Talk:Time Machine (macOS)

message: Do you think it's worth mentioning that Acer once had a system restoration program called Time Machine?    Apple's Time Machine still seems far superior, but I'm wondering if this could fall under a trivia section.  Gordeonbleu 18:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Leopard's Time Machine and rg. Volume Shadow Copies do not have anything in common. Volume Shadow Copies is a file system feature as Time Machine's a front end to a backup system which again does not work like Volume Shadow Copies acting on Files but on structured application data. Eg. with Time Machine it is Possible to restore one calendar event even though it is not stored in a separate file on disk. I'll change the article section according to this. —Feuermurmel 13:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I worked on this section which seemed vague to me. I looked for information to back up the statements that were there, and didn't find much except for some pretty seriously emotional blogs! But, I used 'em and cited 'em. --joeOnSunset 18:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: No subject

message: I made an encrypted disk image, mounted it, then tried to get TM to back up to it.  Doesn't show up in TM's list of possible destinations.
The article says that backing up an encrypted disk image will work. If the files from the mounted image are backed up, they will backed up unencrypted.  If the encrypted image itself is backed up, and if the image is not tiny, this will be extremely inefficient, and if it is even in fact reliable, it will have to lock out access to the disk image during the backup of the disk image, and even then, who knows whether the image is in a consistent stat at such time as TM tries to back it up.  This all needs careful investigation before the article goes on to make sweeping statements such as it does.
I think the best option is for TM to allow backing up to a mounted, encrypted disk image.
Dave Yost (talk) 09:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the article actually only means that you can back up an encrypted disk image. You can't back up directly to an encrypted disk image. I'm not sure how backups of disk images work, but I'm sure Apple's software engineers couldn't possibly have been THAT dumb to not think that files might be changed during backup...right? D: --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (talk) 22:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There's an article out there somewhere where a guy was able to do what you say.  I can't find it, but he took the .sparceimage, changed it to encrypted and gave it a pw.  He then entered that pw into Keychain so it doesn't ask for it when it's mounted, and TM accepted it.  He backs up unencrypted data to an encrypted disk.  Agree, it should be built-in.  --72.17.153.96 (talk) 13:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

text: keep in mine, too, that leopard introduced sparsebundles for time machine. that is, it uses sparsebundles to back up to, not a monolithic image file, and it can back up sparsebundles much more efficiently than sparseimages, again, since they are not one monolithic file. – ɜɿøɾɪɹℲ ( тɐʟк • ¢ʘи†ʀ¡βs ) 15:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Encryption info is probably wrong and/or misleading 

message: From article: 
Time Machine requires using a whole hard drive or hard drive partition to perform backups. File-level backups, such as using just a folder on a partition of a hard drive instead of requiring the use of the whole drive or partition, cannot be done through Time Machine.
This needs so be precised. Time Machine does not "take over" the whole disk, it creates a directory (IIRC "Backups.db") at the root of the drive and keep its backups inside taking as much space as it needs, deleting the oldest backup if there isn't enough free space. (I can post a screenshot of TimeMachine documentation if needed)
Which means that if you put files on your disk, it will not delete these files. Just take over the existing free space. If you want to add files to your disk, you can manually free some space by deleting some backups and then copy your files.
As long as you don't mess up with the Time Machine backup directory, you are free to copy any files to your backup hard drive.
--VincentRobert (talk) 11:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think what was originally meant was that you have to back up FROM a whole volume, not TO a whole volume. You can EXclude individual directories or files, but you can only INclude whole volumes. This is all IIRC too, btw. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (talk) 22:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whole hard drive ? 

message: Time machine works fine over any network connection, including ethernet and firewire. I am using the later method to back up my notebook right at this moment and it's faster than any other connection method. Deleting the comment to the contrary.
67.174.198.191 (talk) 09:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: TM does not work fine over any network connection, it will not run if you are only connected to a wireless network. – ɜɿøɾɪɹℲ ( тɐʟк • ¢ʘи†ʀ¡βs ) 19:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's that about wired networks? 

