6 ms·

The distinguishing feature of Time Machine, and one which this project seeks to emulate, is its use of file navigation on the z axis. Given the requirements of

by Daub 7y ago

The distinguishing feature of Time Machine, and one which this project seeks to emulate, is its use of file navigation on the z axis. Given the requirements of this particular task, this is the perfect choice. 3D navigation of the OS has been tried many times (Microsoft Bob anyone?), but to my mind, this is the only time it has really worked.

metafunctor 7y ago
IMHO, 3D navigation in Time Machine is more of a UI gimmick than actually necessary. I think I would prefer a calendar view at the top, with dates/times that have snapshots highlighted, and a file manager view at the bottom. Kind of like Wayback Machine. The name “Time Machine”, however, is genius.
- ape4 7y ago
  Is there a GUI to just get the previous version of a file without the fancy z-axis scrolling
  - addicted44 7y ago
    I would simply dig into the backup locations using Finder. The backups are (or at least used to be) simple files, with deduplication provided by hard links.
    - skoskie 7y ago
      FYI. This only applies to unencrypted backups.
- mattkrause 7y ago
  The Time Machine mental model is more like "I want my computer to be exactly as it was at 2pm on March 17, 2020." Your suggestion is closer to "I want to see the revision history of this particular file, never mind the rest." It would be great if they had a way to do both.
  - jedieaston 7y ago
    This feature already exists in OS X (since 10.7, I believe?): https://support.apple.com/guide/mac-help/view-and-restore-past-versions-of-documents-mh40710/mac https://support.apple.com/guide/mac-help/view-and-restore-pa... I don't know how many third-parties implemented it though.
  - chipotle_coyote 7y ago
    I've only used Time Machine to restore individual files, actually, so that capability is definitely there.
    - mattkrause 7y ago
      Oooooh. Tell me more, please. I mostly use it for individual files too, but I end up "restoring" from a few different time points until I find what I'm looking for. Is there a way to see in the Time Machine view that one particular file ("Figure_1.pdf") was changed on February 6th, March 1st, and March 10th?
      - saagarjha 7y ago
        I don't think so, but for stuff like that I just use shell scripts to search the Time Machine Backup database.
      - skoskie 7y ago
        QuickLook works from the Time Machine GUI.
  - metafunctor 7y ago
    I wouldn't say my suggestion changes the concept of Time Machine at all. Instead of scrolling through time using a 3D animation on the Z axis, I'd like to use a calendar instead. I said nothing about individual files.
kspacewalk2 7y ago
To me, the distinguishing feature of Time Machine is that it reliably works. It worked reliably when I first bought a Mac 12 years ago, it works reliably today. I'll put up with the fact that it's slow and naive (file and hardlink based), and the UI gimmicks are kind of unimportant to me. I care about the recovery.
- addicted44 7y ago
  Does it work reliably now? I know whole backups were highly unreliable with TimeMachine, and this was a known problem. I had to use it twice to setup a new replacement laptop with the same data as my old one. The first time it went smoothly, but the second time it failed badly.
- _jal 7y ago
  I'm glad it works for you, but I abandoned it due to unreliability. My experience has been that it works fine for some period of time and then the sparsebundle will randomly break. MacOS claims it is corrupted, I have to jump through hoops to make it work again. I will note that I'm doing it over a network mount, not a local drive, and this is probably the source of the problem, but I never could resolve it. So I'm just back to rsync for specific directories. Which is fine, when this Mac dies, I'm moving to Linux.
  - chipotle_coyote 7y ago
    It was never real good about backing up over a network except with hardware specifically designed to support that, like network routers that support Time Machine drives (or Apple's own Time Capsule). I don't know that I'd say my own experience with Time Machine is perfect, but it's generally done what I needed to do, and has actually saved my bacon a few times by letting me restore individual files back to specific versions easily -- something I'm not sure an rsync-based solution would really provide (e.g., versioning for everything).
  - WanderPanda 7y ago
    > when this Mac dies, I'm moving to Linux. I‘ve said that many times and here I am, still working on a 2012 MBA refusing to die. But its performance is still fine anyways. Single core performance seems to only have about doubled since back then, so its not that much of a dealbreaker
gurkendoktor 7y ago
For me, the distinguishing feature of Time Machine is how wonderfully primitive it is. You can mount a backup volume and just browse the hardlinks. I've written simple Ruby scripts to dig out some information. I couldn't have done that if it were a binary black box, like everything else is nowadays.
ken 7y ago
I'd call Time Machine "2.5D", since it's really just layers. There's a million examples of useful user interfaces which use 2.5D layering. I wouldn't call Microsoft Bob "3D" at all. It didn't even use layering. It was a 2D program where a couple of the wallpapers depicted 3D scenes.

