Jump to content

cf87ab84-c226-4c03-9f9b-e87a74698b95

Members
  • Content count

    22
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About cf87ab84-c226-4c03-9f9b-e87a74698b95

  • Rank
    Roxio Looking For Feedback For New Mac Client
  1. cf87ab84-c226-4c03-9f9b-e87a74698b95

    Retro 9 Upgrade Pricing Feedback

    Haven't been here in a little while, so just thought I'd check in...has anybody gotten any feedback from Retrospect to suggest that this v8 debacle will be made right? Or is no news (or acknowledgment) still bad news...$900 or so just to get bug fixes? FT
  2. cf87ab84-c226-4c03-9f9b-e87a74698b95

    I'm Confused, Are We Waiting For An 8.x Update?

    Yet, one would think that when asked directly in a thread in which he has actively participated, Robin Mayoff could point us to the "official communication channel" for our request.
  3. cf87ab84-c226-4c03-9f9b-e87a74698b95

    Retro 9 Upgrade Pricing Feedback

    I should point out, too, that most everybody posting on these forums is here because, at some point, we really liked Retrospect. We have all been loyal customers for years and decades, and we can be again, if you'd just do the right thing. Make things right here, and if you can keep the program updated properly w/ the new company, you'll have all of us moving our clients forward w/ your software, not running away. FT
  4. cf87ab84-c226-4c03-9f9b-e87a74698b95

    Retro 9 Upgrade Pricing Feedback

    Yes, this is quite the problem. We got about as close to zero updates and comments on bug-fixes as you can get w/o actually getting zero updates (I don't remember any by Robin-- strike that, I remember one about a new version being in beta testing-- but you can count that post by Eric as '1') for ages and ages...and we STILL can't get essential info. Despite posting twice to this thread, Robin has yet to directly answer my question about where to properly/officially send feedback and protest this ridiculous "upgrade". If they're gonna stick their heads in the sand, then I'm gonna stick my clients' wallets there, too. Hmph. Roxio/EMC/Dantz/Retrospect/Mayoff/Ullman....you guys sure are setting a good example of how NOT to do it... Fred
  5. cf87ab84-c226-4c03-9f9b-e87a74698b95

    Retro 9 Upgrade Pricing Feedback

    Robin, I appreciate the response, but again you and the Retrospect team are absolutely and completely missing the point. Staggeringly so. I'm not sure exactly what you guys are thinking...the request from your customer base has been pretty clear. Do you HEAR us?? At all??? As you have been told numerous other times in other threads, most of us here COULD NOT CARE LESS about "some pretty major feature changes". What we've been asking for for YEARS now is for the program that we and our clients have PAID FOR-- Retrospect 8-- to work properly. I assure you that I will not be able to convince my customers to pay an **additional** FIVE or NINE HUNDRED DOLLARS to get a properly working solution for their busted-&%$ Retrospect 8, nor will I attempt to do so. Clearly you are not listening to your customers, nor do you seem concerned at all about doing what's right here. The mere fact that you are touting "250 bug fixes" in a paid release should say enough. After being a Retrospect customer for a decade and a half now, I am thoroughly disgusted. I am also embarrassed to have recommended this product to my clients w/ the expectation that you would make the broken Retro 8 right. If you're so high on these "really great features", then you shouldn't be afraid to provide those 250 bug fixes in a free or minimally priced 8.3 release w/ the new features intentionally disabled, then offer v9 as a paid improvement beyond that. In any case, you are off your rockers to offer what you cannot possibly object to calling a *mostly* bug-fix release at the massive upgrade pricing you've chosen. There is apparently ZERO concession to the fact that your customers have been suffering for quite some time. My continuing to recommend a flawed Retro 8 w/ the expectation that we'd eventually get a proper, fixed release has shown my faith in and loyalty to the product; I'm seeing none of it in return, so it unfortunately appears that my partnership w/ Retrospect may be coming to an end. As per usual lately, you did not seem to have actually answered my question: Is this the best method for submitting our complaints about how this is being handled? Or should I call some corporate main #? Are you the decision-maker? Or reporting directly to a decision-maker? Fred Turner P.S. On a side note, it appears that I will not be able to use a single version of the Console to administer a mixture of v8 and v9 server Engines. What's more, since Retro 9 Console seems to want to take over Retro 8 settings, I'm not sure I can even run both versions of the Console in an alternating fashion. This is a significant oversight, and will basically return me to the days of having to use Remote Desktop to administer any new clients or any existing installations that actually do feel compelled to upgrade. A giant leap backwards, to be sure.
  6. cf87ab84-c226-4c03-9f9b-e87a74698b95

