What fixes are in Update 1 ?
Received a note that Update 1 is about 2-3 weeks out. Can we PLEASE receive a matrix on currently known bugs and their planned disposition within the release cycle? I understand that the NAS errors are planned for this update, but I have personally reported 7 other bugs and have seen reports of still more.
Some of us are really hanging out here and any information would help plan for our situations. In all fairness, we deserve a response -- considering all that we have put up with on the initial release.
From memory, included several items in the open cases – found a bunch of items in very short order and did not want to take the time to open separate issues for each. Will find the originals and submit separate ones for each issue if that helps the tracking.
As a summary, here are issues that surfaced when upgrading to 2012 from 2011.
1. Browsing network shares takes a long time and sometimes appears to ‘lockup’ prior to the directory tree begin populated. The function 'appears' to not work at all, but believe that it's working, just an extremely long lag.
2. Backing-up to network assets (NAS) sometimes forces a ‘full’ backup, when only an incremental is scheduled because 2012 can’t process existing meta-data.
3. Backup deletion function removes backup chain members outside of the dependency and corrupts subsequent backup chains.
4. Periodically, 2012 fails to process open outlook pst files
5. Backing-up full+incremental chains repeatedly inserts an extra ‘full’ in the cycle if manual cleanup is enabled – regardless of the ‘do not delete first backup’ button selection. The chain becomes full+full+incremental+... This occurs for file backups and not disk backups.
6. Date indicated in the ‘last backup’ status is sometimes one day removed from the actual last date of backup.
7. Disk cloning functionality won’t write a correct boot sector when OS running from the cloned drive. Reboot won’t boot to the new device.
8. Random complete backups are inserted in a full+incremental chain. These backups are marked as ‘incremental’ in the backup browser, but in fact contain the entire contents of the source disk. Either the metadata is not being processed, or the source is being incorrectly processed. This occurs in file backups not disk backups.
Upon failure, new scripts were developed to eliminate any ‘update’ translation problems from 2011 scripts. Note, these source and destination assets were completely stable from 2010, 2011 and now have issues with 2012. Also note the majority of the issues seem to occur with the file backup process rather then the disk backup process -- however, i don't use disk backups all that often, so may not have as much experience as others.
Many software shops post a weekly dump of their bug log to user forums to provide status for future updates. While I can check my cases, it does not really let me know when/if they will be fixed. Also, many others have experienced these issues; so much duplication could be avoided if visibility is provided to all bug log activity.
Tried to create individual bug reports to help Acronis track these issues. However, the 30-day ppi has expired on my account. I ran into difficulty creating the bug reports -- didn't remember you needed a current ppi to report bugs. Is this something new?
In any case, I sent the list to Customer Service and will let them create the tickets. I also suggested that submitting bug reports should not be tied to ppi -- bugs are general to the product and not tied to anyone in particular. Also suggested that with so many bugs in 2012, that ppi should be extended beyond 30 days for folks -- seems only fair.
I find it interesting to note that several of these issues are similar to issues described when ATIH 2011 was first released. It's like going backwards in time! Not that ATIH 2011 is devoid of issues now, mind you.
Thank you for the detailed and complete post(s). I don't know that I'll ever upgrade my ATIH software, but there must be some hope buried down inside me somewhere 'cuz I continue to bee-bop into this forum from time to time in order to check on the state of 2012.
With the latest build, 2011 has been quite stable for me (and I think for many others). In general, I find that 2011 has a decent reputation at the customer level. The orphan file and random meta-data errors occur in 2011 as well, but not all that often -- for me. Really only two items concern me:
1. Several of these errors are fairly ‘course’ in nature and should have been obvious at the unit-test or integration-test level and certainly at a QA/QC and RC levels. This is supported by numerous folks independently finding/reporting/recreating the issues. Is the Acronis QA process robust enough for something as mission critical as backup software? The answer is as obvious as rhetorical.
2. The build should not have been released with these errors – they were just too obvious. It begs the question: Acronis knew about the issues, but needed the revenue from upgrade licensing and sought to ‘fix the issues in production’ prior to their being widely reported. Again, we’ll never get an answer on that one either… Just some feedback in case some decision makers review customer forums…
didn't remember you needed a current ppi to report bugs. Is this something new?
Acronis policy is to demand a fee upfront for the PPI as you file the support request, and to reimburse it if the issue is a software bug. I personally think that a 30 day-support period is not adequate when ATI fixes bugs over a period of a year, and introduces new bugs in the process (like we have seen with ATI 2011). I have given that feedback to Acronis and they answered they had carefully designed their support policy and estimated that is the one that most fully satisfies their customers. Once again, I realized I was a user, not a market :-)
==> upfront for the PPI as you file the support request
would agree if the request was for support. I was filing bug reports for which there was no need for support other than fixing the SW.
pay-as-you-go for a support request is a fairly standard model... But when you release something as buggy as 2012, something has to give... In all fairness to Acronis, no matter how you measure it, this is a very poor quality release. Haven't seen anything as bad as this since Adobe CS3... Adobe waived support fees for months until 3.01 and 3.02 was released, then back to the pay-as-you-go model.
I have given that feedback to Acronis and they answered they had carefully designed their support policy and estimated that is the one that most fully satisfies their customers. Once again, I realized I was a user, not a market :-)
I really don't understand this: What does Acronis mean with "carefully designed their support policy" ?? What do they mean with "coustomer satisfaction" ??
I think, it's just a bad joke, that a company limits the support to 30 days --- well-knowing, that their product has major bugs !
It's an unbounded cheek, to let the user PAY to get a buggy product and then let him PAY again for the "service" to report bug in order to "finalize" the product. I just cant hear arguments like "reimbursing the fee, when the issue is a bug" as the cases when a "bug" is acknowledged are very rare...
Hey guys: Did you already hear about the way, implied warranty is in many countries ?? In doubt, the manufacturer (!) has to prove, that his product is free of a fault and not the customer has to prove, that a fault exists ! And: The customer never may have to pay in advance to get serviced concerning implied warranty !
Hello all,
Thank you very much for your feedback.
You can always submit your own feedback to our Customer Listening System from this link or contact our Management team directly.
hhansard, I have forwarded your team to our Management team and we are going to work on all the issues that you reported.
If you need help with your cases feel free send me a private message.
Please let me know if you have additional questions.
Thank you.
@Anton. Thanks for forwarding to Management. I hope you can follow-up in a few days with feedback as to:
1. what the fixes are and when these fixes will be in place
2. some idea of the process improvement so that this doesn't happen again
3. what is going to be done about ppi until 2012 is at least considered stable by the majority of forum members.