The main advantage to Time Machine is that it provides an incremental and historical backup, so I can recover files from various points in time as long as my backup goes back far enough.įor example, let’s assume I had been working on a document but made a critical error a few days ago, and I continued to make changes to the document over the several days since without realizing my prior error. Time Machine is what I consider a “local” backup solution, though you could obviously take the backup drive used for Time Machine to a different physical location. Having a backup offsite helps overcome this sort of issue. A local backup is great, but it does mean that if a physical location has a serious problem (such as a fire) you might lose your original data and your backup data all at once. The key advantage of Backblaze is that it provides an offsite backup. While there are differences between Time Machine and Backblaze, I wouldn’t choose one over the other and instead use both. I also use GoodSync ( ) to backup my external hard drives. More Detail: I use both Time Machine (which is built into the Macintosh operating system) and Backblaze to backup my internal hard drive. Each of these backup solutions has strengths and weaknesses depending on context. Tim’s Quick Answer: I wouldn’t necessarily say that Backblaze ( ) is better than Time Machine for restoring photos. Today’s Question: Is Backblaze better than Apple Time Machine for restoring images?
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |