"Available" and "official release" are not the same thing. As of this writing, the official release notes page still shows 7.2.4325, and checking for updates from an installation of that build indicates that it's up to date. I'm not sure why release notes for non-official builds have started appearing here, but I personally don't think it's helpful to the majority of users here. The users who are MEANT to be using those releases almost certainly have a better way to become aware of updates than this thread. For everyone else on the regular production release track, posting about non-official builds seems likely to create confusion and possibly cause users to try to track down and use builds that might not be ready for production use.
Alo, is this the NASA cosmodrome, Canaveral, Florida? Not? Ah, this is just an unofficial program forum! So why is there no place for links leading to the program website? In addition, there are curious visitors.
Actually despite the previous versions 4433 comes via the built-in Update. However it downloaded the whole package this time: https://i.imgur.com/EPDlITz.png but I was unable to install it (even if I run it as administrator and disable my security programs): https://i.imgur.com/swTFAaB.png I am not sure why it tries to create a shortcut on the Public user but something is wrong with the installer (at least on my 8.1 x64). A friend of mine was able to install it in Windows 10 x64. I am not rushing (just curious) since I like to test stuff... Nvm, for some reason the permissions on my whole C:\Users\Public were altered and I fixed the issue. I believe I know the reason for this but this is not important.
Yes, even official link ( updates.macrium.com/reflect/v7/latest_release_notes.asp ) redirects to it. http://updates.macrium.com/reflect/v7/v7.2.4433/details7.2.4433.htm
Looks like it's been pulled as 4433 is no longer available as a in program update or using Macrium downloader. I did try update earlier but got an error message trying to create rescue media. Tried again, build allowed but when tried to boot into Win RE on startup (& from ISO image) PC just gave lots of BSOD... booting from a PE build worked though. Rolled it back to 4325 and all okay again. Macrium confirms I'm 'using latest version'. Must admit, although a big fan of Reflect, Macrium's use of users as quality check guinea pigs is starting to irritate.
Confirmation from Macrium that 7.2.4433 has been pulled: https://forum.macrium.com/Topic30606.aspx Before it was retracted, I saw two threads about issues encountered after updating to 4433 created in the Macrium forum. One was a BSoD that specifically identified the CBT driver file, and another was an issue about backups not being found in the Rescue environment. The latter admittedly might be the result of changes to the Rescue Media USB driver copy behavior and/or user error or unawareness of that change. That user’s thread wasn’t all that descriptive, and Macrium asked the user to submit a support ticket, so the thread might not continue.
I noticed the second user's experience when I was able to enter the rescue environment (PE Build) ~ normally Macrium will show the list of images on any disks attached so for myself they're on a second internal HD (E:/) but these were not shown. There was no issue however navigating to those images or exploring/restoring etc. The RE build of the rescue environment didn't work at all using a boot menu or a dvd with rescue media... I repeatedly got BSOD (stopcode/Kernal Error) when it started to load networking and I couldn't get past that. Version 4325 doesn't have either issue.
If you've still got a Rescue build from the retracted release, did you check the "Folders to search" list that governs the backups that get displayed under the Restore tab? Did it contain the expected paths (which should have been copied from the same list that the Reflect installation within Windows has)? If that was correct, was the drive that contains your backups assigned the same letter in Rescue that it was in Windows? Normally there is absolutely no guarantee of consistent drive letter assignments in WinPE/RE compared to "full" Windows because they're totally independent and unaware of each other, but Macrium takes some steps to achieve that where possible in Rescue -- but that doesn't work in all situations, and if the drive letter assignments don't match, then the paths in "Folders to search" won't be useful even if they exist as expected, and therefore you won't see any backups. But in that case, you should still be able to add a path to the appropriate folder in "Folders to search" to cause your backups to appear.
Eventually you folks who are using all these unOfishul builds will learn... I'm not sure when Play away if you are so inclined... This Forum is not a sandbox playground, folks... it's a user support Forum dealing with Macrium REFLECT. And most, if not all, of the advanced users of this product cannot offer any support to those using non-public (unreleased) builds... why, because we don't use them. It's a waste of time to play with unreleased software unless you're part of some sort of BETA release program. Those programs usually only exist prior to a new major version release. In-version releases and updates deal with encountered problems beyond normal regression testing, and are usually tested by users who reported the original problem, not BETA teams. JP is right... making this kind of unreleased information available (yes, @aldist , it's all unreleased information, regardless whether someone scrapes it from the web or not) offers nothing but confusion to ordinary users, and eventually, possibly some serious problems when trying these unofficial releases. I don't know how many of you have been part of corporate BETA test programs, but believe me they can be sordid and troublesome. I don't think that's what most users have in mind when they "play" (test) with software... it can be brutal. Once again I will suggest... you should stay away from these types of releases. if possible.
I didn't really think of it to be honest as images were easy enough to navigate to/list. Each time I generate rescue media I just do a quick check to see whether environment loads and I can perform basic operations on a saved image... just in case I have to use in a recovery situation.
Good point.. apart from the fact this was an official release subsequently pulled by Macrium only after some users had received prompt to update existing version in-program, done so and started to experience issues.
Mine showed the update notification in the bar and when I went to click on it it said it was already up to date.
Same. I got a Windows notification earlier (last few hours) 4433 was available, so went to check MR. But it does not offer update, even with check, and 4325 shows as latest. So, pulled ... as per link posted by @jphughan in #7558 above. So it is not about playing, just a it of a mess it seems ...
Totally different issue, Paul. v4433 was indeed released then pulled very quickly due to some sort of issue. This is primarily due to shoddy regression testing and QC, of which Macrium has been experiencing somewhat since the original release of v7. IMHO, this process changed quite a bit between v6 & v7... I have no idea why. Here's an example of a released build that contained issues that weren't properly caught during their testing phase. How risky are unreleased builds that may not have even entered this phase of Quality Control. That's why I warn users...
In that case, I personally think that users who choose to post release notes and download links for non-production builds should at least note that they are non-production -- or if they don't know that for certain, they could at least call out that the release doesn't appear to be available through conventional channels as of the time of the post. If you just post release notes and download links, an unwitting user might just assume it's a production update and click the download link, install it, and end up with who knows what sort of problems. Of course one can argue that the user could have avoided that by being more cautious and updating only through "official" means rather than download links posted on an unofficial forum, and that's true -- but I would argue that the person who chose to post download links on an unofficial forum could ALSO do a bit more to provide fair warning. Negative outcomes can more reliably be avoided when everyone involved tries to do a bit more rather than everyone doing the bare minimum and pointing out that someone else could have done something differently instead to avoid the negative outcome.
As I mentioned in my Post#7537, I don't even understand why so many users are jumping on the latest and greatest official release updates until they even know what the update is providing. If you have a version that is working well for you (ie, @Peter2150 ), why risk the updates until you have a problem that even relates to the update being presented. To me, that sounds risky... (as seen by v4433).
This discussion is starting to sound like a lot of "blame the user" for installing the update we were presented with by the program earlier today. By the time it hits that point it should be reasonable to assume it has been through proper testing and is safe to install. I installed on one PC to test before it was pulled. I did not go looking for it. This is the kind of thing that loses customers.
