Looking for a Time Machine alternative for Windows

[britechguy]

I can figure out anything in Windows because it just makes sense. Linux makes absolutely no sense (Mac OS isn't much better, but at least their terminal commands have some sort of logic to them). It's not about "getting used" to it.

No, it's not. It's about your bull-headedness. Virtually every problem you present has this as part of the mix. You're one of the most rigid people I know, and thinking outside your box(es) just doesn't happen, no matter how many counterexamples are presented.

That's your problem, not ours.

 

[overburnz]

Well then you've never used a modern Mac. Everything is soldered together and 6x as expensive as PC hardware. I literally couldn't do my job without my PC with my 6+ hard drives and the reparability and expandability that comes along with it. I can just imagine some idiot spending $2,500 on a MacBook "Pro" along with 15 different dongles juggling 6 different external hard drives instead of just spending $1,500 on a much better quality PC that can do the job much quicker and easier. Even the $6,000 Mac Pro only supports 2x hard drives. Apple is a joke. Their computers are designed for rich yuppies who want to look cool. There was a time when Apple made good computers that were designed for professionals, but those days ended in 2013 with their trash can Mac Pro and their "Retina" Macbook Pro's with soldered RAM. Things have only gotten worse since then.

That's a BIG lol from me... in case you didn't notice I'm an Apple Certified technician, so I deal with all models of MacBook's, iMac's, Mac mini and so on, on a daily basis, I can agree with the soldered parts being a big "no no" for most users, but MacOS is designed for their hardware so in case you haven't noticed Mac's can do much better with lesser hardware, same goes with iPhone's, and the 6x HD is your case, not everyone's... and with a 2500$ MacBook you can use for up to 10 years + with no issue whatsoever, depending on what you need it to do, but that's a valid point for every piece of hardware.
I use a MacBook Pro every day in my work and home and it's, by far!! (for me), a better OS than Windows and requires far less maintenance than a windows machine...

No thanks. I can figure out anything in Windows because it just makes sense. Linux makes absolutely no sense (Mac OS isn't much better, but at least their terminal commands have some sort of logic to them). It's not about "getting used" to it. I've been working with computers since I was 5 years old and I pick things up immediately in Windows because it's intuitive and it makes sense. Linux is COMPLETELY unintuitive and clunky and I don't have time to waste on some no-name OS that nobody uses outside of servers or phones. Even if I did memorize their horrible terminal commands, I don't use it enough to keep it in my head. Why the heck would I WANT to use it? I'd rather use Windows 95/DOS.

Again Linux is much easier these days than when you were five... keep updated... MacOS is by FAR much user friendly than windows or linux, and that's a fact! If you only work on a windows environment you cannot compare them because you don't have the basis to compare, and yes I was a windows user since DOS also and up to 4 years ago only used windows, now I only use MacOS (for me) and support windows and MacOS, linux I don't have many clients using it... and linux, windows and MacOS aren't usable only by terminal, you know that right? Nowadays you can do EVERYTHING without a single command line....

 

[britechguy]

Nowadays you can do EVERYTHING without a single command line....

Almost universally true. But, and it's an important but, there are certain things that are far, far more easily handled by the CLI than GUI, and vice versa.

In working with blind and visually impaired clients, particularly when large volumes of data transfer/processing/formatting are involved, the CLI versions of a number of things are much easier to use with a higher degree of certainty about the outcome being what's wanted than the GUI. That's even sometimes true for the sighted, too.

It comes right back to, "tool to task." (And, of course, part of "task" is the individual charged with performing it.)

 

[overburnz]

Almost universally true. But, and it's an important but, there are certain things that are far, far more easily handled by the CLI than GUI, and vice versa.

In working with blind and visually impaired clients, particularly when large volumes of data transfer/processing/formatting are involved, the CLI versions of a number of things are much easier to use with a higher degree of certainty about the outcome being what's wanted than the GUI. That's even sometimes true for the sighted, too.

It comes right back to, "tool to task." (And, of course, part of "task" is the individual charged with performing it.)

Correct, I don't have a need to use CLI that often and I do not support many customers like the example you gave, I only have one that is legally blind and his tool for the day to day is his iPhone, Apple Watch and AirPods

 

[sapphirescales]

It's about your bull-headedness.

Sorry, I didn't realize that not wanting to learn an unintuitive OS that I'll never use is considered "bull-headedness."

MacOS is by FAR much user friendly than windows or linux

I agree Mac OS is a lot more idiot proof and easy to use for your average person compared to Windows 10 or Linux, but Windows 7 was extremely user friendly and is probably the best OS UI-wise.

Nowadays you can do EVERYTHING without a single command line....

In Mac OS and Windows that's true, but every freaking time I have to mess with Linux it's command line this and command line that. It's just a huge headache. I don't use a computer to browse Facebook or watch funny cat videos. When I get on a computer, it's to work. I can't do that on Linux without knowing a bunch of terminal BS.

there are certain things that are far, far more easily handled by the CLI than GUI, and vice versa.

That may be true, but let's use an example of how to turn off suspend/hibernate in Windows vs. Linux via the command line/terminal. In Windows it's nice and easy and makes complete sense:

powercfg -h off

It's easy to remember because it actually makes sense. powercfg = power configure. h = hibernate. off = off. It's easy to type and easy to remember. Now let's look at Linux:

sudo systemctl mask sleep.target suspend.target hibernate.target hybrid-sleep.target

Like WTF even is this sh*t?????? And I bet if you did this command it wouldn't do what you want it to or it would screw up the whole computer due to some weird package or something that you have installed.

I know you don't need to use the terminal in Linux or Windows to do these things, but this is just one of the many, many examples of terminal BS that makes absolutely no sense and is way overly complicated. Now let's compare it to Mac OS:

caffeinate -d

Granted I probably wouldn't have chosen the name caffeinate, but it makes sense and is easy to remember.

Oh, and I guarantee you there's some weird freaking circumstance where you can't control the sleep/power options in the Linux UI so you have to use the terminal. Granted it doesn't happen to everyone, but if this weird ass thing doesn't get you, another thing will. You're going to live in the freaking terminal, typing weird freaking crap into it to try to fix some obscure problem only to make it worse. In the rare instances where Linux does behave, you're not going to have much fun. You're going to be stuck with janky programs like Gimp and if you have a problem? Forget about it. Instead of literally millions of Windows users you can collaborate with, you're stuck in the dank corners of the internet with the weirdos who think that knowing the Linux terminal makes them some sort of God.

Now if I worked on Linux servers for a living, sure, I'd learn Linux. As it is though, the rare instances where Windows won't do something I need I can turn to Mac OS - an actually polished OS that hasn't been stuck in no-man's land for the past 30 years. NONE of my clients use Linux and I have no need for an OS that's unintuitive and clunky. Windows 8 was a freaking disaster and I seriously considered going to Linux back then, but even though Windows 8 was bad, it was still leagues better than Linux. Maybe Windows 11 will change my mind, but it would have to be pretty damn bad.

 

[overburnz]

@sapphirescales you ALWAYS go to the CLI and I don't understand why.... I rarely have to use CLI in Windows/MacOS/Linux, it's a tool that you can use but only if YOU want too, it is not mandatory....

 

[sapphirescales]

it's a tool that you can use but only if YOU want too, it is not mandatory....

Yeah, that's 100% true...for Windows and Mac OS. I've never worked with Linux and not had to muck around in the terminal for some reason. It's not fun. The time before this last time (about 5 years ago) I couldn't even change my screen resolution unless I did it in the terminal (when you changed it in the UI, the screen would just flash and then revert back to the wrong resolution again). Then I had a problem with sound that I had to mess with. Then an update failed and I had to screw around in the terminal again because the piece of crap wouldn't boot up. The test machine at the time was a 2 year old Dell Latitude. After that I went back to Windows and I used it for 3 more years before I sold it. No problems at all whatsoever.

