Re: Time Machine
Yup, I loved true image in the bad old days post mac (<2008).
But not really sure I understand:
"Time Machine is great, but it doesn't protect against hardware failure/destruction and is inflexible, doesn't allow for incremental backups for virtual machines and True Image for Mac allows for much more flexible backup schedules (no more "do you want to back up to Time Machine" reminders)."
In what way does it not support from hardware failure ? It absolutely does. I have recovery a timemachine back up onto new hard drives in a machine (Where harddrive has failed), or into a completely new machine - hell the power/design of OSX means I can restore a backup onto any mac I have - even if hardware is completely different (different north/south bridge, processor, graphics card the lot) and it still works fine.
AND it knows the difference between apps/libraries and OS, so I can, say restore the timemachine backup of all my applications on my desktop to my newly bought macbook - and it will just work - all apps added to macbook.
inflexible backup schedules and reminders??? eh ? there are NO reminders. there is NO schedule. the defining USP of timemachine is that it is just working - all the time in the background (ok..every hour)... it doesn't REMIND me to run, it just runs. no stupid reminder on a sunday night to run a backup like true image does...
I will give it the vm one - as VMs are effectively one big bastard file, then sure - timemachine makes a meal of these - so much so that I have them excluded from backups. But arguably you could use snapshots in your VM for the same purpose and get more out of it.
So... really not sure why they bothered here.