I am using OS X 10.15.7 on a new Mac mini. I have SuperDuper 3.3.1. I set SD to copy 'all' files to my external HD. When finished, the external HD shows 30 items in my Application folder but on my Mini there are 65 items in the Applications folder. I erased and copied 2 times with the same result. It's not coping 35 items in my Applications folder. Similar difference with Unilities Folder not copying all the items. It's not just ignoring third party applications as some of those are copied and some not. Also some Apple apps are not copied like Chess & Calculator.

What is going on with SD? Also when I set the external HD as the startup disk it takes like 20 minutes to boot up. This doesn't seem right.

Any enlightenment will be greatly appreciated.

At this distance, it looks like your external has problems. So, the fault might not lie with SD. 20 minutes to boot up is more than excessive. In the meantime, you could email Dave Nanien at SD with your issue. In my experience, he has been very responsive.

Thanks, will give that a shot.

Update. Dave at SD was quick and very helpful. For some reason, Apple synthesizes the /Applications folder from two separate folders on two volumes - the Data volume (your stuff) and the System volume (their stuff). So that issue is resolved. Since the new Mini does not have a Firewire port the external HD is connected via USB port which may be a partial reason for the very long boot times.

I'm thinking that it would be more efficient, faster to boot, to buy a flash drive, 256GB, and use that to clone and boot from. Should I get a Thunderbolt flash drive or a usb 3 flash drive? What are major +/- for each? Thanks.

Thunderbolt 3 is twice as fast at USB 3.1 Gen 2 (also called USB 3.2) and four times faster than USB 3, which pretty well sums up the pros and cons of each. Note too that flash drives are notoriously slow regardless of the interface. You really want soemthing like this or this to get resonable boot times.

Also, consider this in your plans. Mac OS 11 (Big Sur) will be rolling out very shortly and, at least at this juncture, CANNOT BE CLONED using SuperDuper, Carbon Copy Cloner or any other available product, it can only be installed. To be more precise only the data volume can be cloned and that is not bootable and you cannot clone a data volume onto a bootable Mac OS 11 drive and still have it bootable.

Thanks, you saved me some money. No point in buying an external SSD or flash drive if I won't be able to clone my drive with Big Sur. Any idea why Apple is eliminating the abilty to clone a drive?

Good question. My suspicious nature makes me wonder if it's a move toward forcing everyone to use iCloud.

It can be summed up in a single word, SECURITY. Apple is trying to make the system as bullet proof as possible. Apple may eventually come up with a command line app to create a bootable clone but that will be a trick to create as Big Sur boots from a virtual volume that is stored on the boot drive as a APFS snapshot. The ball is in Apple's court.

Doesn't that contradict "It's not coping 35 items in my Applications folder. Similar difference with Unilities Folder not copying all the items. It's not just ignoring third party applications as some of those are copied and some not. Also some Apple apps are not copied like Chess & Calculator." in your original post?

Working with APFS Volume Groups from the Carbon Copy Cloner Knowledge Base explains the underlying APFS structures that are enabling the new OS architectures and if you scroll down to the section on Finder shenanigans with the Applications folder you will find an explanation of how and why the file count varies.

Boot Volume Layouts and Layout of the Catalina Boot Volume Group (both from The Eclectic Light Company) help explain what you are seeing in Catalina as well as answering some of the questions about why there is a big cloning issue in Big Sur and this Apple Developer News article explains the rationale behind the changes in Big Sur. Absorb all of this and you begin to get the full picture of what this all about, how it fits together, and how, through the actions of "firmlinks" the system can contain elements from both the data and system volumes and reaches a zenith in the boot volume in Big Sur which is essentially a "virtual" construct".

Looking at this in total, it appears that implementing any "cloning" ability in Big Sur may have to include installing the boot volume using the MacOS installer, or at least portions thereof. I am not holding my breath waiting for that to appear.

Appreciate the info but it is way about my pay grade. I've used Mac's since 1986 and they just keep getting more and more complicated and unfortunately I keep getting older and older.

