Thoughtful, detailed coverage of the Mac, iPhone, and iPad, plus the best-selling Take Control ebooks.

 

 

Pick an apple! 
 
Extract Directly from Time Machine

Normally you use Time Machine to restore lost data in a file like this: within the Time Machine interface, you go back to the time the file was not yet messed up, and you restore it to replace the file you have now.

You can also elect to keep both, but the restored file takes the name and place of the current one. So, if you have made changes since the backup took place that you would like to keep, they are lost, or you have to mess around a bit to merge changes, rename files, and trash the unwanted one.

As an alternative, you can browse the Time Machine backup volume directly in the Finder like any normal disk, navigate through the chronological backup hierarchy, and find the file which contains the lost content.

Once you've found it, you can open it and the current version of the file side-by-side, and copy information from Time Machine's version of the file into the current one, without losing any content you put in it since the backup was made.

Submitted by
Eolake Stobblehouse

 
 

Article 1 of 2 in series

Bandwidth and Latency: It's the Latency, Stupid (Part 2)

[Last week in TidBITS-367, Stuart examined issues of latency and delay in typical modem-based Internet communications. This week, Stuart offers general observations on how bandwidth can be used more efficiently and how it effects the overall latency of a connection.] Last week, I asked readers to imagine a world where the only network connection you can get to your house is a modem running over a telephone line at 33 KbpsShow full article

Article 2 of 2 in series

Bandwidth and Latency: It's the Latency, Stupid (Part 1)

Years ago David Cheriton at Stanford University taught me something that seemed obvious at the time - if you have a network link with low bandwidth then it's easy to put several in parallel to make a combined link with higher bandwidth, but if you have a network link with bad latency then no amount of money can turn any number of parallel links into a combined link with good latencyShow full article

Show the full text of all articles