1) All I am saying, is adding a (free) database server adds a performance overhead, and it was very noticeable on my windows 2000 backup server which by the way is part of my domain's forest of which I have several other servers, not necessairly windows only. I note that a backup system does not absolutely require a database as noted in previous releases. I pointed out 'free' database only because 'free' means 'no guarantee of fitness' if the sh** hits the fan, so I am suspicious of anything 'free'. Of course I agree that forcing additional cost for a seperate database is out of the question, that is a no-brainer, but again, I am complaining about the necessity of even having one in the first place. This ought to be an option, not a requirement, perhaps. I also noticed the performance of changing the GUI's to that of xml based readers, which again added to performance overhead. Yes, adding more bells and whistles can be overdone or poorly planned as it seemed to be in this case, but that of course is my opinion.
2) I use v8.5 only because it is the version that happened to provide me the catalog in order to obtain the needed restores. Perhaps this implies that 11d is not completely backward compatable, I don't know. 11d failed the test for me, since I could not figure out a way to do it. Seemed like an all or nothing propositon since if any errors was detected, it failed to produce a catalog. Somehow, v8.5 provided the catalog, gave a restore list, and I could try to restore files, and if I were luckly enough not to encounter CRC errors, which aborted the restore. Overall, I was able to restore critical files, so v8.5 passed the test for me, although I know this version has bugs of it's own. I'd prefer a newer version, but 11d did not pass the test for me, so I will not buy this product version and will wait for the next release and test it. I will also be looking at other vendors as well.