by Daub 7y ago

metafunctor 7y ago

IMHO, 3D navigation in Time Machine is more of a UI gimmick than actually necessary. I think I would prefer a calendar view at the top, with dates/times that have snapshots highlighted, and a file manager view at the bottom. Kind of like Wayback Machine. The name “Time Machine”, however, is genius.

ape4 7y ago
Is there a GUI to just get the previous version of a file without the fancy z-axis scrolling
- addicted44 7y ago
  I would simply dig into the backup locations using Finder. The backups are (or at least used to be) simple files, with deduplication provided by hard links.
  - skoskie 7y ago
    FYI. This only applies to unencrypted backups.
mattkrause 7y ago
The Time Machine mental model is more like "I want my computer to be exactly as it was at 2pm on March 17, 2020." Your suggestion is closer to "I want to see the revision history of this particular file, never mind the rest." It would be great if they had a way to do both.
- jedieaston 7y ago
  This feature already exists in OS X (since 10.7, I believe?): https://support.apple.com/guide/mac-help/view-and-restore-past-versions-of-documents-mh40710/mac https://support.apple.com/guide/mac-help/view-and-restore-pa... I don't know how many third-parties implemented it though.
- chipotle_coyote 7y ago
  I've only used Time Machine to restore individual files, actually, so that capability is definitely there.
  - mattkrause 7y ago
    Oooooh. Tell me more, please. I mostly use it for individual files too, but I end up "restoring" from a few different time points until I find what I'm looking for. Is there a way to see in the Time Machine view that one particular file ("Figure_1.pdf") was changed on February 6th, March 1st, and March 10th?
    - saagarjha 7y ago
      I don't think so, but for stuff like that I just use shell scripts to search the Time Machine Backup database.
    - skoskie 7y ago
      QuickLook works from the Time Machine GUI.
- metafunctor 7y ago
  I wouldn't say my suggestion changes the concept of Time Machine at all. Instead of scrolling through time using a 3D animation on the Z axis, I'd like to use a calendar instead. I said nothing about individual files.

kspacewalk2 7y ago

To me, the distinguishing feature of Time Machine is that it reliably works. It worked reliably when I first bought a Mac 12 years ago, it works reliably today. I'll put up with the fact that it's slow and naive (file and hardlink based), and the UI gimmicks are kind of unimportant to me. I care about the recovery.

addicted44 7y ago
Does it work reliably now? I know whole backups were highly unreliable with TimeMachine, and this was a known problem. I had to use it twice to setup a new replacement laptop with the same data as my old one. The first time it went smoothly, but the second time it failed badly.
_jal 7y ago
I'm glad it works for you, but I abandoned it due to unreliability. My experience has been that it works fine for some period of time and then the sparsebundle will randomly break. MacOS claims it is corrupted, I have to jump through hoops to make it work again. I will note that I'm doing it over a network mount, not a local drive, and this is probably the source of the problem, but I never could resolve it. So I'm just back to rsync for specific directories. Which is fine, when this Mac dies, I'm moving to Linux.
- chipotle_coyote 7y ago
  It was never real good about backing up over a network except with hardware specifically designed to support that, like network routers that support Time Machine drives (or Apple's own Time Capsule). I don't know that I'd say my own experience with Time Machine is perfect, but it's generally done what I needed to do, and has actually saved my bacon a few times by letting me restore individual files back to specific versions easily -- something I'm not sure an rsync-based solution would really provide (e.g., versioning for everything).
- WanderPanda 7y ago
  > when this Mac dies, I'm moving to Linux. I‘ve said that many times and here I am, still working on a 2012 MBA refusing to die. But its performance is still fine anyways. Single core performance seems to only have about doubled since back then, so its not that much of a dealbreaker

gurkendoktor 7y ago

For me, the distinguishing feature of Time Machine is how wonderfully primitive it is. You can mount a backup volume and just browse the hardlinks. I've written simple Ruby scripts to dig out some information. I couldn't have done that if it were a binary black box, like everything else is nowadays.

ken 7y ago

I'd call Time Machine "2.5D", since it's really just layers. There's a million examples of useful user interfaces which use 2.5D layering. I wouldn't call Microsoft Bob "3D" at all. It didn't even use layering. It was a 2D program where a couple of the wallpapers depicted 3D scenes.