    Inter-Version Compatibility

    Well, that was positively awful. I launched the Retro 9 console around 15 minutes ago. It has been beachballing ever since, and occasionally giving me an alert that I should update my various server's engines to the new 9.0.0.319. This is occurring one at a time for the 8 servers that I currently have in my Console list. So, the Console appears to be completely unusable for Retro 8 engines. I can *see* them and see some of the info from the servers, but I can't appear to *do* anything w/ them. Man, does THIS suck. So, question '1b' is even more pressing now (although I may very well not have any clients upgrading anytime soon). FT
  7. cf87ab84-c226-4c03-9f9b-e87a74698b95

    Retro 9 Upgrade Pricing Feedback

    Okay, last post for now: the bitching and moaning. I am simultaneously relieved and hopeful that another build of Retrospect finally got out the door and infuriated that no concessions have been made to those of us who have suffered (and have clients who have suffered) for YEARS w/ the inadequacies of Retrospect 8 and neglect of its parent companies. Some of my clients I went ahead and set up w/ Retrospect 8 even knowing of its flaws, thinking that SURELY a low/no-cost, bug-fix release was just around the corner, only to now be presented w/ pricey upgrade costs (almost all of my clients are using Single- or Multi-Server) to get these fixes. I understand the need to turn a profit, but Retrospect customers are being mistreated here. I wouldn't mind a nominal upgrade fee to generate a little revenue for Retrospect, Inc, but a lot of good people here have been dealing w/ the shortcomings of Retro 8 and expecting the shabby software WE PAID FOR to be made right. That line of thinking didn't involve having to shell out for another version upgrade as if we'd gotten our full money's worth from the previous one and it was simply time to "re-up" for new features. Retrospect 8 has been a lemon; Retrospect 9 is a bug-fix, and should likely be 8.3; I find the complete ignorance of that fact in Retro 9's PR/online info disturbing. I'm not asking for a free lunch here, but some consideration for our suffering and loyalty is in order. We should NOT have to pay full upgrade pricing for this. All of that said, what is the best method to convey this opinion to someone who "matters" and can pass along to the powers that be? Is it here? Should I call the phone # on the "About Us" page? Email someone? Fred
  8. cf87ab84-c226-4c03-9f9b-e87a74698b95

    Retro 9 Powerpc Request

    I realize I'm spitting into the wind here, but if there's not a giant technical reason for abandoning a universal binary approach w/ PowerPC support built in, I'd like to request that it be included as it was w/ Retro 8. I know, I know...the last PowerPC Macs are 6 years old now. But you know what? Power Mac G5s make damned good file/mail/backup servers at very little cost. Think about what backup mostly is: copying data. With Gigabit Ethernet, SATA, FireWire, and other options via PCI/PCIe cards, a good G5 tower is perfectly capable of slinging around data like more modern Intel systems. What's more, a lot of clients have these sitting idle after upgrading to newer stuff, so the older towers make perfect servers. Yes, Intel processors and iOS Lion are the latest and greatest...but I've always found the best homes for Retrospect systems were NOT the newest machines. Anyway, consider this my request to retain/restore PowerPC support in the new Retrospect. Fred P.S. And why does this forum force initial caps on all topic titles?? That's not necessary nor desired. Should have been "Retro 9 PowerPC request". Sheesh.
  9. cf87ab84-c226-4c03-9f9b-e87a74698b95

    Inter-Version Compatibility

    Before (A) reports and testing point to a significantly better experience w/ Retrospect 9 and ( I or my clients decide they want to shell out money for bug fixes that IMO should've been handled for free or nearly free for those of us who paid for the privilege of being beta testers, I'm interested to know what the interoperability is between versions of Retrospect 8/9 Engine, Console, and Client. I maintain about a dozen Retrospect systems for clients, so the Console app running on my MacBook Pro is crucial for my administration of these. Clearly, not everyone will agree to upgrade, and for sure not at the same time, so.... 1. If I install the v9 Console on my MBP, can I still use it to control the v8 Engines out there? 1b. If not, how is it suggested that I support my existing clients if I have a new client starting from scratch (and therefore buying Retro 9)? 2. Is the Retro 8 Engine able to access clients running the new v9 Client? [from what I see in another thread, this appears to be "no"] 3. It is unclear to me what the OS requirements are for the v9 Client. If I have older machines that cannot run it and must run 6.3.029, can Engine v9 access and back these up? I feel like I'm forgetting something, but those are the basics. Thanks for any info. Fred
  10. cf87ab84-c226-4c03-9f9b-e87a74698b95

    I'm Confused, Are We Waiting For An 8.x Update?

    Wow, really?? You know exactly what he meant. "Upgrade pricing" is not "minimal"...you are basically making no concession that Retro 8 was a big, steaming, pile o' s**t, or that your handling of the problems w/ it warrants some sort of good faith gesture toward those of us who have been suffering for YEARS now. But definitely ignore ALL of the other concerns and direct Hippy to a link w/ upgrade pricing. Nice work. Thanks for nothing. Like a recent poster said, you certainly need to be compensated for your efforts, but right now, your previously compensated efforts were never completed satisfactorily. Right now, you need to finish off bug-fixing, re-establish the shaken faith, THEN worry about "new versions" and upgrade pricing. If you'd do that, I doubt anyone here would have a problem w/ "upgrade pricing". There's a right way to handle things here, and there's the way you're handling them. I urge you to reconsider the former. Even-more-pist-off Fred...a Retrospect user since the v4 days
  11. cf87ab84-c226-4c03-9f9b-e87a74698b95

    I'm Confused, Are We Waiting For An 8.x Update?

