|
Home > Archive > Backup Software > December 2006 > alternative to Retrospect
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
alternative to Retrospect
|
|
| Speilman_54 2006-10-27, 1:12 pm |
| HI,
I've been looking for an alternative to Retrospect, as personally I
don't like the software. However I do need to have automate backups of
Mac and PC users. I've been looking but I haven't found any other
software that has that functionality. Has anyone else foung better
software than retrospect that will do both platforms.
| |
| David Arnstein 2006-10-27, 1:12 pm |
| In article <1161962052.787610.52750@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
Speilman_54 <mbednar@gmail.com> wrote:
>I've been looking for an alternative to Retrospect, as personally I
>don't like the software. However I do need to have automate backups of
>Mac and PC users. I've been looking but I haven't found any other
>software that has that functionality. Has anyone else foung better
>software than retrospect that will do both platforms.
Retrospect has "progressive backup" and "grooming." These features are
unusual, I don't know of a product that has them.
What I like about Retrospect is that it is marketed to both
individuals and enterprises. I find that pure enterprise products are
too expensive for me. On the other hand, products for the home are too
unreliable for a task as critical as backup.
When I encounter a bug in Retrospect, I don't expect the company to
fix it on my behalf. Face it, I'm a peon. However, I can hope that an
enterprise customer will also find the bug, and get the company to fix
it.
There is another product Ultrabac that is marketed to both individuals
and enterprises. I have used it in the past, it's good.
--
David Arnstein
arnstein+usenet@pobox.com
| |
| louise 2006-11-03, 1:14 am |
| I don't like Retrospect either. I find configuring it
requires learning a whole new language and that its
interface is pretty unfriendly.
But...I've been looking for a few years - it is an excellent
piece of software once you get it configured and I have
found it flawless in restoring files. The grooming works
beautifully and is an excellent design.
After a bad crash (maybe a trojan - still not sure - I
started double backups: I do an image backup with Ghost
every few weeks and a daily backup with Retrospect. I once
restored to a new hard drive with Ghost and then updated all
my data files with Retrospect. Worked perfectly!
Louise
Speilman_54 wrote:
> HI,
> I've been looking for an alternative to Retrospect, as personally I
> don't like the software. However I do need to have automate backups of
> Mac and PC users. I've been looking but I haven't found any other
> software that has that functionality. Has anyone else foung better
> software than retrospect that will do both platforms.
>
| |
| Howard Kaikow 2006-12-01, 7:15 pm |
| As others have stated, despite its poor interface, Retrospect is a sold
product, but it does suffer from being a file based backup.
Until Feb 2006, I too used Retrospect, but I then started using image based
backups, Acronis True Image 9 and Ghost 10, and now realize that there
really is no need for a file based backup,if the image based backup allows
for retrieval of files and directories AND Allows volumes to be mounted from
the image archive. Mounting allows one to do good things, such as removing a
virus from a backup and using programs such as the following with the
mounted volume:
http://www.standards.com/index.html?ReadFile
http://www.standards.com./index.htm...ypeDistribution
http://www.standards.com./index.html?CompareDrives
Also, file based backups are oh so slow.
--
http://www.standards.com/; See Howard Kaikow's web site.
| |
| (PeteCresswell) 2006-12-01, 7:15 pm |
| Per Howard Kaikow:
>Until Feb 2006, I too used Retrospect, but I then started using image based
>backups, Acronis True Image 9 and Ghost 10, and now realize that there
>really is no need for a file based backup,if the image based backup allows
>for retrieval of files and directories AND Allows volumes to be mounted from
But doesn't the volume get out of hand? I'm assuming that with images every
backup is a full backup - i.e. there can be no incrementals..
--
PeteCresswell
|
|
|
|
|