EMC Buying Dantz 46
Bug-Y2K writes "Looks like storage giant EMC, is buying longtime Mac software company Dantz Develpment. Dantz, makers of Retrospect have been the leader in backup technology for the Mac OS since dinosaurs roamed the earth. Mindshare has been slipping of late but the product is known for being better at restores than anything out there. I wonder what lies in store for Retrospect now?"
Headline slightly misleading (Score:5, Informative)
However, usually somebody reporting that these types of discussions are going on means that it will happen, but as the article says "it's never done until it's done"
Re:Headline slightly misleading (Score:3, Funny)
On Slashdot? Surely there must be some mistake.
I find this funny. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I find this funny. (Score:4, Insightful)
Well that's concerning, because if they're buying it for Windows features... well, the Mac stuff may be "de-prioritised" (or insert suitable euphemism here), leaving us without forward development of the main backup software for the platform...
-- james
Retrospect for Windows (Score:3, Insightful)
Doesn't always have to be that way. Don't forget that Dantz was already developing it for both platforms. The good thing about Retrospect is that it worked pretty much the same way on both platforms. Also another reason for Retrospect's success on Windows is it's ease of use compared to Windows Backup (at least the one that came with NT4)
Re:Retrospect for Windows (Score:5, Interesting)
I hope they kill Retrospect for Mac (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I hope they kill Retrospect for Mac (Score:2)
My failure rate with Retrospect, at something on the order of 80% disc failure rate (i.e. a di
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I find this funny. (Score:5, Interesting)
Apple's xSan (real soon now) and the xServe RAID are actually generating interest in the enterprise market. Lots of net admins KNOW that they need something more 'beefy' than Windows to run their SANs, and Apple is making what looks like drop-dead easy and super-cheap SANs a reality.
Trust me, the admin at my work came to my desk yesterday and asked if I could prepare a report for consolidating storage on Apple metal instead of Dell. Dell wants to sell us more SCSI equipment, which is total overkill for our needs. We don't need the throughput of 36 SCSI drives in a RAID5, it's not worth the cost compared to something like the xServe RAID.
Also, our CIO has been pushing for OpenDirectory instead of AD, to make it easier for our databases, vendors, and appliances to tie-in. And I can make OD and SAMBA work together and perform better than AD. All this is probably gonna happen on Apple metal, at least until the admins are comfy enough with *NIX to move to straight-BSD.
EMC's purchase of Dantz is part of EMC's long-term plan to become a software vendor. I bet they license retrospect to Apple in the xSan, and other vendors in their NAS and SAN projects.
Concerning Dell SAN (Score:2)
We gave up and bought about 14 nStors. Never been happier.
Re:Concerning Dell SAN (Score:2)
Well I stayed away from them from the get-go. (Score:2)
2) Powering it with Windows NT 5.2 with some bullshit Microsoft-supplied NAS configuration patches.
I mean, how retarded is that? All the loveliness of a full-blown windows install with half the ability to configure it properly... it's the worst of both worlds.
3) NOBODY USES WINDOWS FOR FILE-SERVING. I mean, I suspect even Microsoft knows that. They call DFS a filesystem, but it's nothing like that. It's implemented by just storing UNC paths in
Re:I find this funny. (Score:1)
It works with most backup applications, but ISV/OEM integration is better than running it standalone. Anyone can download the standalone version from BetaNews (search for "Volume Snapshot"). It support NT 4.0 all the way up to Server 2003.
Well, why is it... (Score:2)
Re:Well, why is it... (Score:1)
Retrospect vs. Acronis TrueImage (Score:2)
I did a eval of backup solutions, and Acronis won hands-down for ease of use; it's saved me big time several times this year. I'm a very satisfied customer.
Re:Retrospect vs. Acronis TrueImage (Score:2)
One problem with Acronis: no Mac support that I can see.
Retrospect supports both Macintosh and Windows, a definite plus. Especially since this was posted in the Apple section of Slashdot...
Re:Retrospect vs. Acronis TrueImage (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Retrospect vs. Acronis TrueImage (Score:1)
Hi Anton
Dantz -- getting arrogant in its old age? (Score:5, Informative)
Version 5 was advertised as supporting Windows and Macintosh servers and workstations, which was great because I still had an old AppleShare IP file server to backup, plus a couple windows and OS X boxes. Unfortunately version 5, despite being advertised as compatible with AppleShare IP, was not. Period. There was a known bug that Dantz said was Apple's fault (maybe it was, but version 4 didn't have the same problem...) that crashed the server every half hour or so. The workaround: use version 4. Dantz didn't give a flying &*#% that it didn't work once they had my money, and I was stuck with a few hundred dollars of unusable software. Plus they were jerks in the smuggly arrogant way they told me I was SOL.
