This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Time Machine (macOS) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Do you think it's worth mentioning that Acer once had a system restoration program called Time Machine? [1] 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)
The main point is that there is already an existing trademark for a software program called Time Machine. Listing the future product from Apple stomps on the trademark owners efforts to market a product for a similar purpose. Michaelmorrison 20:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Someone should compare and contrast Time Machine with Windows Server Volume Shadow Copy, introduced with Windows Server 2003. Michaelcox 19:35, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
What about Tivoli Continuous Data Protection for Files? Does it offer the same functionality? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.77.115.238 ( talk • contribs) 14:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC-8)
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)
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)
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) Oleg
It works fine over wired or wireless connections. You need to make sure that you are connected to the backup volume (time machine is not able to connect automatically). Also leave the notebook connected to the power adapter. I heard backup will not start on battery power, but I am not positive enough to include this in the article.
148.87.1.167 ( talk) 22:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC) Oleg
Time Machine does NOT officially and stabely backup over Airport connection. This was advertised pre Leopard release by Apple but was pulled probably due to stability for the official release.... It can be turned on with the terminal but is unsupported and apparently unstable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.197.33.179 ( talk) 11:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
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)
I removed the following statement from the Limitations section:
The statement is contradictory, and I was able to find an article to negate it: http://www.appleinsider.com/print.php?id=3297
I tried to include that url in my edit summary, but I did not realise it got cut off. Gh5046 ( talk) 18:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I am stuck with these items in the Limitations section:
Time Machine wasn't made to do these things, they are not part of its offering, so can they even be considered limitations? Who or what decides what a limitation is? If the software wasn't designed to do it is it notable?
The statement about Filevault backups requiring logout makes sense, and since Apple does support some network based back ups it makes sense to list what it doesn't support. But, if it isn't an announced/supported feature in anyway does it make sense to note it? Gh5046 ( talk) 21:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
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)
I removed the text in the article concerning Time Machine backups to an Airport Extreme-connected USB disk, this is not supported by Apple per http://support.apple.com/kb/HT2038 . For all you people currently using this unsupported method, I encourage you to try and do significant restores. Welcome to fail. Jgw ( talk) 16:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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
"According to Apple, it can only be backed up to network drives if they are being hosted by another computer running Leopard (including Leopard Server)" I read an article about TM some time ago and IIRC it's because TM requires use of some evolutions of HFS+ features, notably regarding hardlinks, which are only usable for files in all other major filesystems incl. previous HFS+. TM apparently makes use of hardlinks to directories, which cause a number of implementation specifics WRT the creation of such hardlinks (notably to prevent creation of infinite loops). In a remote backup situation it is mandatory to have Leopard not only on the local machine, but also on the remote one to which the disk is plugged because the disk has to be shared via AFP, which is a file service working atop the existing filesystem (like samba, nfs, ftp...). thus it is the remote machine which has the burden of handling the filesytem and has to support the new features. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lloeki ( talk • contribs) 13:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: No consensus to move. It is disputed whether video games can be considered software. Consider handling these discussions, perhaps at WikiProject Computing, and WikiProject Video Games, then propose a new move. The location/name for the move also has no consensus. Taelus ( talk) 10:07, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Time Machine (Apple software) →
Time Machine (software) — The requested title currently redirects to this article and it should be moved for simplicity.
NerdyScienceDude :) (
✉ click to talk •
my edits •
sign)
14:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: page moved to Time Machine (Mac OS), though this was pretty close. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 10:14, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Time Machine (software) →
Time Machine (backup software)
Time Machine (Mac OS) space added— Relisted.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 08:00, 27 December 2010 (UTC) More recognizable and more precise, two of the five criteria at
WP:TITLE. (Was moved as uncontroversial in September 2010 despite discussion above.) --
Pnm (
talk)
05:47, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
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)
Hi. Im not sure if you made the current edit inside the [] or not. I think the content is fine but the tone is off. I think it should read more as "if you have x problem, then using y method is a solution." It currently reads more like a defense of Time Machine or of Apple even though it maintains the same content.
