gwailosaidthis

I wish Bombich would update this. NetRestore and NetRestore Helper are cleaner, more up-to-date apps but CCC still can do a few things those can't.

This does not yet seem to work on a freshly installed 10.4.8 system on a MacBook Pro (in combination with the required adapted psync app). Correct me if I am wrong.

Good utility. Sadly gives me an "AppleScript Exception" error when trying to back up my Powerbook running 10.4.8.

This new version (3.0b4) is Universal Binary.

This is still not yet ready for primetime. There are some problems with mounting and unmounting of devices or with device id missmatch, although the id is ok. It's still pretty slow and looks like some more work has to be done to get it ready. But looks promising

Warning, if you are considering using this application, beware of two things:

1) There is a list of caveats that the support folks suggest to follow, but you don't see until you go looking for them in the right places. In other words, if you just go ahead and clone following the basic directions, and then discover you have a problem, and then search for answers, you will be "treated" to a list of things you should have known you should have known before doing anything so stupid as to try to use Carbon Copy Clone.

2) In the support forums, if you ask any stupid questions, or have other problems that display your ignorance, you will be treated to the tag-team of "Andreas" and "Baltwo" who seem to think treating dumb users by expressing and displaying the mentality of a pair of WWE (used to be WWF) performers, including encouraging the same rude behavior from the audience, is the best way to deal with some users. Real "Pros" they are; kinda sorta like those other "Pros".

Consider SuperDuper.

Very handy, became indispensible when my Powerbook HD started to die. I had a carbon copy on my Firewire drive, and was able to boot right backup and get back to work.

I used this product for about two years with great success. Then, when Bombich failed to keep CCC updated with Leopard, I switched to SuperDuper, which is what I use now. CCC is a great product, and it appears to be tested now with Leopard, but I've had great success with SuperDuper and will be sticking with it for the foreseeable future.

I used to suggest this app to everyone who'd listen, I even gave them money :)

Sadly with Leopard it has ceased working, giving be a not too helpful error -51. A visit to the forums was of little help, suggesting I erase my backup and clone again . . which then left me without a backup at all :/ And I'd mirror the impression that dancingbrook said about Andreas's help.

So much better than any other screensaver out there. As oktobr said though, very graphics intensive.

Still no universal binary...

I have been using LaunchBar almost since it has come out. It does exactly what I want it to do and it does it well. Like others I have evaluated Quicksilver and not found a good reason to switch. If I could only have one add on for my system, this would probably be it.

I honestly tried to like QuickSilver, but I couldn't bring myself to abandon Launchbar for such a clumsy, slow, complicated behemoth. The one aspect that kept me with Launchbar above all others: speed.

I switched to LaunchBar from Quicksilver about a year ago. LaunchBar is better in all the ways that matter to me: speed, accuracy, ease of use, reliability, and stability. Compared to Quicksilver, LaunchBar feels effortless, efficient, elegant, and unobtrusive, almost invisible. It just works.

I could not use a Mac without Launchbar. Great program; not only is it a fantastic application launcher, but Launchbar aslo works as a drop in replacement for SpotLight, the default OS X app switcher, and most Finder functions.

Launchbar is the first thing I install on any mac I am working on, and if I can't install it, I don't use that computer. For me, it simply is part of OS X, and a part I could not do without. The best shareware anything I have ever bought, hands down. Out of 5 stars, I have to give LB 6.

quicksilver WTF owns luanch bar. Beter ui, better functionality, and free. I cant imagine why anyone would pay 20 bucks (infinity times more than quicksilver :) ) for a program that is at best just as good as a freeware alternative. Some people have made the comment that launch bar is faster, or more stable thn quicksilver and those claims are ludicrous. What does "more stable" mean? qicksilver never freezes up and has never had a bug on my computer, or any of my friends. and as to fast, im sure both are instantaneous so that complaint is moot also. just type in your part of your apps name and hit enter and both programs will open it. One is free and other is $20. You make the call.

From your post, diggn_it, I gather you don't own a LaunchBar license and have not used it much. I have a license for LaunchBar and have also used Quicksilver extensively over the past year, often running both utilities side-by-side on the same machine.

I agree that Quicksilver is good at many things, thanks to its plugin architecture and development community. It can do some things that LaunchBar simply cannot. However, for performing common launcher-type operations like locating and executing scripts and applications, basic file browsing and manipulation, and web searches, I think LaunchBar is better. Here's why:

1) LaunchBar's UI is very simple, unobtrusive, and more flexible than many of Quicksilver's interface plugins. It lacks some of the pizzaz of Quicksilver, which is sometimes borderline gaudy, but LaunchBar gets the job done with minimal fuss - exactly what I want in a launcher utility.

2) While both utilities may find items at similar speeds, LaunchBar feels faster because things can be accomplished in fewer steps.

For example, to open a file with something other than the default application, Quicksilver requires 5 steps: 1. type filename, 2. tab to action field, 3. type "open with", 4. tab to object field, 5. type name of application. LaunchBar, on the other hand, requires only 3 steps: 1. type filename, 2. hit tab, 3. type application name.

LaunchBar also supports common Finder key combinations. So rather than having to tab to the action field in Quicksilver and type "Copy" or "Get Info", I can just hit command-C or command-I in LaunchBar, which is faster and more intuitive because I'm already used to doing this in the Finder.

3) LaunchBar remembers the last input string for each operation requiring some kind of text input, while Quicksilver shares the same text input for all operations.

For example, in LaunchBar I can do a complex mathematical calculation and then track a FedEx package on the web with some other string input. Later, I can go back to the calculation or the FedEx package tracking entry and modify it or run it again without having to retype the text input each time. Quicksilver, on the other hand, reuses a single text field for all inputs (and sometimes outputs). So I'd have to retype that equation and FedEx tracking number every time I do a different operation in between.

4) LaunchBar automatically creates Smart Groups for items of the same kind in its index. This makes it very quick to search or browse only among related items, like all volumes (hard drives, optical discs, disk images, thumb drives), or only OmniOutliner documents, or all ZIP archives. As far as I know, Quicksilver does not do this.

5) LaunchBar seems to have a more intelligent search algorithm and requires less "training". It's better at guessing what I want when I ask for something. Quicksilver can be trained to find all those things, but it requires more work.

6) LaunchBar has more flexible options for controlling what files are indexed. For example, you can use simple shell wild cards (* and ?) to exclude specific files. Quicksilver's File/Folder catalog scanner plugin has no exclude options at all. Plus, LaunchBar can perform full content searches on text, rich text, and HTML files. Selecting a match from the resulting list opens the appropriate file with the matching line selected.

7) In my experience, LaunchBar is more stable and more reliable. I have never seen it so much as hiccup in over a year of heavy use. Quicksilver, on the other hand, sometimes seems a little flakey. I've seen occasional crashes and unresponsiveness, icons sometimes don't show up for certain items, it's sometimes very slow at reading large directories when file browsing, several interface plugins have drawing errors, etc. I have never seen these types of things with LaunchBar.

Phew, this post got a little too long. If you're still here, sorry for the rant.

Can't live without LaunchBar. A Mac without LaunchBar is almost unusable for me. Really. Love it sooo much.

I will say one thing about Quicksilver. It's designed by a hacker who has an elegent aesthetic and knows how to write powerful apps with small footprints. It's good that's he working over Mr.LaunchBar because it's only going to get better for users of both.

Try Quicksilver and install the Mini interface plug-in and turn off "superfluos visual effects". Makes everything quicker with less large windows/bezels.

That and LaunchBar has the worst icon on Mac OS X.