QRecall for Mac

User Reviews

• Great efficient backup!

  codyfrischSeptember 9, 2012

  Pros

  Very efficient with space, only backs up what has changed. Keeps as much or as little as you want going back as far as you want. Shared backup between computers - and duplicate data doesn't increase space. (Requires multiple licenses though) Excellent support. Compresses data and deduplicates it, 10 copies of the same file, take up only as much space as one copy. Or less due to compression.

  Cons

  Sometimes difficult setup of actions. Can be slow when you recapture all of your data, if you have a lot. This depends on your settings though too. No integrated password protection/encryption but easily remedies by using an encrypted Mac disk.

  Summary

  ---

• Superb support

  Mac-Fan No 1June 15, 2009

  Pros

  Cons

  Summary

  This review was originally posted on VersionTracker.com.<br />the technology of QR is the same you find in monster storage/backup solutions like Tivoli or Netbackup (incremental differencial on block basis), though the software is clearly designed for personal or soho use.<br> Once I had a problem I sent a mail to the developer and got detailed and exact help on my case within a couple of hours. That's something you won't find in Tivoli or Netbackup unless you have pretty expensive service contracts!

  ---

• switched from Time Machine, Retrospect, and...

  bljacobMay 3, 2008

  Pros

  Cons

  Summary

  ...Synchronize! Pro<br />This review was originally posted on VersionTracker.com.<br />My home set-up seems simple enough: three laptops and an airport network, but for whatever reason no software has liked it very much. So for several years I just used Dantz and then Synch! Pro to back up the important laptop [ mine :) ] to local removable storage. When Leopard and Time Machine were announced, I went out and got a 1TB wireless NAS disk, set it up in my basement, and figured my problems were solved. Yeah, brilliant: Apple got rid of 3rd party NAS support in Time Machine, so I've been using back-door tricks to make that kinda work. For the past week, even that has been failing (repeatable system panic requiring reboot on my laptop, though my wife's laptop is still chugging along fine). Also, I've never been thrilled that Time Machine won't let me configure it to backup just once per day, so I looked into alternatives. This morning I tried the latest version of Synchronize! Pro -- it failed to talk to my NAS, just like Time Machine -- although, unlike Time Machine, it didn't cause a panic, just an error message. Thumbs up on that front. So I started looking for alternatives and ran across QRecall. It is currently running in demo mode, but I'll almost certainly buy a license -- it is backing up my 30GB user space as I type this, which is remarkable for two reasons: 1. Both Time Machine and Synchronize! Pro balked at the NAS, as mentioned. (though Finder mounts it just fine ... go figure) QRecall has had no problems yet. More importantly ... 2. When Time Machine backed up any more than a few MB of data at a time, it made my laptop completely unusable. For instance, when initialized, it did a full backup of my entire machine (~75GB), and though the backup succeeded, it took *three full days* (over 65 hours) during which I could not use the machine for anything else. Same thing for my wife's machine and my kids' machine. This is one of the reasons I wanted to configure it to run at 3am instead of every 15 minutes. In contrast, QRecall has been going for 4 hours, 6 minutes, has transferred 9.2 GB, and I've been using the laptop to surf the web (write this post), read email, edit a Pages doc, and even run a CAD program to design circuit boards (Eagle, via X11). Dude! That's more than twice the bandwidth of TIme Machine *and* it doesn't drag down the rest of the machine. I'm sold. (and, no, I've got no connections to any of the various software companies implicated)

  ---