Unless something has changed, I believe incremental copying is only available with the paid version of SuperDuper.
__________________
I retain all rights to photo-images I have posted on ehMac. They were posted that other members of the community could enjoy them. They may not be used or sold in any other way without my written consent.
I always looked at SD and CCC as pretty well equivalent applications.
Started with SD years ago and did complete clones over night every few days (or weeks).
Then I decided to try incremental clones which seems to make more sense, but at some point SD charged for that and CCC didn't, so I tried CCC.
CCC worked jus as well as SD so I just kept using it.
From a functionality point of view, at least for me, I don't see any difference between them so I tend to stick with what I have.
I have always used CCC since its inception and even tried SD for a while until it didn't work for ages with one of the Mac OS X updates, and then it went commercial when they finally got it working for what it used to do in a 'free' mode.
CCC also has IMO much more configurable backup and other options that I quite happily paid over 4X the price of the suggested donation fee. Yup, more than SD would have cost be 'cause it just works better for my usage.
FWIW: Mike Bombich, the CCC developer is/was an Apple Systems Engineer and from what I've read, still follows Apple's guidelines as to what should be or not included with any cloned backup that some other cloning applications may not follow.
Sort of like a parallel to the Alsoft developer of DiskWarrior and the guidelines they also follow.
Just two excellent Mac applications that follow Apple's guidelines and provide the user with some extra options.
Unless something has changed, I believe incremental copying is only available with the paid version of SuperDuper.
I agree to your point not too many software offer this feature recently I have heard about a software which I've mentioned earlier in this post too which is stellar drive clone it also claims to provide incremental backup.
I have a Newertech Mini Stack Firewire/USB 2 external with a bootable backup of OSX 10.7.2.
I've been doing periodic backups with Super Duper.
I've actually never really had a problem with it when I've used it in Firewire mode,
Most of the errors usually only occur when I use the external in USB 2 mode.
I've since pulled the USB 2 cable out of it and switched the external box switch to automatic,
I just run it using Firewire now, Screw the USB 2.
I've also noticed that there aren't that many Firewire external boxes around anymore
__________________
Mac Mini 2.4, Apple TV1 & TV2, iPod 4th gen, Apple iPad Mini...
---------------------------------
The future is one of my favourite past times.
------------------------------------------------------ MacMagic Game forum
I always looked at SD and CCC as pretty well equivalent applications.
Started with SD years ago and did complete clones over night every few days (or weeks).
Then I decided to try incremental clones which seems to make more sense, but at some point SD charged for that and CCC didn't, so I tried CCC.
CCC worked jus as well as SD so I just kept using it.
From a functionality point of view, at least for me, I don't see any difference between them so I tend to stick with what I have.
I've used both, but Dave Nanian's customer support for SuperDuper is second to none. Plus, at one point, CCC lagged badly in getting a compatible update out the door when the OS was updated (Tiger? Leopard? Can't remember.)
However, no matter what you use, the most important thing is that you DO backup, and do it regularly!!!
__________________
2.8GHz MacPro, 2.6GHz i7 hi-rez 2012 15" MBP and a bunch of other Macs and i-things
.... backup reminder ... should occasionally be tested that the backup is actually working as expected.
From time to time, when I am not doing anything too critical, I use one of my external drive back-ups (clones made with Carbon Copy Cloner) as the startup drive. Every time I have tried it, they have worked perfectly. Not that that would be a reason to slack off and stop testing them...