Jump to content

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 04/30/2019 in all areas

  1. 1 point
    David, I had to laugh when I read your suggestion. One of the HARDEST MOUNTAINS YOU WILL EVER CLIMB is to try to convince the management of a small software company to hire a good tech writer to create and maintain their documentation. They see this as a straight money losing proposition. I've tried with different companies over the years, and if there is a convincing argument I've yet to find it. They never think the subsequent decrease in support costs and increase in customer satisfaction will make up the difference. As with most companies, Retrospect's manuals fall into the category of "informative but not instructional". They tell you what the program can do, but not how to use the program to achieve the results you want. It's better than nothing, and you've got to appreciate the volume of the docs, but it's sometimes a treasure hunt to find what you're actually looking for. It is quite expensive to do it right. If you want to see somebody who does it right, and is much bigger than Retrospect, take a look at Fortinet. Just Google "Fortinet Cookbooks" and get on the Fortinet Youtube channel. It's phenomenal. Mark
  2. 0 points
    rfajman and others, As to ProactiveAI, you have to read the Knowledge Base article I linked to in my preceding post in conjunction with pages 236-251 in the Retrospect Windows 15 User's Guide. The "AI" was added to the end of "Proactive" to signify the adoption of a new decision-tree algorithm for determining the priorities of "client" backups. IMHO It really doesn't constitute artificial intelligence, unless you count the use of linear regression along with a decision tree as rising to that level. OTOH it's evidently better than the preceding algorithm, on which Dantz/EMC's patent seems to have expired in 2016. The fact that you have to go through this instructional mess is yet another example of the IMHO gross stupidity/laziness of a policy adopted by Retrospect Inc.'s august Documentation Committee in 2015. Prior to that year, Retrospect Inc.'s policy was to describe new features of a major version fairly comprehensively in the "What's New" chapter of the UG for that version. The descriptions in that "What's New" chapter would then, for the next version of the UG, be incorporated in appropriate sections of follow-on chapters in the UG—allowing the"What's New" chapter to be overwritten with fairly comprehensive descriptions of the next set of new features. Starting in 2015 the august Documentation Committee adopted a policy of only overwriting the "What's New" chapter without incorporating its previous contents in follow-on chapters. The Committee relied instead on individual engineers to create KB articles containing the previous feature descriptions. For some new features, such as the one facilitating moving Members of Backup/Media Sets to larger disks, the engineer(s) couldn't be bothered to create a short KB article. So how to use those features, especially for Retrospect Windows, is locked forever in the minds of Retrospect Inc. engineers—and maybe harassed Retrospect Tech Support people. Starting in March 2018 the "What's New" chapter in the UGs became merely marketing blurbs, useless for administrators trying to learn how to use new features. I created Support Case #59820, stating the problem plainly on 20 March 2018. I was told by a senior Tech Support engineer that, sometime this side of the indefinite future, Retrospect Inc. intends to do a comprehensive rewrite of the UGs. I think it's time for us administrator users to each inscribe the letters "TUIT" on a round piece of paper, and snail-mail it to : Retrospect, Inc. Attn.: August Documentation Committee 1547 Palos Verdes Mall, Suite 155 Walnut Creek, CA 94597 United States That will communicate to the August Documentation Committee a notice that now is the time to "get around to it".
×