Can't install 12.0 Remote Agent on Windows 7

[jleach]

I installed Windows 7 RTM on my machine.  It blocks me from installing the Backup Exec 12.0 Remote Agent, citing a compatibility problem.  I installed the latest service packs and hotfixes on the server, but that did not change the result.  Any suggestions?

[Philip_D]

Windows 7 isn't officially supported yet, but have you tried running the installer in XP/Vista compatibility mode?

-Philip

[jleach]

Yes.  Setup gets a little bit further in XP compatibility mode, but fails trying to install Windows Installer.  Any ETA on Windows 7 support for the 12.0 agent?

[Hemant_Jain]

I dont see any plans of providing support for Windows 7 or Windows 2008 R2 in Backup Exec 12.0.

Thanks

Post Edited by Ben L. due to incorrect information.

[jleach]

Great.  So, the software I bought only 13 months ago is already obsolete?  I don't know how vendors can get away with not supporting a minor OS upgrade like Windows 7 on supported products.  I have no intention of upgrading our entire backup system for this.  Will I at least be able to buy a 12.6 remote agent for my Windows 7 machines and use with the 12.0 server?

[teiva-boy]

 You buy a product with maintenance so that you can get free upgrades, as well as updates to support NEW OS's.  


In a sense 12 is obsolete, as 12.5 was released, that improved sharepoint support, supports virtual machine backups, better NDMP support, as well as more OS support.  I think it's a pretty good upgrade.  The coming BackupExec 2010 looks even better, leaving all the previous versions obsolete.

When Win7(and Win2k8 R2 as well) is actually released, Symantec will follow suit to support it then, usually with a hotfix to the current shipping version.  Which is 12.5.

I know of a lot of folks that still run 11d, and 9.  Do you think Symantec should support them too with Win7 support and Win2k8?

[Philip_D]

This is probably pointless, but did you try in Vista compatibility mode?  Vista is a lot closer to 7 than XP is, especially in terms of 3rd party software compatibility.

Though, I'm guessing that since the Symantec guys didn't suggest this, it probably won't work.

[jleach]

Hmmm... I don't recall if my product came with maintenance.  I bought 12.0 as a package deal through Dell, so I'll have to check.  I agree with paying for feature upgrades, but apparently 12.5 was released only two months after I bought 12.0, and the prospect of paying for it again is frustrating.  Now, it sounds like they will be hitting customers again with 12.6.  I hope that you are correct and Win 7 support will be free for 12.5 customers.  Charging for an O/S upgrade is double-dipping in my book. 

As far as your question, I think new O/S patches should be provided for versions that are officially supported.  Has official support already ended for 12.0?  The answer might be different for 11d and 9.

Thanks,

Joel

[windows7user]

same goes for 11d. wierd is that is did work on the RC op windows 7.
and now with the RTM it does'nt work anymore.
we've got 150 server with exchange 2003.

as soon as windows 7 goes live (22 oktober) we will kick out backup exec.
(if they will not support windows 7 pretty soon)

[mjaarons]

After searching for over an hour through everything I could find on the Symantec sites this thread was the only thing that mentioned the Backup Exec Remote Agent and Windows 7 in the same breath.

There is nothing on the Symantec website that I can find addressing what version(s) of Backup Exec support Remote Agents on Windows 7 (32 or 64-bit).  Does this mean W7 is not going to be supported at all?  If so, can anyone recommend another backup solution?

It has taken months to get 12.0 working in a stable fashion.  I can't believe that Symantec would even consider making people upgrade their entire enterprise to support even one Windows 7 workstation.  Wait, hold that thought, I can believe it.

So Symantec, what is the official word.  What do we need to support RAWSx64 on Windows 7?  Can it be done with 12.0?

[teiva-boy]

 If it's not 12.5 via a hotfix, it'll be in BE2010 which is in BETA NOW.  You can sign up for it on this forum.

If you have a valid support contract, you are entitled to get 12.5 free.

As for older versions of BE or the like, I still dont see the logic in why a company should provide updates to it to support new OS's?  It's like why should my 1986 Ford Taurus be made to run on E85?  The car is not made anymore and out of warranty, but it's Ford's fault for not supporting E85 fuel?

[jleach]

According to the Symantec rep above, there are no plans to support Windows 7 on 12.0.  Maybe that will change when they get more complaints.  As a workaround, I am entering UNC paths to the Windows 7 machine on the View Selection Details tab.  It doesn't have the features/speed of the Remote Agent and I get warnings in the backup log, but the data is getting backed up.

[mjaarons]

teiva-boy,

Thanks for the info.

In regard to your question about  ISVs supporting older versions, here is why I think ISVs have to do this (to at least a reasonable extent).:

The reason ISVs need to provide support for "older" versions is not because IT organizations are inherently cheap, it's because IT organizations need to keep things running in a steady state.  This is why most companies are still on XP and only now looking to move to W7.  The glacial pace is not because of lazyness or parsimony, but because everything needs to keep working, every day for the business to keep running.  IT doesn't have the luxury of constantly doing micro-upgrades (even if they are sometimes major versions).

In your car analogy I would say it's more a case of being able to get parts for that 1986 Taurus than have it add new features.  Many people received 12.0 as bundled sotware from vendors like Dell and HP when they bought new server packages within the past 18 months.  Even if  the 12.5 upgrade is "free" it isn't really free, there is a big cost of time in upgrading the servers (which means reboots) and then configuration and testing to make sure it works and plays well with everything else.  Factor into this the "free" remote agent upgrades that need to be (hopefully) pushed to all those desktops and the problem grows worse.

In many ways this is why SANs and other centralized storage have grown so popular, yes they can easily cost $1 million or more, but the payback in labor savings can justify the price.

Steve Jobs once said something like the equation for progress in technology companies was equal to their creativity minus the backward drag of the installed base.  Unfortunatley, unless you are like Apple and willing to just jettison the old users every time you come out with something new, supporting that backward drag is a necessary burden.  (IMO this is one reason why Apple never got widespread corporate acceptance -- creative yes - maintainable in large installations only if you are willing to constantly upgrade and pay for new HW/SW.)

That's my two cents.