# SuperDuper vs. CCC



## Rukus (Aug 10, 2007)

I'm trying to figure out which program is better or if there is really any difference at all. I'm fully aware of time machine and what it will do, but I also want a program that will create a bootable clone. 
Has anybody had experience with both programs? 

Thanks


----------



## Fox (Oct 4, 2002)

I've used both and they're both excellent. The full version of SuperDuper is more expensive than CCC and you need it to make an "intelligent clone" which only updates what needs to be if a clone was previously made. I used CCC to update only my home folder on the already existing cloned drive, and this saves a lot of time.


----------



## dougbale (Oct 18, 2007)

*SuperDuper! deserves its name*

I confess to not having used (or even heard of!) CCC, but I've used numerous other automatic backup systems such as Retrospect, Silverkeeper, etc., and never found another that offers so much sophistication as SuperDuper! while requiring so little of its users. The printable online manual is written in language a tenth-grader could follow, the program takes up ridiculously little room, loads quickly and works properly every time. You can switch between drives at the touch of a button, to back up this one to that, that to this, another to something else or vice versa. The user forum is fantastic and the support friendly. I paid $33 for it in April - scarcely expensive _ and have been touting it ever since.


----------



## Rukus (Aug 10, 2007)

Yeah I'm liking SuperDuper so far too, but Carbon Copy Cloner seems to do basically the same thing and it's FREE. I'm just wondering if there is any reason to pay the $30..00 for SuperDuper instead of going with the free CCC.


----------



## Brian Scully (Jan 23, 2001)

*yes there is*



Rukus said:


> Yeah I'm liking SuperDuper so far too, but Carbon Copy Cloner seems to do basically the same thing and it's FREE. I'm just wondering if there is any reason to pay the $30..00 for SuperDuper instead of going with the free CCC.


try to get customer support from CCC 

Support from Super Duper is virtually instantaneous 

I have heard back from Dave in less than an hour on any problem that I have had 

Well worth the fee IMHO

........brian


----------



## Guest (Oct 19, 2007)

Brian Scully said:


> try to get customer support from CCC
> 
> Support from Super Duper is virtually instantaneous
> 
> ...


Agreed. I got the same response level, along with a fix for the issue I had within the day. It was released the very next day to the public as well. Hard to find that level of service in any software these days.


----------



## tilt (Mar 3, 2005)

I am a little confused: Isn't SuperDuper free for personal use?

Cheers


----------



## Rukus (Aug 10, 2007)

tilt said:


> I am a little confused: Isn't SuperDuper free for personal use?
> 
> Cheers


It's free if you want to start from scratch every time you backup, but if you want to only update files that have changed instead of re-copying the entire drive you have to register the program for about $30.00.

It sounds like a lot of people have had great luck with the program, and I have no problem spending a few extra $$$ for a top quality product with good support. I AM a mac user after all


----------



## harzack86 (Jan 30, 2005)

SuperDuper is free.... but with a serious limitation: in order to have the "smart copy" features (which compare and only update what has changed since the last update), you need to pay a license.
The free and limited version requires that you run a full new copy each time you make a backup, which is quite cumbersome when doing a backup of an 80Gb drive where only a few hundreds megs where changed since the last update.


----------



## tilt (Mar 3, 2005)

Got it! Thanks


----------



## VNJ85 (Feb 24, 2006)

so what exactly are the differences between CCC and Superduper (other than free/fee, badsupport/goodsupport) ?


----------



## scsf (Nov 3, 2007)

*Leopard compatibility...*

SuperDuper is not yet Leopard-compatible (although I'm sure it will be soon). CCC is Leopard-compatible now.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

I've used both, but haven't used CCC since I was on Panther.

Not being an uber-geek, but usually being able to figure out almost all technical issues on my Mac on my own I found CCC to be very difficult to use. Maybe they changed that in the newer versions, but even though I used it to backup I really wasn't 100% sure that I had done it properly. I remember spending hours on their support forum trying to understand how to use it correctly and never really feeling sure if I was getting it. I also remember many annoyed and exasperated postings from forum mods that sounded to me like they were PO'd that some folks were finding their instructions confusing. If memory serves I had to download an additional freeware program to make the backup work correctly, psync or something?

When I tried SuperDuper it was like night and day. Clearly written, easily understandable instructions and rock-solid performance meant that I never felt the need to even ask for tech support. I immediately paid for the upgrade, well worth it. I have recommended it to several less than technically proficient Mac users to manage the backing up that I insisted they should do and as far as I know none of them have had problems with it.

While SuperDuper is not yet compatible with Leopard the developer is estimating it will be very soon. There's a new posting just today on Dave's SuperDuper blog. I'm waiting for it, for now Time Machine is filling the gap.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

You are not being fair - current CCC if anything is easier.