Bottom line, I guess, is that I will probably no longer be able to clone my system for backup purposes going forward. It's probably not rational but I don't want all my 'stuff' out there floating around in iCloud or any other remote service. I liked to clone my system in the unlikely occurrence my Mac crashed and that actually happened once quite a number of years ago. With the clone I was up and running with a new Mac in short order.

Then you need a serious external drive at least 3 to 4 times the capacity of your boot drive, format it MacOS Extended Journaled, and select it as your Time Machine drive in System Preferences > Time Machine. Your disaster recovery is booting from the Recovery Drive (code boot while holding ⌘R until you see a progress bar) then install MacOS and if necessary restore your data from Time Machine. It takes a couple of hours to complete but it is complete, and Time Machine backups are far more flexible than any bootable clone because you can recover files from months even years back easily.

Note speed isn't important with Time Machine drives so you can use inexpensive. bus powered, Hard Drives and enclosures.

Douglas, starting with an LC and System 6 in 1990 I am with totally with you in almost every respect. Now increasing age and irrationality see me questioning whether it was really worth replacing my perfectly functional 2013 iMac in order to run Big Sur when it arrived!

I have used cloning software for years in case of hardware failure (never happened) or OS update problems (which have, one of them blowing away 6 months of recent Time Machine history). Even if Volume cloning can’t be implemented immediately, it seems to me that it’s the Data volume that’s more important and it looks like that can still be cloned…

[quote=andycap... and it looks like that can still be cloned… [/quote]
It can. But I still prefer a Time Machine backup for its flexibility and ability to keep historical files.

There are a number of applications that are not yet compatible with Big Sur. I have not heard that there will not be an update to SuperDuper! (I use it too) for Big Sur compatibility. So, I expect it to be compatible whenever Dave gets an update ready. That has been the case in the past, and I would not expect it to change.

For myself, there are 4 critical applications that need to be compatible before I move from Catalina to Big Sur: SuperDuper!, Onyx, LibreOffice, and Tech Tool Pro. And given past history, Tech Tool Pro will be the last. But "No Problemo", as Arnie says, as the first few releases of a new mac OS contain a good amount of bugs, and Catalina is working fine for me. Plus, there is nothing earth shattering in Big Sur.

• Carbon Copy Cloner is already as Big Sur compatible as any clone utility will get, unless and until, Apple creates a tool to make it possible to create a bootable clone. There is a dandy one in Catalina, although SuperDuper chose not to use it, but security changes in Big Sur broke it. The Data Volume can be cloned, but the actual bootable volume is a sealed and encyrypted APFS snapshot created by the Big Sur installer. Copying or cloning that snapshot to another drive breaks the seal and renders the image unbootable. The work around is, and will likely remain for some time, maybe permanently, to install Big Sur on the target volume using the Recovery Drive and then cloning the Data volume to that drive. NOTE: when new applications are included in a data volume clone, they will be certified the next time you boot that clone which can be time consuming and annoying.
• Tech Tool Pro works on Big Sur but it has yet to be certified and there are functions that are not supported on APFS drives (and are generally un-needed on SSDs). Personally although I have had TechTool Pro since its inception, I haven't needed or used it in three or four years and have no intention of paying for an upgrade for Big Sur.
• Open Office works just fine on Big Sur so LibreOffice should work as well as both are created from the same base code set.
• OnyX, Cocktail, Tinkertool, TinkerTool System, MacPilot, et. al. are nothing more than a GUI front ends for Unix commands and preference settings, and although they need careful testing to be sure nothing has changed in the kernel, the only thing lacking in most cases is certification. Tinkertool is already compatible.

1. Where are you getting that information about Carbon Copy Cloner? On Shirt Pocket Watch, there is a September 4th post by Dave, but nothing like you stated.
2. I have seen nothing definitive about Tech Tool Pro definitely working with Big Sur. As far as I can tell, they are still working on a compatible version. And one would think that is the case, since Big Sur still has not been officially released.
3. According to this:

https://www.openoffice.org/download/

it does not say OpenOffice is compatible with Big Sur. I also looked on tis site:

https://roaringapps.com/apps

and again, nothing definitive.
4. Onyx does not have a version yet, and just like in the past, I suspect a Big Sur version will not be released until OS 11.1 arrives.

