What makes Time Machine unsuitable for you?
Well, I'm not sure
it is. But I think it is because it can't make a bootable backup. That's not hugely important but it's a great feature. I also like the idea of having a single copy of everything, not many different versions. I also tend to plug in CCC every 2 weeks, not have it running constantly.
Hardly. You're being super cheap. Developers need to earn something for their hard work.
They do and I often donate or buy to help them out. Three days ago I spent $194 on an upgrade to some music production software that I've already sunk 100s of dollars into in the past. There's some sort of psychological difference to me b/w that kind of software and a 'rsync gui' that used to be free, whose competition is $27, and which Apple bundles their own widely acclaimed version in their $20 OS for free.
For $20 I would have bought it at the drop of a hat. I may still buy it at $40 but now it requires some consideration and the sounding out of the competition.
What's your data worth to you? $40?
And I'd also like to see what's wrong with Time Machine per your needs, given that it does differential data backups without compelling you to image the entire drive like your proposed solution.
My data/time is worth way more than $40 to me, sure. But if I can do the same thing for $27, or even for free, even better. Can I plug in Time Machine every couple of weeks and still have a good enough result? Or will it take forever to make those backups because it hasn't been plugged in for a long time?
Fight? dd wins no contest.
It does. I use dd fairly regularly (tho' mainly on my Linux boxes) but it always, even after years of use, strikes fear into me because it is so powerful.
Also, anyone on here use TimeMachineEditor and can recommend it?