How hard does this look


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> You are not being fair - current CCC if anything is easier.
> 
> How hard does this look


I was absolutely being fair, MacDoc. I related my experience with a previous version and mentioned that they may have improved the newer versions. Nothing unfair about that, just my personal experience. As I said in my post, I haven't used CCC since Panther.

That said, I just looked at their forum and it seems like their documentation is still somewhat difficult for people to understand. Maybe nothing that a good technical writer couldn't solve though.


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

I'm using SuperDuper now even though they claim it's not Leopard compatible. I haven't had any issues yet.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I'd be careful - if SD folks say it's not ready I'd not use it.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Just checked the SuperDuper blog and nope, it's still not ready.

Some SD customers are getting antsy, though. It's an interesting read.

Some have gone the route of using CCC and are reporting problems.

Me, I'm counting on Time Machine and my last SD backup that I made before I moved to Leopard to preserve the bulk of my stuff. It would be somewhat of a pain if my HDD decided to cack right now, but everything would be backed up in a fashion.

Someone suggested that the guy behind SD may be waiting for MacWorld to announce for the publicity bump. That might be plausible.

Still waitin'.


----------



## Guest (Dec 12, 2007)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Someone suggested that the guy behind SD may be waiting for MacWorld to announce for the publicity bump. That might be plausible.
> 
> Still waitin'.


I'm waiting too. Having dealt with Dave(?) From Shirt Pocket before and the way he has done a lot of other stuff, like rolling out bugfixes within hours of a bug report I don't think he's holding out for the publicity. He tests the hell out of his stuff, and he uses his own binary to do the legwork (CCC uses OS provided stuff). I suspect that there are still things to get worked out here. Hopefully it doesn't take too long, but I know it will be worth the wait.

I've been using rsync to backup my docs on a work machine running Leopard, think I will break down and attach a time machine drive and turn that on until SD is happy on Leopard


----------



## VNJ85 (Feb 24, 2006)

man the release of sd is taking a lot longer then i anticipated....


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I'm using CCC on two PPC machines and two Intel machines. Not even a whisper of a problem and so easy to use. Never did figure out SD.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I have NO idea why people are waiting on SD - 

CCC is rock solid.


----------



## Snookaroo (Dec 12, 2007)

fwiw - i'm using ccc to do regular scheduled backups for two powerbooks to an external fw drive... works great.

it's good to be around ehMac again -- was here a couple of years ago but have been away. glad to be back, it's a great community.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

Rukus said:


> I'm trying to figure out which program is better or if there is really any difference at all. I'm fully aware of time machine and what it will do, but I also want a program that will create a bootable clone.
> Has anybody had experience with both programs?
> 
> Thanks


I've used both extensively.

In a nutshell, SuperDuper is worth the money. It's faster than CCC, it's easier for non-techs to navigate and understand what's happening, and the paid version ($23 last time I looked) allows scheduling and "smart copies."

Carbon Copy Cloner (CCC) is donationware, and does almost all the same things, but is a little more "technical" (but getting better!) and less intuitive. BUT you can have it deal with as little as one folder instead of doing more-or-less the entire system.

If you're nerdy and cheap, CCC is the way to go. SuperDuper is for people who don't mind spending a little money to make auto-backup as painless as possible. Time Machine is for people who don't need bootable clones as much as they need "incremental backups" (which neither CCC nor SD do), and don't want to pay since they've already bought Leopard.


----------



## Guest (Dec 13, 2007)

MacDoc said:


> I have NO idea why people are waiting on SD -
> 
> CCC is rock solid.


Personally I'm waiting for a couple of reasons. First I have all my custom scripts (includes, excludes, etc) already setup in SD, along with all the scheduling.

Second I've been stung in the past by CCC (admittedly it was not with the latest version). It was not a great experience at all .. Mike Bombich doesn't really support CCC, he just kinda tosses it out there and updates it occasionally, if you have issues you're mostly on your own. Dave @ Shirt Pocket on the other hand gives killer support and anytime I've had the slightest issue with things he's responded almost immediately to emails and helped me solve the issues.

That's worth the wait IMHO.


----------



## Suge (Oct 29, 2007)

this blog entry was from a while ago, but it has some good info

plasticsfuture » Mac Backup Software Harmful


----------



## csonni (Feb 8, 2001)

MacDoc, I'm waiting on SD because I've got a registered copy and don't want to have to rely on CCC when I've paid my dues.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

So what - CCC is free. Just go back to SD when it's ready.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Suge said:


> this blog entry was from a while ago, but it has some good info
> 
> plasticsfuture » Mac Backup Software Harmful


Very interesting article - SuperDuper comes out with flying colours. Unfortunately, this article is over a year old and doesn't mention the current version of CCC or other solutions. The version of CCC the blogger used in this article was "not recommended".

Back when I was using CCC, admittedly not the latest version - there seemed to be some odd things happening in the clone, but I assumed I may not have been using it properly, because I was having trouble figuring out the documentation. Maybe it was the software.

The fact that the earlier version of SuperDuper was tested and shown to preserve everything perfectly compared to most other software, might have something to do with the delay we've seen for the Leopard release. According to the SD blog, there is some detailed testing going on and some possible new features.

Good and useful first contribution to the forum, Suge. Welcome to ehMac.


----------



## Guest (Dec 14, 2007)

Ok, decided to give latest CCC a shot for fun. Picked my options, selected my disk image and hit go. After about 3 minutes of it spinning it's wheels it says "CCC failed to mount the target disk image." THen it follows up telling me to verify that the disk image mounts and that I can mount it manually in the Finder. The kicker is that the disk image was already mounted by CCC and is on the desktop already. It mounts fine manually, there are no permissions issues on the machine I'm cloning from. Did this 3 times in a row regardless of whether the drive was already mounted or not, tried it both ways just to make sure.

This is typical of my experiences in the past with CCC as well ... sometimes it just don't go and nothing I can do will convince it otherwise. It works ok if I create a new disk image but doesn't want to work with any existing disk images that it didn't make itself.

I think I'll just wait for SD


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Just noticed this morning on the SD blog, that Dave has released info on how the SD update will work. It's clear now why it has taken them so long. They have SD working alongside Time Machine. Somehow (not really clear on the concept) SD will make your TM disk into a bootable clone.

I was envisioning having two backups, one for TM and another for SD. Apparently now that will be unnecessary. 

He also says now that it will be available "in the next few weeks" they just have some UI tweaking to do. My guess would be MacWorld.

SuperDuper blog.


----------



## jamesB (Jan 28, 2007)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> I was envisioning having two backups, one for TM and another for SD. Apparently now that will be unnecessary.


If I read this part from Daves blog correctly...

"Time Machine backups, and your bootable SuperDuper! backup, are stored on the same volume, side-by-side, without interfering with each other"

it sounds to me that we will have 2 separate backups on the Time Machine drive, just that we will not have to make a special partition for the bootable clone.
But then again, what do I know.
jb.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Whatever he's done, it sounds like he has an original idea that should put him ahead of his competition. I'd say it would be clever thinking to look at what Apple is doing by bringing out Time Machine and make something that works with it, rather than something that will be an additional or secondary backup. If it works as he says, it should complement the very slick and easy system that Apple designed. I hope it works well, but I guess that's what the 2 month delay is all about — making sure that it does.


----------



## jamesB (Jan 28, 2007)

I'm sure it'll be a product well worth the wait, maybe even better then the original SuperDuper.

jb.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

What disc images have to do with a bootable backup VOLUME is beyond me.










CCC has the option for a bit map clone which is a very secure method of cloning.

I would never mix TM and a clone - way too much risk - I don't care what SD is about that's not a strategy I will ever recommend to a client.

The idea is to reduce risk not increase it.


----------



## jamesB (Jan 28, 2007)

MacDoc said:


> What disc images have to do with a bootable backup VOLUME is beyond me..


"disc images",
where did that come from?
It appears from reading Dave Nanians blog, that he is working on a system that will allow you to clone to, and "Boot" from the same drive as Time Machine is on without the need to repartition the drive. No mention of a disc image.
But then, if you read his blog you already know this.

jb


----------



## Paul O'Keefe (Jun 3, 2005)

I find Carbon Copy Cloner's new interface very simple and easy to use. I also like that the new version is universal and that seems to have speeded up the cloning.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Disc image?? - read M Guertins post.

I don't care what SD dev claims about his approach it's wrong headed - the partition is the protection.


----------



## jamesB (Jan 28, 2007)

MacDoc said:


> I have NO idea why people are waiting on SD -
> 
> CCC is rock solid.


Possibly because you, whose opinion a lot of folks respect, keep plugging it in your signature line everytime you post.


----------



## Suge (Oct 29, 2007)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Very interesting article - SuperDuper comes out with flying colours. Unfortunately, this article is over a year old and doesn't mention the current version of CCC or other solutions. The version of CCC the blogger used in this article was "not recommended".
> 
> Back when I was using CCC, admittedly not the latest version - there seemed to be some odd things happening in the clone, but I assumed I may not have been using it properly, because I was having trouble figuring out the documentation. Maybe it was the software.
> 
> ...



thanks!
i know the article is old, but it's important to be informed that "a file is not just a file" when looking at different backup solutions. Especially when you get into copying over into different filesystems using different protocols that a NAS or external enclosure might offer.


----------



## K2ACP (Sep 11, 2010)

So, how's 2007?


----------