P4lm0r3 ( talk) 14:37, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
The current wording is good, well balanced. Thanks to whoever installed it. Professor Tournesol ( talk) 16:48, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
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)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Time Machine (macOS) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Do you think it's worth mentioning that Acer once had a system restoration program called Time Machine? [1] 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)
The main point is that there is already an existing trademark for a software program called Time Machine. Listing the future product from Apple stomps on the trademark owners efforts to market a product for a similar purpose. Michaelmorrison 20:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Someone should compare and contrast Time Machine with Windows Server Volume Shadow Copy, introduced with Windows Server 2003. Michaelcox 19:35, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
What about Tivoli Continuous Data Protection for Files? Does it offer the same functionality? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.77.115.238 ( talk • contribs) 14:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC-8)
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)
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)
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) Oleg
It works fine over wired or wireless connections. You need to make sure that you are connected to the backup volume (time machine is not able to connect automatically). Also leave the notebook connected to the power adapter. I heard backup will not start on battery power, but I am not positive enough to include this in the article.
148.87.1.167 ( talk) 22:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC) Oleg
Time Machine does NOT officially and stabely backup over Airport connection. This was advertised pre Leopard release by Apple but was pulled probably due to stability for the official release.... It can be turned on with the terminal but is unsupported and apparently unstable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.197.33.179 ( talk) 11:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
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)
I removed the following statement from the Limitations section:
The statement is contradictory, and I was able to find an article to negate it: http://www.appleinsider.com/print.php?id=3297
I tried to include that url in my edit summary, but I did not realise it got cut off. Gh5046 ( talk) 18:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I am stuck with these items in the Limitations section:
Time Machine wasn't made to do these things, they are not part of its offering, so can they even be considered limitations? Who or what decides what a limitation is? If the software wasn't designed to do it is it notable?
The statement about Filevault backups requiring logout makes sense, and since Apple does support some network based back ups it makes sense to list what it doesn't support. But, if it isn't an announced/supported feature in anyway does it make sense to note it? Gh5046 ( talk) 21:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
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)
I removed the text in the article concerning Time Machine backups to an Airport Extreme-connected USB disk, this is not supported by Apple per http://support.apple.com/kb/HT2038 . For all you people currently using this unsupported method, I encourage you to try and do significant restores. Welcome to fail. Jgw ( talk) 16:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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
"According to Apple, it can only be backed up to network drives if they are being hosted by another computer running Leopard (including Leopard Server)" I read an article about TM some time ago and IIRC it's because TM requires use of some evolutions of HFS+ features, notably regarding hardlinks, which are only usable for files in all other major filesystems incl. previous HFS+. TM apparently makes use of hardlinks to directories, which cause a number of implementation specifics WRT the creation of such hardlinks (notably to prevent creation of infinite loops). In a remote backup situation it is mandatory to have Leopard not only on the local machine, but also on the remote one to which the disk is plugged because the disk has to be shared via AFP, which is a file service working atop the existing filesystem (like samba, nfs, ftp...). thus it is the remote machine which has the burden of handling the filesytem and has to support the new features. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lloeki ( talk • contribs) 13:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: No consensus to move. It is disputed whether video games can be considered software. Consider handling these discussions, perhaps at WikiProject Computing, and WikiProject Video Games, then propose a new move. The location/name for the move also has no consensus. Taelus ( talk) 10:07, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Time Machine (Apple software) →
Time Machine (software) — The requested title currently redirects to this article and it should be moved for simplicity.
NerdyScienceDude :) (
✉ click to talk •
my edits •
sign)
14:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: page moved to Time Machine (Mac OS), though this was pretty close. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 10:14, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Time Machine (software) →
Time Machine (backup software)
Time Machine (Mac OS) space added— Relisted.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 08:00, 27 December 2010 (UTC) More recognizable and more precise, two of the five criteria at
WP:TITLE. (Was moved as uncontroversial in September 2010 despite discussion above.) --
Pnm (
talk)
05:47, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
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)
Hi. Im not sure if you made the current edit inside the [] or not. I think the content is fine but the tone is off. I think it should read more as "if you have x problem, then using y method is a solution." It currently reads more like a defense of Time Machine or of Apple even though it maintains the same content.
P4lm0r3 ( talk) 14:37, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
The current wording is good, well balanced. Thanks to whoever installed it. Professor Tournesol ( talk) 16:48, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
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)