Those who follow my online ranting know how disappointed I've been with Microsoft's Vista Backup utility. Here you have this technically superior (to Apple's "Time Machine") backup solution that is hamstrung by the fact that it's most powerful feature (shadow copy integration) is buried in the bowels of an OS (Vista). Add to this myriad questionable design decisions (e.g. arbitrary file inclusion/exclu Those who follow my online ranting know how disappointed I’ve been with Microsoft’s Vista Backup utility. Here you have this technically superior (to Apple’s “Time Machine”) backup solution that is hamstrung by the fact that it’s most powerful feature (shadow copy integration) is buried in the bowels of an OS (Vista). Add to this myriad questionable design decisions (e.g. arbitrary file inclusion/exclusion lists) and you end up with one of those classic Microsoft “could’ve been, might’ve been” moments.Now, to add insult to injury, the zealots on the FOSS side of the fence are working on their own “Time Machine” alternative. Dubbed “Flyback,” this GUI wrapper for the Linux rsnapshot utility is rapidly maturing and will likely pass Vista Backup as the second most usable integrated OS backup utility. In fact, “Flyback” is progressing so well that the developers have time to indulge in little side projects, like a promised “3D” effect for restoring archived files/folders (i.e. a nice “slap in the face” to Apple).All of which begs the question: What the hell is wrong with Microsoft these days? It seems like every time their R&D folks come up with something unique and powerful (volume snapshots), some idiot further down the program management chain steps in and cripples it — leaving those of us who pay attention to such things scratching our heads in disbelief. “What could’ve been, what should’ve been” indeed! Software DevelopmentSmall and Medium Business