silverkeeper for daily backups.

[tuqqer]

CCC is free, SuperDuper is $28. Any users out there who can testify to the $28 advantage?


Two biggies for me:
1. An interface that tells me exactly what is about to happen before it happens.

2. Scheduled backups. My Macs turn on automatically at 4am each morning, and then at 4:10, SuperDuper backs everything up.

That said, if you don't need the above two, CCC works fine for creating a clone.

[Kramerica]

I don't use CCC but SuperDuper was the first piece of shareware I ever paid for. Very easy interface and does the job well. And the support is superb. It was worth it to me.

Leopard may change the backup game with Time Machine and all that. We'll see.

[Zoidberg]

Support on SuperDuper is stellar. I've had one or two errors in a few years of using it, and got an email back within an hour when I reported the problem.

[anonymouse1]

I think CCC does not do incremental backups.

That means that every time you do a backup, you have to copy the entire HD you're backing up. With SD, it just adds/deletes the files that have changed. Saves a lot of time.

[sscutchen]

[quote Zoidberg]Support on SuperDuper is stellar. I've had one or two errors in a few years of using it, and got an email back within an hour when I reported the problem.
I agree. I screwed up with a SafetyClone when I first started using SuperDuper. They were great with helping me recover.