Slashdot Mirror


EMC Buying Dantz

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?"

6 of 46 comments (clear)

  1. Headline slightly misleading by Gogo+Dodo · · Score: 4, Informative

    EMC is in talks to buy Dantz, but nothing has been finalized yet.

    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"

  2. Dantz -- getting arrogant in its old age? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    I've used Retrospect since the mid-nineties, and it's an OK but slightly limited product (also a bit slow), but the company has slowly started to piss me off. Dantz is starting to seem a bit arrogant, although aside from a couple unfortunate run-ins with "support," I can't quite put my finger on it.

    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.

    1. Re:Dantz -- getting arrogant in its old age? by HonkyLips · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yes possibly, market dominance can do that...
      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 backups, and discover the phone number is no more. I call Dantz directly (another international call) and the first person I spoke to understood that I had suffered data loss and required Retrospect to restore everything ASAP. They had no record of unlock codes from the older phone system so they express-couriered me a new and current copy of Restrospect OEM which arrived by FedEx the next day. This was at their expense- something which impressed me because we never purchased Retrospect anyway, it came with the drive. Chalk up a very positive experience.
      Three years later and I move to OS-X, and go to upgrade Retrospect so it runs on the new system. I responded to an advertised special for upgrades, planing to purchase online, but the website rejected my serial number. I sent a few emails and they told me that the offer only applied to full versions of Retrospect and not OEMs. While I can understand this, the advertisement specifically made it clear that the offer applied to ALL versions of Retrospect. Having swapped a few emails clarifying this from Dantz online support, I basically concluded that their website was clearly misleading. It might sound minor but it really annoyed me.
      I never did upgrade Retrospect, I keep an old G3 running OS-9 just to run it, and swap files over a network cable.

      --
      Putting syrup in coffee is some form of blasphemy.
  3. Re:Retrospect vs. Acronis TrueImage by Gogo+Dodo · · Score: 3, Informative

    Retrospect supports not only Windows and Mac clients, but Linux and Solaris clients. The server has to run on Windows or Mac OS, but it was cool that you could backup Linux and Solaris computers. One weird quirk is Solaris clients is only supported on the Windows server. Both Windows and Mac OS servers could backup Linux clients, though.

  4. I hope they kill Retrospect for Mac by Rufosx · · Score: 2, Informative

    I bought Retrospect about a year and a half ago to do incremental backups of non-system and non-media files to cd-r's. It was a massive pile of steaming crap. It does not want to do anything but full drive backups. Ever time I did a backup, it would just keep asking for more disks to write on (a backup that was estimated at 6 disks ended up at 14). It was constantly making coasters (about 65% success rate with my Pioneer DVR-104 on good brand name media, which has never made a coaster in any program but Retrospect). And when I went back to verify a previous backup, it declared the whole set corrupted. It did not inspire confidence in me that my backups were being done correctly and would be useable when I needed them.

    They released two pay-for-upgrades in that year and a half, while not releasing any new device drivers (or driver updates) for their older versions. I was told that I should try newer drivers for my DVR-104 and that it might make fewer coasters, but I would have to pay for an upgrade just to try them.

    I switched to Apple's Backup. Its not as full featured, it doesn't do incremental and I do pay an annual fee (but it includes all .Mac stuff too). But it always works. If I want incremental, I'll use build a Linux file server and run Rync on my Mac. And if they do kill Retrospect for Mac, maybe Apple will add some of the higher end features to Backup to take its place.

    1. Re:I hope they kill Retrospect for Mac by SamTheButcher · · Score: 2, Informative
      Or maybe EMC could sell the Mac side to Apple.

      But it sounds like you've got a problem with your drive. Retro is typically a canary in a coalmine for hardware/network issues. About the full backups, if you haven't set it up correctly, it will try to do a full backup every time.