PiqueABoo

Oh I do hope that's irony. With say Server 2008 preferences this is easy-peasy, works 100% and if it's just for a user that's how you assign it i.e. with none of the assigning drive mappings to computers, hiding and unhiding nonsense.

Yep, I used the relevant attribute in a script to tell me about all the drive mappings (which is lots better than the RMMC RSI-inducing alternative). It's: rmCom2000-StnMgr-driveMappings Which holds a comma separated list of mappings for that location/station (AD OU/AD Computer object). [if you can't figure viewing that with native utils, just get SysInternals ADExplorer]

If you only knew how painful it can be when you're trying to concentrate on some seriously difficult technical job with someone who doesn't understand half the answers you give them spot-welded to your shoulder. Occasional progress visits, at least one with a coffee, and the means to get hold of you relatively quickly for info is about right.

Whatever, but last time I looked Sentinel Products was a subsidiary of RM and had been one for years.

What? As in RM Ranger? And backup?

Just found this on Technet magazine.. it's a RoboCopy GUI alternative (also does comand line] called RichCopy [internal MS app apparently started in 1996!]

One of those "vans" (car with panoramic camera bolted to the roof) got me, t'other half and sprogg walking to the park last weekend in an insignificant bit of suburbia in an insignificant town.

If you *need* AV on an MIS server then I reckon you're already not doing enough to ensure that data is secure i.e. why would malicious processes get to run on that box in the first place? AV is only as good as the latest signatures and I've seen plenty of malware breeze past those in my time. Have AV by all means, but secure configuration and practices are much better. [OTOH file servers do need AV]

Eh? Word 2007 encryption is good isn't it? As in uses AES and if you want to brute-force a half-decent password it's a relatively[1] very, very slow process. [1] Compared to some classic brute-force rates.

Exactly, except doing that in the first place is very bad practice.

Said it before somewhere, but I reckon the new versus upgrade claim is a bit of a crock. They both end up running the same software, and most of that is independent of the old CC3 bits. The reality seems to be that most of the upgrades are big sites and most of the new ones are small sites, that is the bigger the scale the more likely you are to have or notice problems. I'm not saying a parallel install is a bad idea - it's a good idea. Obviously an unloved, badly maintained CC3 might present some problems during an upgrade, but it won't affect whether some new application is buggy or not surely? I suppose the only way to settle this is for someone to point out some problems they've had that are exclusive to an upgrade. Not really. Freshly installed XP really isn't that bad on older hardware, but the real-world footprint has increased significantly in other ways during it's lifetime, for instance how much memory does a typical AV app need now?

Anyone played with or actually doing it? The bit I'm still trying to get my head round is whether you can have a scenario like this: Node1: VMa, VMb Node2: VMc, VMd Where say *only* VMb is set for high availability and then Node1 breaks so we get: Node1: broken Node2: VMc, VMd, VMb OK you almost certainly wouldn't arrange matters like that in RL, but is that right?

Does (or doesn't) that still have the 10 connections problem?

Likewise.. it's fun (in that sad techy sense) to seeing the comma stripping it didn't take me very long to notice I urgently needed to add to mine.

ShellExecuteWait(filename, parameters) worked for me last time I wanted to run an EXE with a bunch of CL switches.

It's usually after a 100,000 writes isn't it? Not something that's especially easy to do with normal use especially since some of them move things about to compensate for areas being written to a lot.

Ah.. to be honest I'm not personally concerned about this, but that is clearly a good outcome i.e. both of you deserve a pat on the head.

T'other half has that problem with a new work Toshiba... and talking of.. I understand some Toshiba models have been causing similar XP/SATA troubles.

Used a line like just that recently with my 5-yr old and that was that. She's a bit past CBeebies now, but has watched Something Special lots of times and never remarked on the kids in that. C'est la vie. There will always be people thinking/saying daft things, the biggest suprise for me is that some journo decided to make a report out of a small handful(?) doing that on some net forum... storm in a microscopic teacup.

..then it dawned on me that I'd already spent more time looking for this util than it would take to write, and it only took a couple of dozen significant lines of C# to make one Good-Enough-For-Me[tm]. The only real trick was not taking UTF8 (the encoding reported for ye olde text files) at face value, because it says that about binary files too. Not that I'm expecting to meet lots of .EXEs renamed to .TXT, but you never know - so for now I just scan through UTF8 files and if I hit a 0x00 decide it's not text. Will make it more bomb-proof sometime and post it.

::sob:: Have been getting along fine with this, but now *some* of the files I want to fiddle with in a recursive trawl through some folders are UTF-16 (unicode). Don't suppose anyone has ever seen the kind of util described at the start of the thread that also automagically handles that?

There is a *serious bias* to those anecdotes. I've seen that said a few times, often by the same people over and over for some inscrutable reason (well not really, but I'm not going to get into it), but that is simply not true on my planet: I think the majority of the CC4 issues have applied or continue to apply to both new and upgraded systems. It's a bit unreasonable to think that's such a factor considering it's the same s/w on both. The only significant distinction appears to be between big and little systems i.e. there have been some scalability issues you're not likely to hit on little systems. Watch say ten of the latter, every day, every week and you should notice all the other issues.

I forgot.. d) Have GPO support or a master config file that overrides any user config. Specifically I do NOT want to have to stuff or modify a config file in everyone's profile etc. Yes. I've only looked at the WPKG pages for some of my "favourite" apps so far, but thought the same. Can use the same silent MSIs and EXE installers. For the occasional difficult app you can make a CC package run a batch file. The CC specific bit is that they need to be put into a standard folder structure together with an INI file (CC3/CC4) or an XML file (CC4). People who manage CC networks *should* know how to do all that, but although more folk have caught on now the batch file thing isn't something RM teach on their courses. The folk in some smaller orgs might not even be up to putting an MSI in the above-mentioned folder structure. RM now make "Blueprints" which painstakingly leads the web2 generation through packaging some apps for CC, and that includes a couple of open source apps. [The process typically gets a user to install the app then uses WIX to make the MSI and CC3 package structure behind the scenes] That's every other vanilla Windows system at least. Yes you can wrap EXEs but it's much easier when you don't have to.

The most common problems I've seen (open source or otherwise): a) Needs **silent** [un]installation. MSI or EXE doesn't matter (you can wrap EXEs in an MSI for Windows native deployment). b) If an app must have it's own file open/save dialog that needs to honour relevant GPO policy e.g. not display hidden from Explorer drives and so on and so forth. Yes that's obsfucation, but it helps. c) App data needs to be saved where those now ancient Windows logo programming guidelines say it should be saved, especially if it's per user data. WIX Less is more and it works for me like that. [i wanted/needed a modified WPKG, the code is a bit Heath Robinson and there are a few too many features for my liking. I really like the "Is it installed?" thing, but that's been hijacked to also cover "Can I install here?" which can end up a bit opaque. I don't like the multiple XML "cmd"s and the attempts to get local envvars working in them etc.. better to just have one "cmd" in the package XML that calls a real batch file]

No and that's still very, very irritating. I believe USB can be removed at the same point you can remove a CD. I would NOT recommend building a low RAM (256MB) PC at all, because CC4 XP currently seems to use something like 580MB before you run anything else i.e. it will spend all it's time paging.