    FanTASTic!!! I am SO happy to know that after suffering w/ what is essentially a public beta for 2.5 years, having no updates in 15 months, and getting absolutely no information or acknowledgment of feedback or problem reports for about as long, we now are expected to ***PAY*** to "upgrade" in order to receive improvements to "stability" and "performance" (from the PR), which clearly crippled the previous "version"...as if we're actually getting a new (!) version of the program and could even be assured it has addressed our concerns! That is SUPER news! I guess if we do that, we can look forward to a 9.1 release in February 2013 after months and months of silence about the new bugs introduced in 9.0. I "only" have a dozen or so clients using Retrospect currently...I'll bet they'd be thrilled to pay for an "upgrade" after having to deal w/ an unfinished product for this long. Thanks for the insult, Roxio/Retrospect/EMC/Dantz/WhoTheHellEver. Well done. If you insist on being paid for fixing ailments that you neglected in Retro 8, how about at least coming up w/ a minimal "DearGodI'veSurvivedRetrospect8!" pricing tier for those of us who have been waiting forever and a day for some relief? Or maybe at least a T-shirt that says, "I survived Retrospect 8"? Sheesh. Fred Turner
  12. cf87ab84-c226-4c03-9f9b-e87a74698b95

    Dear God Fix This Software

    Yes. Expect an update in "Early July 2011". Seems like that's getting REAL close...
  13. cf87ab84-c226-4c03-9f9b-e87a74698b95

    I'm Confused, Are We Waiting For An 8.x Update?

    This is so disheartening. It's been something like 14 months w/ not even so much as a 0.0.1 update to the product. And unfortunately Roxio seems to think that a massive, massive release is necessary each time they do _anything_. Why in the hell can they not fix, say, network scanning in 8.2.1, lack of save/revert options in 8.2.2, and so on? Now we hear about v9, which is probably another giant swing at things resulting in a whole bunch of new problems that won't be addressed for another 14 months. Anyway, just staggering that Roxio's information release approach seems to have been designed to *^$$ off the maximum # of people. "We'll design a huge release that will be a complete bear to ever finish, including such things that most of our customers probably care little about, including Lion- and 64-bit-optimization, give a far-off deadline that should be enough time, then miss it not by mere days or weeks, but by at least a quarter of a year, and provide as little information and status updates as possible along the way, while claiming that we don't want to release anything before it's ready...you know, ready like 8.0, 8.1, and 8.2 were. Oh, and when pressed, we'll simply stick our heads in the sand and communicate even less w/ our customer base that is and has been a gnat's &%$ away from jumping ship." Yeah, that sounds great. Ugh.
  14. cf87ab84-c226-4c03-9f9b-e87a74698b95

    I'm Confused, Are We Waiting For An 8.x Update?

    Are you serious? Maybe this could be a good thing and a sign of progress (since "early July" has now given way to mid-September w/ no news), but my initial reaction is that this bugs me in 2 ways: 1. If the Roxio staff thinks it's a full version release, then it must have many "new features" and "enhancements", which means that we're back to a potentially unstable x.0 release. 2. If they think that those of us that have been beta testing by using 8.0, 8.1, and 8.2 for the last 2 years are going to shell out more money for what should be a massive bug-fix release, they're out of their gourds. FT
  15. cf87ab84-c226-4c03-9f9b-e87a74698b95

    I'm Confused, Are We Waiting For An 8.x Update?

    I've gotta agree w/ Mark's sentiments. While I am still supporting several clients w/ 8.2 and will continue to, I'm increasingly disappointed by the lack of progress toward a more stable, usable product. And Robin, your occasional open updating on the state of the product seems to have been forcibly replaced by a policy of providing as little information as possible. At this point, Retrospect 8.x has been an ongoing failure for YEARS now. I think I can speak for most of my frustrated fellow customers and admins when I say that MORE information about where things are going is far more helpful than the Apple-alike policy of keeping all news of future releases shrouded in secrecy. As I write this, I cannot believe that there hasn't been more urgency in fixing this product to where it works more reliably and bug-free. Over a year has passed since what is essentially a stopgap bug-fix update in 8.2 was released. This started off extremely frustrating and just continues to get worse due to lack of updates and information. I'll cross my fingers for a decent 8.3 release, but I'm not holding my breath. Hopefully I'll be pleasantly surprised. BTW, I realize I've been dogging Retro 8 over and over here, but make it *work right* and I'll be its biggest champion. Fred
×