I remember one time I played with a Linux distro that looked remarkably like Mac OS. The only problem is it was buggy as hell. Animations weren't smooth, stuff randomly froze, etc. This perfectly exemplifies Linux to me - clunky and messed up. Even when you boot Linux the screen flashes and you see text on the screen like back in the 90's (only back then it was BIOS text and not the buggy OS). It's not as bad as it once was, but you still get a blinking cursor in the corner at the very least. I tried Linux Mint and it was pretty stable but it wasn't without its issues.

Look, it's not the 1990's anymore. Software that's so buggy that the UI doesn't even work right is completely unacceptable in 2021. This is one of the things I don't like about Genie Timeline. It looks alright but it's wonky/buggy. Still, it's more stable than any Linux distro I've used. What I don't understand is I see people using Linux in VMs all the time and they don't seem to have these problems. It's probably driver related.

I do use Parted Magic and it seems pretty stable (though it won't boot on some computers). I don't know why I never have a good experience when I install Linux.

And yes, you ALWAYS have to use the terminal in Linux for something. These are the instructions from CrashPlan on how to install their software in Linux:

Linux​

To install the Code42 app on Linux, run the install.sh shell script. For more detailed instructions, refer to the step-by-step information below.

1. Download the latest version of the Code42 app for Linux.
   • Code42 enterprise products: See your administrator for guidelines on downloading the Code42 app.
   • CrashPlan for Small Business: Download the Code42 app from the Code42 console App Downloads screen.
2. Extract the TGZ file to Downloads.
3. Open Terminal and enter:
   • Version 8.2 and later: cd ~/Downloads/code42-install
   • Version 8.0 and earlier: cd ~/Downloads/crashplan-install
4. Press Enter.
5. Then enter: sudo ./install.sh
6. Press Enter to continue with installation.
7. Advance through the remaining prompts by answering Yes or No questions.
   Answer by typing a y or n, and press Enter.
8. The Code42 app opens after the installation completes.
9. Sign in to your account.

 

[overburnz]

Again I don’t use Linux that much but I am pretty sure that CLI was optional, those errors you said you had with screen resolution and those odd ones could be incompibility with hardware/Linux but that’s something you have in a free OS

 

[timeshifter]

I remember being on the hunt for this Holy Grail a few years back. Time Machine is one of the most awesome, simple and elegant backup solutions available. Genie Timeline was a close as it got, but it's not that elegant. As I recall, but probably couldn't explain now, there is something unique about the Mac file system that makes Time Machine work as cleanly as it does, and it's something that you just can't replicate on other file systems.

While not a simple and elegant I really like Veeam's free Windows Agent.

 

[sapphirescales]

While not a simple and elegant I really like Veeam's free Windows Agent.

Really? I found it slow and the files it made were much larger than the files I was having it back up. I wasn't impressed with it at all. Besides, I don't have room to store multiple full backups + incremental backups in a chain, and you have to do that if you want the backup to be reliable. A full backup would take DAYS over the network (I have over 10TB worth of data on just one drive), but incremental file level backups using Ashampoo Backup Pro are really fast and you don't have to worry about file corruption because they're copied in their native format.

God, I wish File History supported long file paths. It's perfect except for that one issue. You should see my event log from trying to back up 500,000 files. Over 100,000 errors due to long file paths. That's just completely unacceptable.

The only other software I found that will do what I want is CrashPlan, but they don't support backing up to a network share so I'd have to use external hard drives. I don't want to leave hard drives plugged in for fear of ransomware, and I don't want to have to remember to unplug them after every backup.

Zinstall does most of what I want, but it's slow, buggy, and expensive ($200 per computer). I've got 10 computers just in my house. That's $2,000 for God's sake. I could build a freaking server for that.

