Path: utzoo!yunexus!geac!syntron!jtsv16!uunet!portal!cup.portal.com!Mark_Peter_Cookson
From: Mark_Peter_Cookson@cup.portal.com
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac
Subject: Re: DiskFit VS Redux: My DEFINITE conclusion
Message-ID: <9937@cup.portal.com>
Date: 11 Oct 88 02:09:48 GMT
Article-I.D.: cup.9937
References: <1988Oct4.162537.8158@mntgfx.mentor.com> <1988Oct5.085923.97@mn
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Lines: 20
XPortal-User-Id: 1.1001.2181

Just to throw in my 2 cents here, I just finshed backing up my 140 meg Jasmine
with Redux 1.01 after I restored it with FastBack after, I beleive, the latest
SUM bug fix trashed the HD so bad that even SUM could not bring it back....

Well, Redux is VERY nice, and A LOT more powerful than FastBack 1.02, but, and
this a big but when it comes to backing up, the same HD (obviousy, and all the
same files) took Redux THREE HOURS!!! to backup.  The same HD took FastBack
88 minutes....  Quite a difference.  I should also point out that Redux took
102 disks to FastBack's 123 (including catalog disk).  Looks like FastBack is
a lot faster (I only had 112 meg on the HD, forgot to mention that too), but
at the waist of quite a lot of disk space....  I think I will stick with
Redux from now on, but I sure don't want to EVER have to full backup (or God
forbid a full restore again) with Redux.  For speed, FastBack has everyone
beat hands down.  However, Redux's scripting language looks really nice and I
will be having some fun playing around with it.  If only the two packages
could get together everything would be VERY nice.  I would settle for 88
minutes, 123 disks and Redux's backup options and scripting language.  Am I
dreaming or would you think that this would be nice also???

Mark Cookson