dramsey Posted August 17, 2002 Report Share Posted August 17, 2002 It's not clear from the product descriptions whether I need Retrospect Pro or one of the Server versions. Here's my setup: A home network consisting of two Windows PCs and three Macs running OS X. One of the Macs is running OS X Server. The nice Exrix tape drive is on one of the Windows boxes. I've been using the beta test version of the Windows 6.0, but its About box doesn't note which version it is (it works fine for all my needs...) The description for Retrospect Pro says it will back up "computers on your local network". Is this all I need? -- David Ramsey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
palter Posted August 17, 2002 Report Share Posted August 17, 2002 [i'm just a Retrospect user; I don't work for Dantz.] Given that one of your clients is running OS X Server, you need the Multi-Server edition of Retrospect. (See http://www.dantz.com/products/wincompare.html for a detailed comparison of the various editions.) If none of your clients are servers, you could use the Professional edition. You'd have to buy additional clients as Professional only supports 2 clients out of the box. - Gary Palter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dramsey Posted August 18, 2002 Author Report Share Posted August 18, 2002 Sigh. I'm a small developer with a total of five systems to back up. What's the difference between me and a medium-sized company with a hundred systems to back up and a fancy tape library to back up to? In Dantz' world view, there's no difference at all. The new pricing scheme, rather than depending on the number of client machines as previous versions did, is based on the capabilities of the software. So if you have a single server to back up, you're in for the Multi-Server version. As a Retrospect customer since about 1988, I think this sucks. Of course, I shelled out the $649 anyway (+$20 for a CD, just in case), because I don't want to switch to another backup system. But I still think it sucks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmontrose Posted October 23, 2002 Report Share Posted October 23, 2002 I agree that their new licensing system sucks! We are a small software developer (5 full time developers) but have 2 servers (1 production, 1 test). The Workgroup pricing in 5.x worked fine for us, but now we need to upgrade to the MultiServer backup to backup up the server machines, just because of the OS they have. Their previous licensing system was much more fair and larger firms, with more backup needs, paid more. I guess with their current system, even if you were a single developer with a Windows 2000 Advanced server machine (which you need for testing), you would pay the same price as a 100 user office with a single server. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mithrandir Posted October 25, 2002 Report Share Posted October 25, 2002 You mention only one server as far as I saw. Why do need Multi Server? I have two servers on my network and back them both up with Single Server. The main server runs Retrospect and backs up all the clients and itself onto Tape. The second server also runs Retrospect but backs up only itself on one of the hard drives on the first server. When the first server backs itself up it also backs up the latest backup files of the second server. Of course you need the hard drive space to accommodate this but I only need to backup a small portion of the second server so this works fine for me. So far... I do this because the second server only exists for testing new software, settings, migrations and that sort of thing before they go live on the real server. And I too believe Dantz's new licensing scheme is no good and quite unfair! Especially for the little guy! Hear that Dantz?! M Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.