RE: KB958644

[Ziots, Edward]

NO problems with the MS08-067 Patch, and Dam that was COLD TVK... Funny
but Cold.

 

Z

 

Edward E. Ziots

Network Engineer

Lifespan Organization

MCSE,MCSA,MCP,Security+,Network+,CCA

Phone: 401-639-3505



From: Tim Vander Kooi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2008 7:49 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: KB958644

 

That how far back Don regression tests his wives. :-P

 

 

From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2008 5:32 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: KB958644

 

They probably only regression tested back to 1987.

 

From: Todd Lemmiksoo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2008 3:05 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: KB958644

 

Anyone have any issues with the RPC/SMB patch? One of my users is saying
it effected his ProComm. In that all the dialup modem settings reset to
defaults.

Todd Lemmiksoo 
Network Administrator 

All-Mode Communications, Inc. 
1725 Dryden Road 
Freeville, New York  13068 
(607) 347-4164 x440 
1-877-ALLMODE  (toll free) 
http://www.all-mode.com   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

Re: Simple Citrix Q

[James Rankin]

Load the Loopback Policy Processing GPO for the Citrix servers, and apply
the redirect MyDocs GPO to the OU containing your Citrix servers

2008/10/27 David Lum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

>  We have a small Citrix environment and I'm looking to redirect "My
> Documents" (for the Citrix sessions ONLY)  to *Z:\Documents and
> Settings\%USERNAME%\My Documents*, but only for the Citrix session and
> leave the non-Citrix settings alone. We already have the C: drive remapped,
> so should I just be able to GPO this? Point it to say Z:\Documents and
> Settings\%USERNAME%\My Documents?  As long as that Z: path doesn't exist the
> GPO should ignore it right?
>
> *David Lum** **// *SYSTEMS ENGINEER
> NORTHWEST EVALUATION ASSOCIATION
> (Desk) 971.222.1025 *// *(Cell) 503.267.9764
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

Java Update Promises to Remove Older Versions

[Peter van Houten]

For anyone on the list not subscribed at patchmanagement.org:
-

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2008/10/java_update_promises_to_remove.html

Java Update Promises to Remove Older Versions

*Sun Microsystems* has released another version of its *Java* software
client. The update, JRE6 Update 10
, contains no new
security fixes to the most recent version, *JRE6 Update 7*, but it does
appear to fulfill a promise the company made long ago to stop littering
users' PCs with outdated, insecure versions of the software.

---
When posting or replying to messages on this list, please send all
emails in plain text format. HTML formatted messages will not be accepted.

PatchManagement.org is hosted by Shavlik Technologies

To unsubscribe send a blank email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
If you are unable to unsubscribe via this email address, please email
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

Dell Near-Line SAS

[Oliver Marshall]

Chaps,

 

Dell near-line SAS drives, are they worth a look at ? The cost is
clearly tempting, but I struggle to see whether there is any real-world
return on a disk running at 7200RPM compared with something like SATA at
the same RPM speed.

 

Olly

 

--

G2 Support

Online Backups 

 

Email:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 

Web:http://www.g2support.com  

 

 


~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

[OT] UK based linux SVN/Trac freelancer needed

[Oliver Marshall]

Chaps,

Can anyone recommend a UK based Linux SVN/Trac freelancer who can have a
look at a server setup for us?

Olly

--
G2 Support
Online Backups 

Email:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web:http://www.g2support.com




~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

RE: Simple Citrix Q

[Phil Thompson]

I don't have Citrix but doesn't it have to work off the MS Terminal Server? My 
TS profiles point to my D:, this keeps my C: from clogging up. The still have a 
local window profile with Critix?

If this the case you change their profile folder in the registry.

HKEYLmachine/Software/Microsoft/Widows NT/CurrentVersion/ProfileList

Put the new path in - ProfileImagePath and CentralProfile

Then in the AD - user's profile - Terminal Server Profile - Put the path of the 
new profile.

If you need to 'move' their profile folder on the server you can use xcopy /p 
/s /h

Hope this is what you were looking for. It works good for me. We have 40 users 
on our TS.

