> I would avoid using CCC - although it's a great application, it will screw > up a lot of your software authorizations.  > CCC was recommended to me by the Apple genius at the local Apple store. He said that they use it in the store to set up computers regularly.

>> I would avoid using CCC - although it's a great application, it will screw >> up a lot of your software authorizations.  >> > CCC was recommended to me by the Apple genius at the local Apple store. He > said that they use it in the store to set up computers regularly. Yep, but unfortunately Jules is still right. Personal experience with using CCC (which is a useful and very good value application) has taught me that having used it to restore a drive, you will be faced with a lot of software that requires new authorisation codes - that does assume of course that you have some of that kind of software in the first place! From memory, I think I needed to re authorise all my Spectrasonics stuff, Altiverb and Waves. Gareth

> Yep, but unfortunately Jules is still right. Personal experience with > using > CCC (which is a useful and very good value application) has taught me > that > having used it to restore a drive, you will be faced with a lot of > software > that requires new authorisation codes - that does assume of course > that you > have some of that kind of software in the first place! From memory, I > think > I needed to re authorise all my Spectrasonics stuff, Altiverb and > Waves. I don't think that has anything to do with the file permissions, though, but likely something specific to their copy protection schemes. CCC does, in fact, retain the proper permissions - it's not doing anything other than running a set of BSD commands, so if the clone isn't working then it's a Unix thing, not a CCC thing. And is reauthorizing that big of deal to not use CCC (which is easily one of the most useful OS X utilities available)? Brian :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Logic Audio Pro 7.0.0 PowerMac G4 933MHz OS X 10.3.4 1 GB RAM MOTU 828mkII - driver v1.09 - CueMix v1.4

> -----Original Message----- > From: Brian Pylant [mailto:bappo@...] > Sent: 03 November 2004 13:15 > I don't think that has anything to do with the file > permissions, though, but likely something specific to their > copy protection schemes. > CCC does, in fact, retain the proper permissions - it's not > doing anything other than running a set of BSD commands, so > if the clone isn't working then it's a Unix thing, not a CCC thing. > > And is reauthorizing that big of deal to not use CCC (which > is easily one of the most useful OS X utilities available)? Of course not. But why use an app' which involves extra work and delays, when there's a perfectly good one which doesn't?

On Nov 3, 2004, at 5:54 AM, Jules Bromley wrote: > Of course not. But why use an app' which involves extra work and > delays, > when there's a perfectly good one which doesn't? Agreed, but...which app doesn't? Stefan

On Nov 3, 2004, at 17:43, Stefan Garr wrote: >> Of course not. But why use an app' which involves extra work and >> delays, >> when there's a perfectly good one which doesn't? > > Agreed, but...which app doesn't? I might sound boring over time, but there is Retrospect as a fully automatable backup solution with complete recovering. Ok, you have to spend some time to fully understand it and it is not really cheap. But once I lost the work of two months and decided to invest in security instead of a new preamp. This software comes rather handy for big reorganization either. You can backup and recover whole disks, partitions or folders and single files. Peter Ostry

On 04/11/2004, at 12:15 AM, Brian Pylant wrote: > And is reauthorizing that big of deal to not use CCC (which is easily > one of the most useful OS X utilities available)? It is if you're trying to backup software from a company that's gone out of business. In my case Bitheadz Unity DS-1. I'm still looking for a solution to this problem. Any ideas anyone? Andris

>On Nov 3, 2004, at 17:43, Stefan Garr wrote: > >>> Of course not. But why use an app' which involves extra work and >>> delays, >>> when there's a perfectly good one which doesn't? >> >> Agreed, but...which app doesn't? > >I might sound boring over time, but there is Retrospect as a fully >automatable backup solution with complete recovering. Ok, you have to >spend some time to fully understand it and it is not really cheap. But >once I lost the work of two months and decided to invest in security >instead of a new preamp. This software comes rather handy for big >reorganization either. You can backup and recover whole disks, >partitions or folders and single files. > >Peter Ostry I use Retrospect's "immediate duplicate" to do my backups. The only issue I've seen is that you need to name the duplicate exactly the same if you want all of the aliases, etc. to work. Some stuff doesn't care what the drive is named, but other stuff gets confused. I tried to use CCC but I found it would flake out with firewire devices. I don't know if this has been fixed, but it was a known issue at the time. -- Simon Gatrall gatrall@...