Categories Menu

Posted on Nov 28, 2013 in Backup, Planning A Backup | 0 comments

Oops!Backup Vs. Genie Timeline Part 2 – Tests and results

For our first test, we backed up a documents folder with a modest 2.27 gigabytes of information inside it. The folder had a total of 363 files inside it.

Program Time Notes
Genie Timeline 2013 1hr Normal mode
Genie Timeline 2013 24 sec Turbo mode
Oops!Backup 44 sec

 

Browsing backups in Oops! is easy, but needs to be more flexible.

Browsing backups in Oops! is easy, but it really needs to be more flexible.

Genie Timeline has two modes of operation, a normal mode an a turbo mode. When in normal mode the program uses less computing power, allowing you to continue using your PC without it feeling sluggish. There is certainly a big difference in backup times between normal and turbo mode, so don’t forget to enable turbo mode for your initial backup if you intend to leave your PC while it works.

Oops!Backup also managed a very respectable 44 seconds, in fact this was the only test where Genie Timeline in turbo mode appeared to be quicker.

For our second test, we wiped the data we had just backed up and then restored it. After the restoration was complete we ran a simple file CRC check to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the files were all in-tact. Both backup packages passed this test.

Program Time
Genie Timeline 2013 40 sec
Oops!Backup 26 sec

 

Advanced restore mode in Genie Timeline makes selecting multiple files a breeze

Advanced restore mode in Genie Timeline makes selecting multiple files a breeze.

Genie Timeline has two methods for restoring files. One option is to use the “Timeline Explorer” which works rather like File Explorer. Sometimes when we used this mode and went back in time along the timeline, the timeline explorer would open a new window at the root of the backup rather than move the current backup window back in time. In spite of this, it was easy to use the explorer to find and restore single or multiple files. Files can then be restored to their original location with a right click, or dragged to any open File Explorer window.

If you intend to restore lots of files at once, the “Advanced Restore” option might be quicker. With this option you simply tick or check the files and folders you want to restore. So, if you are restoring an entire folder with lots of sub-folders, you can do so easily in a couple of clicks.

Oops!Backup, by contrast, is much more limited. You can only use a simple file browser from within the program. Frustratingly, when restoring several files and folders, there isn’t even an option to select all files and folders inside a directory.

It was clear after running these tests that the dataset was too small for a really good comparison of the two programs. Rather than move to bigger file sizes, we did as one user suggested on our forums and used lots of smaller files instead. A set of 243,387 files weighing in at 1.48GB. These files were taken from the source code of the popular e-mail package Thunderbird. Firstly, we set the two programs to work backing these files up. For this test we put Genie Timeline straight into turbo mode.

Program Time
Genie Timeline 2013 1hr 56 min
Oops!Backup 54 minutes

 

Speedy Oops!Backup manages to be at least twice as fast as Genie Timeline in this test. Genie Timeline certainly seems to struggle more with lots of small files. Even after the backup, the PC sometimes felt sluggish until Genie was done “populating files”. By comparison Oops!Backup handled the dataset with ease. The next test was, of course, to restore all the files.

Program Time
Genie Timeline 2013 1hr 29 min
Oops!Backup 14 minutes

 

Here Oops!Backup comprehensively thrashes Genie Timeline in restoration speed. However, selecting all the files to restore was much more fiddly on Oops!Backup’s interface than in Genie.

Alarmingly, the first time we tried this test, it appeared that Genie Timeline had missed thousands of our files. On a second attempt however, no discrepancy was detected. We’re not sure what caused this alarming result but we have some thoughts on what it might have been in the the third part of the article.

Use the link below to move to part 3, where we look at other features and pick our overall winner!

Part 1 – Introduction and overview

Part 3 – Other features, real world tests and conclusions

Post a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *