talksr

I was just thinking, would it also be possible to add a mac computer running Windows 7 (using bootcamp) to CC4 using the smartclient? I am guessing the rm build disk would not work with bootcamp?

Hi, I would like to, in addition to our server backing up its self on our dat tapes, I would also like it to backup our finance computer system's shared drives. I have created a new job, but the server is not backing up for this job. If I check the properties for the job, and go to Source>Resource Credentials it says: The Backup Exec Remote Agent for Windows Systems is not installed on the remote computer, or is not running, or is not the correct version. What remote agent do I need? Where can I get this from? And does it cost very much? Thanks

Wow it worked! Thanks. I have always been quite careful with RM stuff. It seems quite breakable.

Hi, I am not too sure on this one as I only usually do vanilla net maps. CC4 gives out a bunch of shares to users by default. I would like to give everyone a second public drive because the drives on our RM server are laughably small. We have a 12tb HP storage server, and I would like to give everyone access to this via a new public drive. RM said it would cost us nearly £4000 to have this storage server properly linked to CC4. Does anyone know of another way around this. I thought maybe if I right clicked over our Main site in RMMC, went to properties and then Drive Mappings, I could just add a new map but to our other server, but no. RMMC will only let me add a map from the server cc4 is on. Does anyone know of a way around this? Thanks in advance.

Hi, this is a Windows 7 and Server 2008 based issue. I have noticed on a number of my windows 7 clients, when they log out of a domain user account, as the system displays "Logging Off" If also shows something about not being able to sync the profile to the server. I have checked the event logs and there are three User Profile items in the logs. Two are warning and one is an error. In order of log off, the first says: The next warning says: And lastly, the error reads: THe middle warning is of most interest to me as it appears although the client is unable to copy part of the profile to its own drive. Does anyone have any suggestions on this?

Thanks for that, very useful. Can I run a vm on the dc server via Hyper-V? Or will it need to be on a different physical server?

I would like to set up some virtualised versions of Windows 7 for clients to access and also possibly use software deployment services.

Ah thanks, that is very useful! Didn't know about that

Hi, I would like to add the server role Remote Desktop Services to my 2008 R2 server. When I attempt to install it, it warns me: Does any one else run this on their main server? Should I be concerned? It is years since I have used terminal services - always used to use it on the frdc before. We already have HyperV installed also on this server. Any help would be great.

Hi, yes they are on Lion, I upgraded them all (had a bit of money spare in the budget, and it wasn't very much per system.

Thanks for your post. I am presuming, I can just download and add this Mac App Store - OS X Lion Server to my OS X Lion macmini.

Thanks or all of the posts and help. Just to clarify, would the macmini (or similar) need mac server to do the job, or could it get away with just running osx? We have a mac mini dual core at the moment, which may be a good one to use. Thanks again

I tried that. - Thanks anyway I thought it would be a good way of making sure it was not trying to authenticate me on the domain/workgroup of the machine I am physically working on.

Good morning everyone. My school currently uses CC4 for its curriculum network and Server 2008R2 +Windows 7 clients for its Admin network. I am interested to know if you are able to add Apple systems (whether this be OSX or Boot camp Windows 7) to the CC4 windows based network we use for curriculum. Is this an easy task to perform, or would I have to get RM $upport for this? Last time I contacted RM for help on adding a macmini running bootcamp to CC4, I was told it was not possible and that I needed an Apple support plan on my account for them to discuss this. Any help would be super.

Thanks for your post. Yes, SNB is on, workgroup, I am using vpn ip address to connect to it. It is very odd as on the local network, I can get access to it on a windows system, it just the vpn windows system which does not seem to be able to get onto it. I can ssh it fine via the vpn so I know there is connectivity.

I am trying to access a SMB share on osx on a Windows 7 system via a VPN My Windows 7 system is on a domain which does not help matters. What do I put for login details? I put my share \\5.124.142.10\ Windows Security Box shows asking for Username and Password to access osx system. I am currently putting Username and then password, but it keeps showing my windows domain name below and telling me Logon fail, unknown username or bad password. I have tried "\username" for username, as well as "macbook.local\username" and it does not like that either. I am sure it keeps trying to log me onto osx as though I was on the domain, and the OSX system is not part of any domain. Am I missing something?!!?!?!?!?

I can’t give any examples of security breaches, but if a computer linked to a school was stolen from a home, then it would be the responsibility of the head at the school for any security breaches and not the LGFL? Also, if this was the case, I would have thought the passwords on the server would be changed pretty quickly circumventing any potential security breaches from the stole equipment. I don’t know what the problem is with the LGFL allowing schools on an individual basis to unlock logmein if they agree any security breaches that occur as a result are the responsibility of the school and not LGFL. We have used LogMeIn at my school for a number of years and it is used safely and responsibly. It is a real life saver of a product, both LogMeIn Rescue (123) and also LogMeIn remote access as well as Hamachi. I can totally understand the reasoning behind the decisions by the LGFL but do not agree with the idea of blanket banning such a product. It needs to be up to the individual school in question as to whether or not they allow such a product to be used via their internet connection, which they are paying for.

Since posting my above post #34, I have been informed by Martin from Atomwide that 3rd party support providers will also be able to use CentraStage or Rav3 for free just as the schools are able to. I am glad he let me know as we were under the impression that these companies may well need to pay for subscriptions for this and we were expecting these charges would be passed down to us via our yearly subscription charges to their support service.

I can understand LGFL taking the decision to lock down on LogMeIn as they suggest it is not as secure as other methods and it does not leave a proper log so that if there ever was a security breach at a school, it would be extremely difficult to work out exactly what had happened, how etc. I fully endorse their decision to make things more secure, we would all be the first to complain if there was ever a security breach and LGFL were unable to help work out who had done it. However, the inflexible way this change is set to be implemented is a real cause for concern. Why on earth they don’t allow a school to make their own individual decision on allowing the use of LogMeIn or not I do not know. If a school chooses to allow Facebook.com on their internet filtering policy, the school first takes the decision and also accepts responsibility for any issues that may arise from this choice. I don’t know why the blocking of LogMeIn cannot be made the decision of the school head for each individual school. As some other users on the forum here have very rightly pointed out, schools have to pay for this directly from their own budgets since the HTG has stopped so unless LGFL can bend to the requirements of schools and deliver what we want, and allow things we have come to rely on, they may well see a flock of schools looking elsewhere. CentraStage – the proposed replacement for LogMeIn for LGFL 2.0 looks impressive, it boasts many features that LogMeIn does not have, however none of the support companies my school work with use this. It is going to cost them extra as they will need to pay LGFL or CentraStage a subscription to use this system and we all know where that extra cost will get passed down to. All of a sudden, LGFL’s assurance that CentraStage will be free for all schools does not ring entirely true as yes, directly the school will not have to pay, but indirectly, via our support providers, we will be as our support costs will go up as a result of this new charge.

Hi, I have one APC 750 UPS. This powers my admin server (connected via usb) and our wireless controller pc. Is there a way I can edit the default script so that when it runs during a power fail, it also shuts down the wireless controller? I am not familiar with what commands I would need to enter to do this? I also have a APC 1200 UPS which powers my curr server and is connected on usb. Our NAS storage server is also connected to this ups. Is there any way I can do a similar script so that when the power goes, the NAS gets turned off gracefully also? Any help would be great. Thanks

As InspireICT said, LogMeIn will be a real problem for us too. We receive lots of remote support using this and TeamViewer. I am really quite annoyed that only after subscribing to LGFL 2.0, some considerable months later, we get the LGFL Transition sheet (attached on the original post) mentioning that LogMeIn will be banned. I emailed Brian Durrant to tell him how unhappy I was and to ask what they have to say on the matter. He replied yesterday saying: He was wondering if I had considered taking up the offer of a day of professional delvelopment for LGFL Nominated contacts, which covers a wide range of the services and systems which make up LGFL. He said it would give me a perfect opportunity to raise the concerns in my email. hmmm.

Hi, my school uses Wauton Samuel for their MIS which uses Access as a front end. We have Server 2008 and Windows 7 pro clients. Each system is on domain and each user has their own account. Desktops are not set on gpolicy, only my docs redirection. The problem I have is that some systems have 64bit processors and others have 32bit. When a user who frequently uses a 32bit system, goes and logs into a 32bit system, they click on their waton samuel icon, and an error is thrown up as it can't get the path of the shortcut. Is there a way around this? Can I do some kind of redirection on each desktop so that the server finds the icons on the local system somewhere like C:\Icons, I could then, on each system put the correct icons in this folder? I am just trying to think of ideas to clean this problem up a little. The easiest option would be to just have two icons. One for 64bit and one for 32, but the version we have has 3 icons. MIS,Work Force Census and Web Services. I don't fancy having 4 to 6 icons on a desktop. It will make things very confusing for them. Any help would be really great.

Ok, well that is good to know. I did say in my mail to Brian that since reading the document (I think you have it attached on the original post), it raises a very serious question as to whether the LGFL 2.0 service is going to be a suitable for our school to use at this point. Hopefully he will take the hint, as well as listening to other schools complaints and do something about this.

Are we still able to jump ship so to speak, I thought we would be tied into the contract?

Shaun_Dark_Lord, I too have been very concerned about this and have also emailed Brian, no response yet. I am based in Tower Hamlets and manage a 3 form entry primary there. All of our support comanies use LogmeIn and Teamviewer so these changes would have a huge effect on us. Lets hope they can sort themselves out. I totally agree when you say: "Whatever services we have running on LGfL 1.0 should continue to work on LGfL 2.0, and at no point should our ISP be telling us what we should or should not be doing on our £30k internet connections." Lets see what happens.