Phil
From: David Mazzaccaro [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2008 7:09 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Simple Citrix Q

This is what I do:
Create a GPO "my docs redirect" and only apply it to the a group "citrix users"
Only the members of "citrix users" will have the GPO apply to them.




From: David Lum [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2008 6:32 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Simple Citrix Q
We have a small Citrix environment and I'm looking to redirect "My Documents" 
(for the Citrix sessions ONLY)  to Z:\Documents and Settings\%USERNAME%\My 
Documents, but only for the Citrix session and leave the non-Citrix settings 
alone. We already have the C: drive remapped, so should I just be able to GPO 
this? Point it to say Z:\Documents and Settings\%USERNAME%\My Documents?  As 
long as that Z: path doesn't exist the GPO should ignore it right?
David Lum // SYSTEMS ENGINEER
NORTHWEST EVALUATION ASSOCIATION
(Desk) 971.222.1025 // (Cell) 503.267.9764












~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

Slightly OT DOS Syntax Q

[Clayton Doige]

Dusting off some DOS and drawing a mind blank.

Wrote a short little batch file with the idea being that everything (files
and folders) within in a certain directory is blown out everyday. Goes like
this:

del c:\directory\ *.* /Q /S

this proceeds to delete every file in every subdirectory without user
intervention, however it leaves the subfolders in place.

What switch do I use to get rid of the folders as well?

Thanks

Clayton

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

Re: Slightly OT DOS Syntax Q

[James Rankin]

Try using rmdir instead

2008/10/28 Clayton Doige <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> Dusting off some DOS and drawing a mind blank.
>
> Wrote a short little batch file with the idea being that everything (files
> and folders) within in a certain directory is blown out everyday. Goes like
> this:
>
> del c:\directory\ *.* /Q /S
>
> this proceeds to delete every file in every subdirectory without user
> intervention, however it leaves the subfolders in place.
>
> What switch do I use to get rid of the folders as well?
>
> Thanks
>
> Clayton
>
>
>
>
>
>

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

RE: Slightly OT DOS Syntax Q

[Doige, Clayton]

If I use that, will it remove the root directory as well, or just the
sub directory stuff?

 

Eg:  rmdir c:\directory /q /s

 

Will that leave me with c:\directory, or just c:\?

 

thanks

 

Clayton Doige

IT Project Manager

CME Development Corporation

T: 020 7430 5355

M: 07949 255062

E:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

W:www.cetv-net.com

From: James Rankin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: 28 October 2008 12:36
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Slightly OT DOS Syntax Q

 

Try using rmdir instead

2008/10/28 Clayton Doige <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Dusting off some DOS and drawing a mind blank.

 

Wrote a short little batch file with the idea being that everything
(files and folders) within in a certain directory is blown out everyday.
Goes like this:

 

del c:\directory\ *.* /Q /S

 

this proceeds to delete every file in every subdirectory without user
intervention, however it leaves the subfolders in place.

 

What switch do I use to get rid of the folders as well?

 

Thanks

 

Clayton

 

 

 

 

 


__
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
__


__
This electronic mail message and any attached files contain information 
intended for the exclusive use of the person(s) to whom it is addressed and may 
contain information that is proprietary, privileged, confidential and/or exempt 
from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, 
you are hereby notified that any viewing, copying, disclosure or distribution 
of this message or its contents may be subject to legal restriction or 
sanction. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender 
immediately by electronic mail and delete the original message and any 
attachments without retaining any copies. 
_
~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

Re: Slightly OT DOS Syntax Q

[James Rankin]

I am sure there is an easier way to achieve this, but looking through my
scripts, I had to fudge this at one time, as rmdir will remove the root
directory as you say

What I did was



*del c:\directory\*.* /Q

*and then*

for /f "tokens=4" %%a in ('dir c:\directory^|find ""^|find /v "."') do
set dir=%%a& call :RMDIR

goto :eof

:RMDIR

rmdir c:\directory\%dir% /S /Q*



Seems very long-winded and I would be surprised if someone on the list
hasn't got a far easier way to do this. I must have been in a rush when I
cobbled that lot together!