Well, finally the Appleshare IP server was gone so I optimistically thought I might be able to finally use version 5. No dice. It's basically not compatible with OS X, and definitely not compatible with OS X 10.3, and really definitely not at all compatible with 10.3 Server.
Unfortunately at this point due to circumstances beyond my control I had to get X 10.3 Server integrated with the rest of the backups in a hurry, so I grudingly purchase version 6. But when I go to install it I'm told I don't have a valid software key. The key included with the product doesn't work, neither does the key from the old version, nor anything else remotely key-like that I can find. A gruff dude at Dantz tells me definitively and mockingly that I don't need a key to install the upgrade. Except the upgrade won't launch without a key. Ok. Call back Dantz. They make an enormous fuss about it being an upgrade and how I didn't register the previous version, and how could I possibly have an upgrade if I hadn't registered by previous copy? I told them that the previous copy didn't work, I never used it, and that there was no clearly apparent reason to fill out the registration card anyway (do people actually register retail software?). Then I was told to use my old registration key (the one that didn't work). "Are you sure it doesn't work?" Yes. I was told I'd be sent a new registration key by email in a couple minutes. Carefully verified email address. Waited...next day no key. Call back Dantz. Explain the situation again. The customer service rep is shocked and amazed that it's possible to buy an upgrade to their product from a retailer. I eventually convince her I did not download the upgrade and that I did not receive a key in an email with the software that I did not download. I explain that I was told I'd receive a key in an email that should have been sent the day before. Then I'm told, there's no record of a key being sent. (Eureka! I think we were starting to communicate.) She promises to send a key...and against all odds it finally arrived.
Now I'm successfully using the product, but the company exudes a smelly fog of bumbling arrogance. So far it doesn't seem to have hit their programming team, but I'm not impressed. Especially with so many other backup solutions out there, of varying price & capability, I hesitate to recommend the product to others.
Re:Dantz -- getting arrogant in its old age? (Score:3, Informative)
I've had two experiences with Dantz- one positive and the other negative.
In 1996 our 8mm Exabyte drive came bundled with an OEM version of Retrospect, and to activate it we had to make an international phone call (I'm in Australia) to receive an unlock code. No problems. Jump forward to 1999 and I have a hard-drive failure- my system drive with all applications on it. I replace the drive and go to re-install Retrospect so I can restore everything else from my
I no longer use retrospect (Score:2)
so far this is not retropects fault as any differential backup syste has this weak link. But what pissed me off was that I could not get
Re:Dantz -- getting arrogant in its old age? (Score:1)
Dantz Patents (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Dantz Patents (Score:4, Insightful)
That's no rumor: Dantz came right out and said it at the time.
Put this in your file of "patents that should be invalidated, because what they cover is obvious to one skilled in the art." Keeping a catalog of what you backed up? Give me a break.
Re:Dantz Patents (Score:2)
not a first (Score:2)
Re:not a first (Score:2)
Re:not a first (Score:1)
EMC's Legato acquisition is actually why their current discussions with Dantz surprises me. The question you have to ask with any acquisition is "what's in it for the acquiring company?" Unless they're specifically looking for Mac support, or, as another poster suggest, patent ownership, I have a hard time seeing where Dantz fits in w
Re:not a first (Score:2)
that should have been 'somewhat limited MAC support'. they release a client, console only, and that's where it ends.
Thank goodness 10.4 will work with rsync (Score:1)
Re:Thank goodness 10.4 will work with rsync (Score:1)
After reading this, and generally being a little let down by MacOS backup solutions, I'm very glad 10.4 will give proper support for rsync.
Rsync is not a proper backup solution. Yes, you can make a back-up with it, and yes, it will only backup the modified files, but it won't give you a history, you will just have the latest snapshot of your drive. Good for disaster recovery (crash, fire, you name it), but that's about it.
At my work we have Retrospect doing daily incremental backups, and we keep all
Version 5 caused me to lose faith (Score:2, Interesting)
I used to use Retrospect... (Score:1)
I'd done several backup/restore tests to ensure everything worked fine, and it did. But when the sh*t hit the fan and I REALLY needed it to come through for me, it failed to do the job it was designed to do. I've never used it since, nor will I ever consider trying it again.
For you Star Trek fans: Fool me once, shame on me, fool me twice...
I don't even bother with traditional backups
Retrospect... garbage (Score:1)
Re:Retrospect... garbage (Score:1)
looks like you've never used this product. I've used, sold, and supported it since it first appeared. it's had problems from the first day and still does.
Amanda (Score:2)
I am looking for a cross-platform backup solution, but the per-seat charges on all proprietary solutions are a bit prohibitive (the hardware was hard enough to obtain!).
Legato Connection (Score:1)
Hopefully we'll see a 'consumer' version of Networker, which is way overpriced for at home. [I was priced almost $2k for the OS X support pak. For three machines? No thanks.]