One other thing: according to this update from Bombich software:

https://bombich.com/kb/ccc5/frequently-asked-questions-about-ccc-and-macos-11

they do not seem to be that far away with getting this resolved. (I have also EMailed Dave about this situation, asking him for an update).

From personal experience running, release notes from the current version of CCC, correspondence with the developer of CCC, Mike Bombich, information is multiple threads on FineTunedMac.

No argument

.Apologies, I misspoke when I said OpenOffice, I meant to say NeoOffice which is LibreOffice with a dark mode See the compatibility notes on their download page if my personal experience is insufficient.

Agreed, In fact I thought that is essentially what I said.

MartyByrde, you might find this thread interesting as it contains a lot of discussion and discovery about cloning and MacOS 11 (Big Sur).

No-one's welcomed you to FTM yet.

Hi, and welcome to FineTunedMac.

Thank You. Hopefully I can make some contributions, and also learn some things.

Thanks again.

I assume you remember when Apple released V10.15.5 of Catalina. It basically broke both SuperDuper! (SD) and Carbon Copy Cloner (CCC). CCC did release a fix, but SD did not. I actually went back to V10.15.4, but then the issue was resolved in V10.15.6 (and is OK is V10.15.7).

I did hear back from Dave about this, and he stated the following:

"We are forced to use asr (not ssr) to make a bootable copy, and since it doesn't work yet, we haven't been able to test with it, other than to prove it doesn't work.

I do not know when Apple will fix their tool. We've been asking all summer."


No problemo. I have not heard of LibreOffice with a dark mode. But I suspect a version of (the "normal") LibreOffice with Big Sur compatibility will be released soon. Again, though, I can wait, given that I will not be moving to Big Sur until, most likely, in January. In the meantime, I'll do just fine with Catalina.

Thanks. I'll look at that. I just hope Apple fixes the problem. Given that something similar (I believe) happened with V10.15.5 of Catalina, hopefully they will get it resolved, and both Shirt Pocket Software and Bombich Software will be happy campers!

Also, in another communication with Dave, I said that Apple is trying to kill us. His response was "No, I don't think they're trying to kill us. I think they don't care about us. It's different...although the end effect may be the same.". Maybe a play on words, but not caring is even worse! Do you know a way I can communicate my disdain with Apple's attitude about this situation? Might not help much, but maybe if enough SuperDuper! and Carbon Copy Cloner users do the same, Apple possibly will listen and do something.

That's interesting, because I've never had an issue with CCC.10.15.5 and otherwise, it's worked for me without fail.

When I say "broke", I meant that the backup/clone would not be able to boot up one's Mac. As I stated, Bombich software did release a fix, but then things were fixed overall in V10.15.6 of Catalina, and thus SuperDuper! (and Cartbon Copy Cloner) functioned like before V10.15.5 was released.

I very rarely boot into my clones...just assume that they work as usual, so maybe/I guess (?) I missed it.

You might want to test that every "so often". I do myself, and when I move to a new mac OS via a clean installation, I boot each machine from their respective just completed SD backup. Did you not see/install the update Bombich did shortly after OS 10.15.5 was released? I cannot "see it" from here:

https://bombich.com/download

but I do distinctly remember such a release.

It looks like there is a later one:

https://www.macupdate.com/app/mac/7032/carbon-copy-cloner

PS: OK, I found the versions and dates for CCC after the release of OS 10.15.5: V5.1.18 on May 29th, and V5.1.19 on June 17th.

And here is the "announcement" of the issue with V10.15.5 from Bombich:

https://bombich.com/blog/2020/05/27...ts-bootable-backups-weve-got-you-covered

I test every newly created CCC task for "bootability" immediately after creation, but after that I ride the initial success. (Also, I run QuickBoot, which gives me quick ongoing assurance that things at least look as expected.)

