I haven't installed Leopard and actually looked at Time Machine yet. Based on what I've read it looks to me like both provide the same basic functionality, in terms of the versions of files saved, etc. The differences I see are in the user interface and the amount of space used.

Time Machine appears to have a "prettier" and more transparent UI. The ability to go back and see old versions with QuickLook looks nice. I think Time Machine backs up changed files rather than changed sectors, so it's archive will grow much more quickly than QRecall's. QRecall, OTOH, has a "geekier" UI requiring a bit more computer savy, but will use much less space for its archive or be able to save more layers in the same space.

Is a good summary of the differences, or is there anything important that I'm missing here?

The space difference is a biggie, and this week when people are installing Leopard and exploring Time Machine would be a good time to promote that heavily. In the MacIntouch reader report on Leopard, http://www.macintouch.com/readerreports/leopard/ a number of people are expressing concern about Time Machine's archive growing rapidly because of small changes to large files. They'd likely be good candidates for QRecall right now. I'll post something about it if you'd like me to, but it might be better if you did it yourself.

Ralph Strauch

Right now one big difference for me is that Time Machine can only backup to an external disk -- Apple pulled the Airport Disk functionality right before release. On my laptop, I don't want to have to have an external drive plugged in all the time, and Qrecall works just fine with my Airport Disk.


Steve

Ralph Strauch wrote:Time Machine appears to have a "prettier" and more transparent UI. The ability to go back and see old versions with QuickLook looks nice.

Having the recall GUI built into the operating system is a definite plus for Time Machine. Sadly, not an option available to third-party developers.

I think Time Machine backs up changed files rather than changed sectors, so it's archive will grow much more quickly than QRecall's. QRecall, OTOH, has a "geekier" UI requiring a bit more computer savy, but will use much less space for its archive or be able to save more layers in the same space.

Also correct. Time Machine, like most incremental backup solutions, copies entire files whenever they change. So small changes to large files will require considerably more storage.

Is a good summary of the differences, or is there anything important that I'm missing here?

The biggest differences today are efficiency (which you've already commented on) and control. Time Machine has one, fixed, backup schedule. QRecall gives you almost unlimited control on what gets captured, when, and how long it's saved.

My long term goal is to capitalize on QRecall's flexibility and control, so that it will eventually become "Time Machine Pro."

The space difference is a biggie, and this week when people are installing Leopard and exploring Time Machine would be a good time to promote that heavily. In the MacIntouch reader report on Leopard, http://www.macintouch.com/readerreports/leopard/ a number of people are expressing concern about Time Machine's archive growing rapidly because of small changes to large files. They'd likely be good candidates for QRecall right now. I'll post something about it if you'd like me to, but it might be better if you did it yourself.

I find that this sort of advice is better from actual users. When I post, it sounds self-serving -- which, of course, it is.

Stephen Murphy wrote:Right now one big difference for me is that Time Machine can only backup to an external disk -- Apple pulled the Airport Disk functionality right before release.

That surprised me too. I have gotten no clear answer why Apple pulled the network volume support for Time Machine at the last minute. I can only guess that it was a performance issue.

On my laptop, I don't want to have to have an external drive plugged in all the time, and Qrecall works just fine with my Airport Disk.

I agree. If I couldn't back up my two laptops via Airport, I probably wouldn't be using QRecall either.