Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!apple!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!van-bc!ubc-cs!newsserver.sfu.ca!ucs.sfu.ca!Mike_Dustan
From: Mike_Dustan@ucs.sfu.ca (Mike Dustan)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.apps
Subject: Re: SUM II: how's the included backup util?
Message-ID: <1991Jan17.204408.7199@ucs.sfu.ca>
Date: 17 Jan 91 20:44:08 GMT
References: <427@rufus.UUCP>
Sender: news@ucs.sfu.ca (News System Owner)
Organization: Simon Fraser University
Lines: 25

In article <427@rufus.UUCP> hellerst@hellerst.almaden.ibm.com (Joe 
Hellerstein) writes:
> I recently noticed that SUM II (which is probably worth getting, anyway)
> contains some form of Redux.  So, anyone willing to give their opinion
> on how this backup utility performs?

I've used DiskFit and SUM Backup and prefer DiskFit by far. I expostulated 
at length about this very comparison in this very newsgroup some time ago 
and won't repeat myself. However, my main points were:

* DiskFit backs up in Finder format; you don't need the application to 
restore a file.

* Trashed DiskFit disks (even the first of the set) can be rebuilt 
automatically. You can still restore from all other disks. With SUM you 
*must* have the first disk of the set, or your entire set is toast.

* Clobbering a file on a DiskFit backup disk usually wipes only that file. 
Clobbering a file on a SUM backup disk often means wiping every file on 
that disk, because SUM compresses many files into one big one.

* DiskFit recovers from stupid but common errors much more gracefully than 
SUM does (i.e. it doesn't roll over and bomb).

I could go on but you get the idea.