Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Because Retrospect causes WindowServer to take up large amounts of CPU and causes my computer to slow to a crawl, I've taken to hiding it while it is doing its backup, which seems to help.

 

Well, today, it won't unhide. I kept inserting DVD+RW's as it needed them, but now it wants to verify the backup (I can tell from looking at the log) and for reasons never clear to me, it doesn't automatically eject the DVD that's in the drive when it begins a verify. So I need to actually click on the DVD and click the "Eject" button.

 

So, how do I get Retrospect to come to the front? Or is my only hope to force quit Retrospect? I would hate to do that, because Retrospect has a long standing bug where if a backup is interrupted before the verify is completed, then the verify NEVER takes place! So I'll need to grab an old version the catalog off my backups and then do the whole backup again.

 

By the way, I've listed 4 bugs here. Don't you folks at EMC think that's a little excessive?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote:

By the way, I've listed 4 bugs here. Don't you folks at EMC think that's a little excessive?

 


 

Describing undesired behavior from a software application is not the same as a bug report.

 

The former is what you've provided. It's a drag when it happens, but it's only marginally helpful to developers.

 

The latter includes a full description of the test bed, and complete, unambigious steps to reproduce.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As you note, there seem to be some windows in Retrospect that, once they are no longer in front, cannot be easily be brought back (the login window is one).

 

I've always been able to use Exposé to show all windows and find the right one. If you haven't changed the system defaults, the keyboard command is F9.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote:

Describing undesired behavior from a software application is not the same as a bug report.

 

The former is what you've provided. It's a drag when it happens, but it's only marginally helpful to developers.

 

The latter includes a full description of the test bed, and complete, unambigious steps to reproduce.

 


 

Why do you assume I haven't filed a bug report?

 

I have filed bug reports for the (extremely serious) lack-of-verification bug against every version of Retrospect I've owned since I first discovered the problem in the late 1990s! I've never even gotten an acknowledgment that my report was received, nor has the bug been fixed. (Well, I skipped a few versions during the time when Dantz didn't even want bug reports unless you opened a paid support incident.) I've reported several other Retrospect bugs that I didn't mention above, and never got any response on any of them. Frankly, given that level of arrogance, as well as the clear implication that Retrospect simply cannot be trusted with my data unless I watch it like a hawk, I don't know why I even use it anymore. And why is this bug there anyway? I mean, good grief, who builds a backup program that assumes the data is GOOD until proven otherwise? Is it not common sense that the data should be assumed BAD until verified? The correct behavior would be to continue the verify where if left off and, if that was not possible, back up all the unverified data again. Okay, sorry for the rant, but having to report 8 year old bugs over and over and over again... well, I needed to vent.

 

Anyway, I've never reported the "not ejecting the DVD bug" because it's trivial. It never really bothered me much before. It's only just now, because it's compounded by the other 3 bugs. I've never reported the WindowServer bug because, well, frankly, what's the point? The bug report will just go into a black hole like all the others I've sent. And finally, the unhide bug, as is perfectly clear from my post, is not reproducible. (I said that I "have taken to hiding Retrospect" which implies that I have done this before and the "Well, today" implies that this is the first time the problem happened. If I discover a way to reproduce it I'll consider filing a report. Maybe now that the EMC takeover is complete, the developers will take bug reports seriously.) I was just hoping someone on the forums had seen the bug before and would know whether I can get around it.

 

I was not aware that the forums were an appropriate place for filing bug reports, but if you wish I can write up full bug reports for all the reproducible bugs I've discovered in Retrospect and post them here.

 

Anyway, if you think it helps any... Retrospect 6.1.126, Driver update 6.1.1.101, Powerbook G4 500 MHz, Mac OS 10.4.5 (build 8H14), backing up a subfolder from an external FW hard drive to Memorex DVD+RW media on an internal Matshita UJ-825S with a custom driver created by Retrospect. This is the first time the issue has occurred, so I have no idea whether or not it is reproducible. But here's what I do... I periodically check to see how Retrospect is doing (since it can't seem to manage more than 10 MB/s... bug number 5) and then hit "Command-H" to hide it. Yesterday, it stopped coming back when I clicked on the dock icon. But it was still working away, backing up my 11 GB of stuff. I know because it kept popping out the DVD in order to ask for a new one, and I just kept putting in blank ones hoping I'd figure out how to get the GUI back before verification time came. But, alas, that time came and the Retrospect windows are nowhere in sight. Hence the posting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote:

As you note, there seem to be some windows in Retrospect that, once they are no longer in front, cannot be easily be brought back (the login window is one).

 

I've always been able to use Exposé to show all windows and find the right one. If you haven't changed the system defaults, the keyboard command is F9.

