mbizer Posted March 23, 2009 Report Share Posted March 23, 2009 Retrospect 8.0 cannot import configurations or read Backup Sets from previous Mac versions. Clients will need to be added, and scripts will need to be scheduled anew with version 8.0. However, Retrospect 8.0 does not overwrite/remove previous Retrospect editions during the installation process, so users who need to count on restores from legacy Backup Sets can simply maintain their previous installation of Retrospect. Isn't the ability to read backup sets from previous Mac versions a sine qua non for a new release? What is the point of releasing Retrospect 8 in this state? Or are you basically enlarging the beta test to include the community of paying users? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mayoff Posted March 23, 2009 Report Share Posted March 23, 2009 Retrospect 8 and Retrospect 6.1 can both be installed on the same computer without a conflict. This allows 8.0 users to restore old 6.1 data without much extra effort. (stop the Retrospect engine in system preferences and then launch 6.1) The 2 versions use a totally different data format and huge amount of testing must be conducted to make sure it is done correctly. We don't want to risk users data, so the feature is not yet included. We still plan to add 6.1 support to 8.0, but this is not a small task. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mbizer Posted March 23, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 23, 2009 Retrospect 8 and Retrospect 6.1 can both be installed on the same computer without a conflict. This allows 8.0 users to restore old 6.1 data without much extra effort. (stop the Retrospect engine in system preferences and then launch 6.1)] I'm glad that they can be installed on the same computer without conflict, but the fact that the Retrospect 8 engine has to be stopped suggests that they cannot both run at the same time. What is clear is how unfinished Retrospect 8 is at this point. Frankly, I wouldn't trust any data to it right now. Again, I maintain that the release was rushed -- compatibility with earlier backups was supposed to be included in the first release, wasn't it? The beta notes suggested that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maser Posted March 23, 2009 Report Share Posted March 23, 2009 Actually, that's a good question: Can Retrospect 6.1 *and* 8.0 (engine and console) run at the same time on the same machine? Not backing up to the same "media" (of course...) So there could be a transition between the two for a time? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mayoff Posted March 23, 2009 Report Share Posted March 23, 2009 Yes, you can run then both at the same time without stopping the engine, but some backup devices (like tape or optical) may be unavailable because the 8.0 version is already loading a driver. Hard disk based backups should be available without stopping the engine. I don't agree with the statement that this version was rushed. After 5 beta releases and years of engineering I think this is a good 8.0 release. Do we want it to be better? Yes, and we plan to make it better with more features, performance improvements and bug fixes. Unlike 6.1, this new version is using a modern codebase that is much easier to update and automatically make available to users via the auto-updates process. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mbizer Posted March 23, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 23, 2009 I don't agree with the statement that this version was rushed. After 5 beta releases and years of engineering I think this is a good 8.0 release. Beta 5 was released two weeks ago and as far as I can tell, there was no indication that development was nearing GM. In my experience, other developers usually proceed to release candidates before a general release. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CallMeDave Posted March 23, 2009 Report Share Posted March 23, 2009 as far as I can tell, there was no indication that development was nearing GM. I'm sorry, do you mean no indication to YOU and ME? Because we don't actually work for the company that develops the software. We were not non-disclosed about any of the behind-the-scenes aspects surrounding the release or its schedule. In my experience, other developers usually blah blah blah There is no One True Way of software development, no matter what your experience may be. BTW, there were some hints on Twitter that this release was near. How are those fingernails, Eric! Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mbizer Posted March 23, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 23, 2009 Thanks, Dave. In any case, I feel strongly that releasing Retrospect 8 without compatibility with previous backups is a bit like Microsoft releasing a new version of Office that can't read earlier file versions. It's crazy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mbizer Posted March 24, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 24, 2009 I don't agree with the statement that this version was rushed. You may not agree, but judging from the comments on versiontracker.com that I just read, as well as a report from someone I know, it sounds like Retrospect 8 is in very poor shape, indeed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CallMeDave Posted March 24, 2009 Report Share Posted March 24, 2009 judging from the comments on versiontracker.com that I just read... Oh yes, do read them. And read the replies, too. Many of the posts that I just skimmed start with "Retrospect is teh suck, Carbon Copy Cloner and Time Machine rule!" That's followed by multiple serious replies pointing out that the other solutions mentioned are very different from Retrospect. CCC is a duplication tool (great, but not the same as backup). TM is fine for a single machine, but has limited flexibility with what it backs up to what and when. Retrospect 8 is green, to be sure. Most 1.0 (8.0?) releases are. But EMC offers a very generous evaluation period, so there's nothing to stop folks from testing and qualifying it before purchase. Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mbizer Posted March 24, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 24, 2009 You've read the posts pertaining to versions of Retrospect before version 8. Read the evaluations pertaining to R8 alone, please. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricU Posted March 24, 2009 Report Share Posted March 24, 2009 Retrospect 8.0 has an all-new (basically 1.0) user interface. There are bound to be issues when you have a completely new component. Some of these issues, such as being unable to reorder sources in scripts, are frustrating, but we will have them fixed soon. Would it have been nice to do one release with both Intel and PowerPC support? Absolutely. Would that have given us time to provide more polish in the UI and further refine communication between the engine and the UI? Definitely. Still, with backup and restore functionality ready for Intel Macs, and several customers—including one with a bitten fruit logo—asking for software ASAP, we decided that it was time for the first release. Retrospect 8.0 is definitely better on Intel Macs than 6.1 is, and that means a lot. What means even more is that we have several Mac updates planned for this year, with the first one coming in just a few short weeks. That's quite different from how things have been done in the past, with one release and then nothing for a year or more. I believe that Retrospect 8.0's most important new feature is our renewed commitment to the Mac community. Stick with us, or at least keep watching, and I think you’ll be pleased over time. That’s what we’re working towards. Thanks. e Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tecwerks Posted March 24, 2009 Report Share Posted March 24, 2009 Regarding the comment that 8.0 is better than 6.1 is not true in my case. I backup ~ 100 mixed bag WIN and Mac clients as well as 6 Xservers. The Retrospect App runs on a Mac OS X 10.5.6 Xserve Dual Quad Core 3.2ghz Xenon processors with 8GB of RAM and 2X4 TB Fiber Channel Apple Raid for backup catalog storage. With 6.1 the performance was and is ~ 400-800MB per minute. With 8.0 I am lucky to obtain and maintain ~ 50-120MB per minute. That my friends is a show stopper in my environment where I depend on daily backups. To be fair to 8.0 I totally fresh installed 10.5.6 on another disk on the same hardware, installed 8.0 and same results so nothing can be blamed on the hardware or system. I have gone back to 6.1 and life is good other than the fact I need to baby sit it due to a memory leak that was never fixed. However, I find that having to deal with reboots every few days is way better than running 8.0 in its present state. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CallMeDave Posted March 24, 2009 Report Share Posted March 24, 2009 You've read the posts pertaining to versions of Retrospect before version 8. Even better. There are three topics currently discussing the 8.0 release: - One from an unsatisfied user who declined the 30 day evaluation period and now regrets his purchase. (one reply, from an EMC employee trying to help) - One who describes it as "unreliable crap pile of code" without making any effort to describe his experiences (or his expertise). (no replies, zero readers found it helpful) - One noting the lack of PPC support on Ship+1, ignoring Eric's well documented explanation of the schedule for adding that support. (4 replies (one of them mine) discussing the issue in rational terms) There you have it; VersionTracker's "review" as a method for qualifying software that can be downloaded and used free of charge for 30 days might not be your best resource for decision making. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mbizer Posted March 24, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 24, 2009 Dave, read the reply by "tecwerks." When Eric Ullman writes, "I believe that Retrospect 8.0's most important new feature is our renewed commitment to the Mac community," I fear that he may be accurately assessing the product's current state Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reichman Posted April 1, 2009 Report Share Posted April 1, 2009 Hello EMC Team: We'll stick with you, but the reason I haven't purchased 8 the day it came out is that I need to be able to read those old 6.x backup sets. Even better, I would love to be able to keep writing to them with 8.0. If I have to start my daily backup over again, the media cost alone would be very expensive. Add the read feature, and I'll buy the upgrade! Best, Nathaniel Reichman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CallMeDave Posted April 2, 2009 Report Share Posted April 2, 2009 the reason I haven't purchased 8 the day it came out is that I need to be able to read those old 6.x backup sets. Since you aren't running v. 8 (even though it has a 45 day trial), then you must be using 6.1 to read your old sets. If you bought v.8, would your installation of 6.1 suddenly catch on fire? No. It would still work the same as it works now. Transitioning to another backup scheme (if it's appropriate for your needs) would do nothing to change that. > Even better, I would love to be able to keep writing to them with 8.0. Not gonna happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrBoar Posted April 2, 2009 Report Share Posted April 2, 2009 AFAIKT the GUI and other manners of 8 have many elements and modes from Win 7.0-7.6. So more written doccumentation should had been aviable at the release of 8. :taptap: The online instruction videos are brilliant. Such a good way of showing the core function and handling/setting up the program :thanks: Thanks also for resurecting the moribund Macintosh version a relict from the AppleTalk Quadra and LCII 68xx generation and replacing it with a modern application. :banana: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reichman Posted April 2, 2009 Report Share Posted April 2, 2009 You're right, installing v8 doesn't automatically make v6 stop working. But the issue is the future. Without updates, v6 will stop working with Mac OS 10.6 or 10.7 or 11.0... So I want to be able to read those old backup sets into the future, and I want to put the pressure on EMC to let us do that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mayoff Posted April 2, 2009 Report Share Posted April 2, 2009 With our planned update Retrospect 8 will be able to read older backup sets. We didn't want to delay the 8.0 release an extra month or two while we worked on the translation filters for this older data. The same is true for the full user's guide. We didn't want to wait the extra couple of months to finish the full user's guide before releasing the software. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bioheath Posted April 2, 2009 Report Share Posted April 2, 2009 This is a valid point, although I am not urgently concerned about it at the moment. For the foreseeable future my old PowerPC "server" will keep chugging along with 6.1 installed, ready to read old data sets. In the future though, I think a light-weight (maybe even stand-alone) 6.1 data set reader/restore application is an absolute must and should be bundled with the new application. Not worried at the moment though. Overall, I am thrilled with 8, warts and all. That said, please send out some good, meaningful updates for the 8.0 version for the next few years before deciding to call it 8.5 and charging an upgrade fee! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mayoff Posted April 2, 2009 Report Share Posted April 2, 2009 In the future though, I think a light-weight (maybe even stand-alone) 6.1 data set reader/restore application is an absolute must and should be bundled with the new application. This is not going to be possible. Retrospect 8 will have the ability to read the old backup data, so it really isn't needed. We will have lots of free upgrades between now and our next paid upgrade. We don't even have paid upgrades on our list right now. We really want to give users all of the missing features (like PPC and FTP backup support) first. We also need to translate the software into 11 languages. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.