I use carbon copy cloner also. About the only advantage time machine might give you is hourly backups of your files that have changed, this might be useful if you make frequent changes to documents or something similar. Otherwise, there is probably no need to use them both. On Aug 17, 2011, at 11:39 AM, Paul Henrichsen wrote:
> Hi, guys. I'm currently running Carbon copy as well as time machine. But I'm > wondering why I'm doing that. > Does it make any sense to run both since carbon copy will create a bootable > disk and can also be scheduled just like time machine? > It appears it's easier to do a restore with carbon copy; so is time machine > really necessary if you have another backup solution? > Thanks. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "MacVisionaries" group. > To post to this group, send email to macvisionaries@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries?hl=en. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MacVisionaries" group. To post to this group, send email to macvisionaries@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries?hl=en.