 


 

It's not that the windows aren't in front. I hid them (with the "Hide" command). Hidden applications don't appear in Exposé. Ordinarily, clicking on the dock icon causes a hidden application to reappear, but that's not happening. (I guess I should point out that the cursor changes to the Retrospect moving-checkerboard cursor, but the menu bar doesn't change nor do Retrospect's windows appear.) I've also tried the "Show All" command and tried selecting the window from Retrospect's Dock menu. I also tried switching from one account to the other and then back again.

 

I actually at one point suspected that Retrospect was actually unhidden, but stuck in the back somewhere. However, Exposé did not reveal its windows. I even hid every other application until I saw my bare desktop, but I never saw Retrospect's windows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, hey, I just remembered. There was one bug that I reported that actually got fixed. It took about 4 years, but it did get fixed. Of course, it was a paid upgrade, but Dantz wasn't the only company that felt it appropriate to make people pay for bug fixes.

 

So I guess reporting bugs isn't entirely useless.

 

(The bug, by the way, was Retrospect's inability to back up files with certain unusual characters in the name. I think ñ was one of the problematic characters. Anyway, it was finally corrected in 6.0. or 6.1 or something like that.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>I have filed bug reports for the (extremely serious) lack-of-verification bug against

>every version of Retrospect I've owned since I first discovered the problem in the late 1990s!

 

While this behavior could reasonably be considered to be ill-conceived, it is not a bug. The program is behaving the way it was designed to; it's the design that you feel is deficient. The engineers know how it works, so it would be the marketing department that would be keeping track of customer dissatisfaction of particular features (or lack thereof).

 

> I've never reported the WindowServer bug because, well, frankly, what's the point?

 

Dunno, but while WindowServer is often sucking up more cycles then I'd like during general computer use, on my system (iMac G5/FWexternals/FileBackupSets) I don't see any particular increase when Retrospect is running, scanning or copying. Lots of cycles for Retrospect itself, true. But I see Safari being more of a problem with WindowServer then I do Retrospect. Your milage certainly varies. Maybe it's the differences in our video systems. But if it's reproducible it's probably a software defect.

 

>I was just hoping someone on the forums had seen the bug before and would know

>whether I can get around it.

 

I have. Probably back with 5.0x or 5.1. But I seem to recall that the Retrospect menu bar was in place, but I could be mistaken. It was a couple of years ago, and I haven't seen it since.

 

Although Apple took the hardware eject key away, the OEM manufacturers of the drives around that time still had them in place. Perhaps a well placed paper clip might trigger the vestigal switch?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote:

>I have filed bug reports for the (extremely serious) lack-of-verification bug against

>every version of Retrospect I've owned since I first discovered the problem in the late 1990s!

 

While this behavior could reasonably be considered to be ill-conceived, it is not a bug. The program is behaving the way it was designed to; it's the design that you feel is deficient. The engineers know how it works, so it would be the marketing department that would be keeping track of customer dissatisfaction of particular features (or lack thereof).

 

 


 

Well, since I've never heard back from Dantz, I can't say whether or not this is the designed behavior or simply a bug (or, more likely, an omission). (I can't really tell whether you are making a supposition or a definitive statement.) However, even if this is a design flaw, I think it is a flaw is so serious that it merits being considered a bug, because Retrospect is failing to do something that reasonable people expect a backup program to do. Anyway, now that EMC has assimilated Dantz, maybe another bug report is in order.

 

Quote:

> I've never reported the WindowServer bug because, well, frankly, what's the point?

 

Dunno, but while WindowServer is often sucking up more cycles then I'd like during general computer use, on my system (iMac G5/FWexternals/FileBackupSets) I don't see any particular increase when Retrospect is running, scanning or copying. Lots of cycles for Retrospect itself, true. But I see Safari being more of a problem with WindowServer then I do Retrospect. Your milage certainly varies. Maybe it's the differences in our video systems. But if it's reproducible it's probably a software defect.

 


Maybe. My computer is also quite slow compared to yours. It may be that Retrospect is updating its window at some very high rate that is having a detrimental effect on my computer, but yours is fast enough to keep up with. Okay, you've convinced me to file a real bug report on this one.

 

Quote:

>I was just hoping someone on the forums had seen the bug before and would know

>whether I can get around it.

 

I have. Probably back with 5.0x or 5.1. But I seem to recall that the Retrospect menu bar was in place, but I could be mistaken. It was a couple of years ago, and I haven't seen it since.

 

Although Apple took the hardware eject key away, the OEM manufacturers of the drives around that time still had them in place. Perhaps a well placed paper clip might trigger the vestigal switch?

 


This did occur to me. But from what I remember the last time I had to use the little button, not only did it not fix whatever program was using my drive, but the drive became non-functional until I rebooted. Inserting disks simply didn't work. I'll wait a day or two and see if anyone has another suggestion and then I'll try it. By the way, I did try the keyboard's eject key; although the nice "eject" icon appeared on the screen, the disk stayed in the drive.

 

I'm sorry for ranting at you. I know it's not very constructive, but years of frustrations with Dantz's lack of support and communication just got to me. I should not have taken it out on you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...