mjbolzan Posted April 25, 2003 Report Share Posted April 25, 2003 Is there a link somewhere which clearly states what versions of OS X Retrospect 5 is certified to run on? I thought I had found such a statement in the past but cannot find it now. My assumption is that Dantz puts Retrospect through a test cycle whenever a patch version of the OS is released. Currently have RS 5.0.238 server running on OSX 10.2.2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AmyJ Posted April 25, 2003 Report Share Posted April 25, 2003 http://www.dantz.com/index.php3?SCREEN=kbase&ACTION=KBASE&id=27638 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjbolzan Posted April 25, 2003 Author Report Share Posted April 25, 2003 That's as good as it gets? Unless I missed something, it's not too explicit. It appears to me then that you certify the major releases (10.1, 10.2, etc) but assume Retrospect continues to work on all dot updaters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AmyJ Posted April 28, 2003 Report Share Posted April 28, 2003 Quote: It appears to me then that you certify the major releases (10.1, 10.2, etc) but assume Retrospect continues to work on all dot updaters. This is essentially true. However, with all the changes made in each OS X release, we may not have completed testing before the public is able to download. Sometimes the "dot" updaters break something important. Major OS overhauls may require an application upgrade with Retrospect. There are a lot of factors to consider. That being said, the current OS build is 10.2.5, and we haven't seen any new issues crop up that I'm aware of. Hope that helps! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjbolzan Posted April 28, 2003 Author Report Share Posted April 28, 2003 Now I'm confused all over again. Your statements seem to say, you don't test, but then you do test but the results may not be finished before the dot updaters come out. I consider department backup important and will not update the server until I know it is safe to do so. You've told me that 10.2.5 appears to be OK. What I'm looking for is some document which explicitly lists-- 1) The dot updaters you have tested and are testing. 2) Which dot updaters have currently passed testing. I think this document would be very helpful to other users too who wish to be conservative about their updating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CallMeDave Posted April 28, 2003 Report Share Posted April 28, 2003 Quote: Your statements seem to say, you don't test, but then you do test but the results may not be finished before the dot updaters come out. That's not how I read AmyC's post. I take her as saying "with all the changes made in each OS X release, we may not have completed testing before the public is able to download (the OS X release updater)." So it sounds as if Dantz probably gets the chance to test OS X updates before they're relased to the public, but that their testing process takes longer then Apple's pre-release offerings. Or even more likely (given how the rumor sites track the release versions of OS X updates) Dantz doesn't get the release version of any given updater any sooner then you or I do. >>I consider department backup important and will not update >>the server until I know it is safe to do so That sounds prudent. I wouldn't recommend updating _any_ production machine to _any_ new version of OS X until finding out if the software you use works reliably. That being said, I don't know of any software vendor who promises that their software will work at all; all the licenses I've taken the time to actually read make it clear that it's all "use at your own risk." Dantz seems safe in saying that "it seems to work." I don't know how they could legally say anything more reassuring then that. Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjbolzan Posted April 29, 2003 Author Report Share Posted April 29, 2003 Quote: I take her as saying "with all the changes made in each OS X release, we may not have completed testing before the public is able to download (the OS X release updater)." So it sounds as if Dantz probably gets the chance to test OS X updates before they're relased to the public, but that their testing process takes longer then Apple's pre-release offerings. i thought that's what i said. maybe it isn't. the point i am trying to make is--it sounds like they do some testing but they do not communicate that fact or the results to the outside world in a systematic way. they are the experts and i would like to have even a lukewarm "this is safe" from them before proceeding to update. The current choice of waiting for X number of users to slap it in and then monitoring the forum for screams seems pretty haphazard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CallMeDave Posted April 29, 2003 Report Share Posted April 29, 2003 >I would like to have even a lukewarm "this is safe" from them before proceeding to update. The statement that AmyC gave seemed pretty lukewarm. >The current choice of waiting for X number of users to slap it in and then >monitoring the forum for screams seems pretty haphazard. Gosh, I certainly didn't read _that_ into her posts! Given that Apple is updating OS X several times a year (10.2, 10.2.1, 10.2.2, 10.2.3, 10.2.4, 10.2.5, and now 10.2.6 is rumored to be on its way) Dantz might have to spend all of its time testing its products against Apple's updates and have no time left to make improvements! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AmyJ Posted April 29, 2003 Report Share Posted April 29, 2003 We test each release that comes out. We don't necessarily have the OS X releases before they are made public, nor do we always have time to fully test before they are made public. As with any software release, it is impossible to test every possible scenario and every possible configuration. We can't guarantee that you won't see problems with Retrospect in 10.2.5, but as previously stated, we haven't found problems to date that are due to new incompatibilities. Quote: 1) The dot updaters you have tested and are testing. 2) Which dot updaters have currently passed testing. We do not currently have such a list compiled. Suggestions and requests are certainly welcome and considered. Please follow the following feedback link: http://www.dantz.com/en/support/feedback.dtml Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjbolzan Posted April 30, 2003 Author Report Share Posted April 30, 2003 Quote: We do not currently have such a list compiled. Suggestions and requests are certainly welcome and considered. I submitted a survey response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.