message: The section "Similar functionality in other operating systems isn't necessary.  This can be covered by a "See Also" section with links to relevant articles.  If I see no objections I'll replace it sometime today.  Gh5046 (talk) 16:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Since no one seems to oppose this time, I'm gonna go ahead and remove it again. - Josh (talk | contribs) 06:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: A whole section dedicated to other products?

message: I don't care if you have a source or not, it does not require the hard drive to be connected to the computer.  I do Time Machine backups over the network, and of course, Time Capsule works wirelessly. 206.124.7.10 (talk) 23:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless it's an AFP shared disk or a Time Capsule, backing up over the network isn't supported.  It can be done, as the article states, but it isn't supported.  Gh5046 (talk) 00:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does not require a hard drive connected to the computer 

message: This page used to list the limitations and problems with Time Machine. It also gave links to open source alternatives, These have since been edited out.
This needs to be fixed IMMEDIATELY. Apparently, Apple doesn't like it when people criticize their software.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.173.130.5 (talk) 14:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Look two discussions above this one, and you'll see why they were removed.  Also, there is a link to the article "List of backup software".  That more than suffices.  Gh5046 (talk) 14:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edited By Some Apple Lover? 

message: I question this sentence in the "How it works" section:"It then copies the entire primary hard drive (except for files and directories that it has specifically been told not to copy) to the folder."If it doesn't create a boot drive, then it is not copying the entire hard drive, and all the hidden files that exist.--Lester 11:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The target drive time machine uses cannot be booted off of.  To do a full system restore you have to boot off of the 10.5 DVD, then select restore from a time machine backup.  If time machine is set to back up the entire drive, it has the ability to restore a fully working and bootable system.  Gh5046 (talk) 02:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Gh5046. Yes, that sounds correct. Maybe the article should say something like "copies items from a user folder" rather than "copies the entire primary hard drive". --Lester 02:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It does copy the entirety of the primary hard drive (except special cache files) just so long as the user doesn't set time machine to ignore the system folder.  "For the initial backup, Time Machine copies the entire contents of the computer to your backup drive. It copies every file exactly (without compression), skipping caches and other files that aren’t required to restore your Mac to its original state." Gh5046 (talk) 16:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copies "entire hard drive"? 

message: I have no idea why this title was chosen instead of just Time Machine (software). If someone could point out to me why the clarification is needed, then I'll be alright with it. Otherwise, I suggest we move the article to Time Machine (software).  - stevenrasnick Tuesday, 8:54 PM, November 4, 2008
:Because of this article:  Time Machine (Solution-Soft software). Gh5046 (talk) 18:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Why does the title need to clarify that Time Machine is "Apple" software?

message: The section "Time_Machine_(OS_X)#Mountain_Lion_.2F_Mavericks_Compatibility_Issues" gives the impression (through words such as "massive data loss" and "The backups are readable only by the computer that created them") that the backup from older machines is not readable on newer machines. But as far as I know, the backup format is a HFS+ volume with a file system hierarchy that has a subdirectory for each snapshot date and, in each such directory, mirrors the backed up file system. Therefore the backup volume can be mounted as HFS+ and the files can be restored through normal file copy ("cp -pr" or "tar"). The only part of the backup that is lost are therefore the system files, and the restoration is not exactly immediate. The current wording is therefore grossly exaggerated. OK to reformulate this paragraph? Professor Tournesol (talk) 06:27, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Misleading section about compatibility issues

message: Time Machine supports (since when?) the creation of an encrypted backup (no matter whether the local system partitio is encrypted or not).  That should be mentioned in the article. And how that encryption works and whether there are 3rd-party tools to read that backups (with the proper key/password only, of course. ;-)) --RokerHRO (talk) 14:27, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Encrypted backups