 

[seashore]

I don't want to leave hard drives plugged in for fear of ransomware

How about Controlled Folder Access?

 

[NJW]

EDIT: I ended up getting the files I needed by using Powershell in Windows and some GUI version of Rsync I found online. I don't remember exactly what I did. All I know is it was 1000x easier in Windows.

What do you think Powershell is, if not Terminal in Windows? And Linux has Grsync (also available for Windows), which is in all the popular distributions' repositories.

Unfortunately it was a Linux server I was connecting to that only supported Rsync.

Whatever it was you were trying to download must have been way out of the mainstream.

To install the Code42 app on Linux ...

That's a limitation of Code42, not Linux. They could provide an installable package if they wanted to, but I guess they don't want the (probably small) market that badly. Or perhaps it's not aimed at desktop users (e.g., intended for server installation, where shell access is more likely that having a desktop). It's apparently a scripted install, so it could certainly be packaged.

Incidentally, Back In Time is pretty close to Time Machine (for my limited experience of Time Machine). It works with sane defaults out of the box, but is, as you'd expect, eminently customisable for those who are inclined – all from the GUI. For real-time sync and backup, there are plenty of applications that use inotify+rsync; I use ownCloud and its desktop client to cover that.

 

[sapphirescales]

Well I thought I found it guys...I really did. Nero BackItUp 2021 is fast, easy, and offers snapshots and backups. I actually like it more than File History, Time Machine, Genie Timeline, or anything else I've tried (I'm not exaggerating here when I say I've tried at least 50 different programs). The only problem? AGAIN with the stupid 260 character limit!!!!!!!! WTF, Microsoft?!?!?!?!

I don't have an option except to use a program like Acronis, but I hate those proprietary .tib files it uses and I hate that you have to do a backup chain (i.e. full, incremental/differential, i/f, i/f, i/f, i/f, full, i/f, i/f, etc.). I have over 10TB of data I need to back up over the network. That's going to take WEEKS every full backup! It's just not practical. At the speeds I can manage (about 10MB/s), it would take 12 days to back up 10TB. The limiting factor isn't my network speed though, it's because I have so many little files (millions of them). My speed fluctuates between less than 1MB/s and 100MB/s depending on what's being backed up (large files are fast, many small files are slow).

I'm really at a loss here. It seems my only option is Zinstall Fullback, even though it's $200 per computer (or $100 for the basic version). Why is this software so freaking expensive? I don't know if I trust it either. It's just using full/incremental backups just like Acronis and it won't be able to make full backups due to lack of space and slow speeds, just like Acronis.

 

[britechguy]

Or, you could go the route of tweaking folder names and/or depth.

Paths over 256 characters long, whether supported or not, suggest need for some tightening up.

 

[Sky-Knight]

Computer\HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\FileSystem\LongPathsEnabed is 0 by default.

The variable's behavior changed in 1607, to its present behavior. Enabling it enables NTFS or ReFS filesystems on Windows to extend to

I've never directly mucked with that setting, but something on this desktop changed it. (could have been me, again... memory).

This enables paths to extend to typical 16bit variable limits of 32768 characters. (Which always makes me laugh because that's actually 2^15 not 2^16... but whatever.

But there's a rub... there's ALSO an application manifest for any .net or Windows 10 application that must be configured to allow for long paths. If this is not done by the application vendor, the APP will break.

Details are here: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/fileio/maximum-file-path-limitation

So, aside from Windows 10 File History not supporting it, if you have that registry flag set and the application is blowing up, it's NOT Microsoft's fault, it's the app vendor.

But, honestly... I see these errors from time to time, and I've never seen a folder structure exceed the 230 character normal limit made by a human being. They're always automated systems of some sort running off the rails, and most of the time viruses. So when I see a human constantly running into it I'm left wondering what the use case is.