At least in my instance, OS X's wealth of glitches early on fostered a feeling of insecurity which resulted in my checking things multiple times, maintaining an arsenal of troubleshooting tools, running DiskWarrior every month, etc, but over the years, OS X/macOS has become so stable (Many thanks to beta testers like joemike!) - so much so that I and others have lamented having forgotten our basic troubleshooting procedures - that I no longer find insecurity to be a necessary component of my computing experience and, although with MUCH difficulty, I've been weaning myself from procedures that have morphed from wisdom to neurosis.

And my experience has been that the same can be said about many of the apps I run.

Thanks for that final link. It sets me straight.
I remember seeing that, but it didn't affect me, because I wasn't on its turf. (What possessed you to revert your OS?)

(For someone who runs SuperDuper! you're awfully well versed in CCC's ins and outs.)

The reason I went back to OS 10.15.4 was that I wanted a workable backup/clone. For whatever reason, Dave decided not to update SuperDuper! when OS 10.15.5 arrived (and caused booting issues). Maybe he was in more "direct" contact with Apple, and they might have told him the issue would be fixed in V10.15.6. Just my guess.

And thank you for the compliment about the ins and outs of CCC. Given that both SD and CCC are similar, and CCC is an excellent program (as is SD), I do like to keep up with what Bombich software is doing. However, I do not watch it that closely.

But unless you had for some reason created a NEW task, all your (existing) backups were bootable.

You've said that you do clean installs for upGRADES, which require that new tasks be created, but for upDates?

When OS 10.15.5 was released, I made two SuperDuper! backups to two separate external devices for both of my Macs. Thus, my prior (last one) ones, made with OS 10.15.4, were gone, and thus I had no way to boot either machine from those respective, new backups. Not knowing when the issue would be fixed, I played it "safe" and 1) did a clean, fresh installation of OS 10.15.4, and 2) migrated/copied files, folders, settings, etc. from those backups. I then re-did SuperDuper! backups, and I could then boot either machine from them. When OS 10.15.6 arrived, I did the same thing, ie, restarted each Mac from their respective OS 10.15.4 SuperDuper! backup, did a fresh, clean installation of OS 10.15.6 on each internal SSD, then migrated/copied needed files, folders, etc. from the most recent OS 10.15.4 SD backups.

Terminology can be a little confusion. When using the term upgrade, for the mac OS, I mean a clean, fresh installation. On some occasions, for "in between" releases of the mac OS (like for example, when OS 10.15.4 was released after OS 10.15.3 had been previously released), I will just do an update "in place", ie, just download the applicable Combo Updater and apply it.

My SD backups are not automated, and thus I don't have any tasks associated with SD (nor anything else). I run the SD backups "manually", ie, after using Onyx and Tech Tool Pro, I launch SD and perform the backups. Yes, it's old school, but I prefer it that way.

One other remark: when I perform those (weekly) tasks with Onyx, Tech Tool Pro, and SD, I am actually cleaning our townhome at the "same" time. It works out well, at least for me.

I'm confused when you say…
When in this thread you said…
What am I missing?

Oops! My mistake. Not sure what I was thinking at that time, but just to repeat, my SD backups are not automated.

Sorry 'bout that!

Got it! So you DID create new SD! tasks after you updated.

As always, I perpetuated my existing 10.15.4 tasks and, so, didn't get bitten by the bug.

Clarification: When we use the term "upGRADE" we're referring to installing a new version of the OS, as in going from Catalina to Big Sur. An upDate refers to the installation a new "dot" release, as in going from 10.15.5 to 10.15.6.

Up until the release of OS 10.15.5, it had never been the case where there was an issue booting either of my Macs from their respective SD backups. Given that I make 2 of them for each machine to two separate external SSDs, I should have done only one OS 10.15.5 backup for each machine to one of the SSDs (both SSDs are partitioned). Then I would have had an OS 10.15.4, working backup/clone, and the return to OS 10.15.4 would have been easier. Oh well, live and learn, as the old saying goes!

And yes, my use of the "upGRADE" (not sure why you need to shout? I am not 10 miles away!) pertains to doing an actual clean, fresh installation. An update refers to an "in OS" update, ie, a ".dot" release.