>tedd wrote:
>
>>There is a general back-up philosophy that everything should be 
>>backed up, like what Retrospect does. So, the users of Retrospect, 
>>and the like, continue to make ever increasing back-ups. First 
>>backup A, and then backup B (A + B), and then backup C (A + B + C) 
>>and so on. Each backup adds another entire back-up of the data that 
>>was present that day/week/month/whatever to the backup data set.
>>
>>DiskFit, on the other hand, backed up only what was changed. So, 
>>one could keep the same back-up medium set and it's size (number of 
>>mediums) only changed when you added something. A DiskFit backup 
>>restore would restore your computer to what it was when last you 
>>backed up. While Retrospect could restore your computer to what it 
>>was since you first started doing backups and everything in 
>>between. Redundancy way beyond my needs.
>
>My Retrospects have always (since 1991) performed incremental 
>backups as the typical default backup strategy.
>
>On restore, you can pick individual files from anywhere in the 
>change history, or you can restore the volume as it existed at any 
>point in the change history. No file is backed up twice. It does 
>this by keeping track of each file backed up, not by redundancy.
>
>PB

PB:

Well then, I stand corrected (actually, I lean a bit to the right).

I own Retrospect, but appeared to me that my backups continued to 
grow enormously after every backup. Thus, my misconception that it 
was backing up everything over and over.

In any event, I now just drag everything to another drive and it 
doesn't require much thinking -- which makes me happy.

tedd


-- 
http://sperling.com