 

[sapphirescales]

So, aside from Windows 10 File History not supporting it, if you have that registry flag set and the application is blowing up, it's NOT Microsoft's fault, it's the app vendor.

Unfortunately even with long paths enabled File History doesn't support them. Neither does pretty much any other backup program I've tried except for Zinstall Fullback.

Paths over 256 characters long, whether supported or not, suggest need for some tightening up.

Wish I could. I need longer paths for many different things. I just did a full scan of my drive and I have more than 150,000 files with paths longer than 220 characters (I'm using 220 to be safe). My only option is to put long paths into a .RAR file and keep them there. Don't you people store more than pictures named IMG_9294 in your My Pictures folder? 260 characters really isn't that long.

 

[britechguy]

@sapphirescales,

I have no desire to get into an argument. The fact is, in this world (overall, not just computing), there exist many constraints we all must live within. Maximum length of a path that always works in Windows is 256 characters, speed limit on my local interstate is 70 MPH, etc., etc., etc.

When I know one of those exists, and is either unlikely or impossible to change, I take pains to live within it so as to avoid other pains, such as the specific one you're experiencing now.

When I was a cognitive rehabilitation therapist, while teaching self-advocacy skills, I also taught my clients that, in the end, you must conform yourself to the world, as it's not ever going to conform itself to you. You can ask for reasonable accommodations, and you won't always get what you think those are. You plow forward with the constraints you're faced with or, if and when possible, remove yourself from the place(s) that impose them.

Having tried the number of programs you've tried, and finding the same constraint, should have suggested doing something different as far as your approach overall. Alas . . .

 

[sapphirescales]

Having tried the number of programs you've tried, and finding the same constraint, should have suggested doing something different as far as your approach overall. Alas . . .

I just know there's something, somewhere that will allow me to bypass this limit. I frequently back up long paths using Unstoppable Copier. It works because it doesn't use the crappy copy engine built into Windows. What I need to find is a backup program that doesn't use the Windows copy engine that also meets my other requirements. I think @fabs does this with his program as I've never run into a character limit using it.

What I want CAN be done. It's another question whether the software has actually been made yet. I wonder how much it would cost to hire a developer to develop something like Nero BackItUp with a custom copy engine? I could brand and sell the software to my own clients to help recoup the cost.

Alternatively I can simply rename or .RAR the 150,000 files manually, but that's going to take a long freaking time. It might just be cheaper to have some custom software developed. I wonder if @fabs would be interested in making something like this?

 

[britechguy]

What I want CAN be done. It's another question whether the software has actually been made yet.

Virtually anything, given enough time, effort, and money can be done when it comes to coding.

Whether that makes any sense as opposed to living within the constraints that untold millions easily live within, well . . .

 

[sapphirescales]

Whether that makes any sense as opposed to living within the constraints that untold millions easily live within, well . . .

It's all a matter of time. How much time do you think it's going to take me to rename/reorganize 150,000 files? How much do I make per hour on average? How much would it cost to have custom software developed instead? How much profit could I make selling this software?

If my cost in time is more than the cost to develop the software + profit from selling the software, it makes sense for me to pay to have custom software developed.

As for "untold millions" easily living with the 260 character limit, there are tons of people talking about this online. They're dismayed because their computers went down and when they went to restore from backups, their files with long paths are just gone because the stupid software never backed them up. This is obviously a huge problem and Microsoft just doesn't care.

I have tons of pictures and files downloaded from the internet with long, automatically generated filenames. These filenames are necessary in order for the software to be able to recognize and use them. If I rename them, the software will no longer recognize them so I have to re-link everything with the software.

I have old websites and website backups with long paths. I suppose I could just .RAR those but if I want to look at or use those files I'll have to extract the whole archive. What a pain.

I have a few thousand photos that have automatically generated filenames that include keywords so they're easily searchable. I suppose I could use some sort of photo organizing software for these, but I'll have to rename them all, import them into the software, then manually tag them in the software. Not fun.