Gowan Fenley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> The "Macintosh centric" feel of the product has begun to concern me. While I
> certainly have no bias against Apple (we were once an Apple shop before
> moving to NT), I hope Dantz is not struggling with a lack of depth of
> experience with NT/Win2K as compared to other vendors with a more well
> defined Wintel heritage...

Gowan, your concern is understood and perhaps not uncommon. Let me see if I
can help to alleviate it.

Retrospect for Windows was created by Windows engineers. While the interface
mirrors (mostly) our Mac product, that interface evolved over several years,
driven by customer feedback, so it's not purely a Mac interface either.
There are some areas of the interface we may be able to make more
Windows-like, and we're looking at that closely.

The architecture of Retrospect for Windows is NOT a port of the Mac product;
it has been completely redesigned from the ground up, and it is more
advanced. It just happens to look like the Mac version on the surface.

What would a "defined Wintel heritage" have given us? Legacy archive
bit-based backup technology that doesn't work. Incremental backups that
don't restore. Full backups that waste time and media, not leaving you
enough of either to back up the desktops and notebooks on the network.
Reliance on puzzling media rotation schemes, like Tower of Hanoi, which may
or may not deliver when the time comes.

We believe there's a better way to do backups--one that maximizes your
backups resources and, most importantly, will always restore. If you like,
take a look at http://www.betterbackup.com. It talks about the problems that
we see with most backup software today and how Retrospect addresses those

I hope this information is helpful to you, Gowan. It matters a lot to us
that it is, so please let us know if you have additional concerns.

Best regards,

Eric Ullman
Dantz Development

To subscribe:    [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives:        <http://list.working-dogs.com/lists/retro-talk/>
Problems?:       [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to