Cheers,

2008/10/28 Doige, Clayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

>  If I use that, will it remove the root directory as well, or just the sub
> directory stuff?
>
>
>
> Eg:  rmdir c:\directory /q /s
>
>
>
> Will that leave me with c:\directory, or just c:\?
>
>
>
> thanks
>
>
>
> *Clayton Doige*
>
> IT Project Manager
>
> *C**M**E** Development Corporation*
>
> T: 020 7430 5355
>
> M: 07949 255062
>
> E:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> W:www.cetv-net.com
>
> *From:* James Rankin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> *Sent:* 28 October 2008 12:36
> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
> *Subject:* Re: Slightly OT DOS Syntax Q
>
>
>
> Try using rmdir instead
>
> 2008/10/28 Clayton Doige <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Dusting off some DOS and drawing a mind blank.
>
>
>
> Wrote a short little batch file with the idea being that everything (files
> and folders) within in a certain directory is blown out everyday. Goes like
> this:
>
>
>
> del c:\directory\ *.* /Q /S
>
>
>
> this proceeds to delete every file in every subdirectory without user
> intervention, however it leaves the subfolders in place.
>
>
>
> What switch do I use to get rid of the folders as well?
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> Clayton
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> __
> This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
> __
>
> __
> This electronic mail message and any attached files contain information
> intended for the exclusive use of the person(s) to whom it is addressed and
> may contain information that is proprietary, privileged, confidential and/or
> exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended
> recipient, you are hereby notified that any viewing, copying, disclosure or
> distribution of this message or its contents may be subject to legal
> restriction or sanction. If you have received this message in error, please
> notify the sender immediately by electronic mail and delete the original
> message and any attachments without retaining any copies.
> _
>
>
>
>
>
>

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

RE: Slightly OT DOS Syntax Q

[Erik Goldoff]

not sure rmdir will let you delete a directory that has *any* contents,
including subdirectories...
 
if you always want to delete the entire contents of c:\directory,  I'd
suggest scripting with something like KILLDIR  < long link, watch for wrap >
 
( http://www.google.com/url?sa=U

&start=1&q=http://shareware.pcmag.com/product.php%255Bid%255D43808%255Bcid%2
55D72%255BSiteID%255Dpcmag&usg=AFQjCNHEtB-0k_UGjq2jTqjeO9BeF86w_g )
 
 
and script
 
c:
cd\
killdir c:\directory
md directory
 
if you have any special permissions to directory you'll need to recreate
those as well 
 

Erik Goldoff


IT  Consultant

Systems, Networks, & Security 

 

  _  

From: Doige, Clayton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 9:00 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Slightly OT DOS Syntax Q



If I use that, will it remove the root directory as well, or just the sub
directory stuff?

 

Eg:  rmdir c:\directory /q /s

 

Will that leave me with c:\directory, or just c:\?

 

thanks

 

Clayton Doige

IT Project Manager

CME Development Corporation

T: 020 7430 5355

M: 07949 255062

E:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

W:www.cetv-net.com

From: James Rankin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: 28 October 2008 12:36
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Slightly OT DOS Syntax Q

 

Try using rmdir instead

2008/10/28 Clayton Doige <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Dusting off some DOS and drawing a mind blank.

 

Wrote a short little batch file with the idea being that everything (files
and folders) within in a certain directory is blown out everyday. Goes like
this:

 

del c:\directory\ *.* /Q /S

 

this proceeds to delete every file in every subdirectory without user
intervention, however it leaves the subfolders in place.

 

What switch do I use to get rid of the folders as well?

 

Thanks

 

Clayton

 

 

 

 

 


__
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
__


__
This electronic mail message and any attached files contain information
intended for the exclusive use of the person(s) to whom it is addressed and
may contain information that is proprietary, privileged, confidential and/or
exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any viewing, copying, disclosure or
distribution of this message or its contents may be subject to legal
restriction or sanction. If you have received this message in error, please
notify the sender immediately by electronic mail and delete the original
message and any attachments without retaining any copies.
_



 


 

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.8.4/1749 - Release Date: 10/27/2008
10:44 PM



~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

RE: Slightly OT DOS Syntax Q

[Joseph L. Casale]

In my scripts, I do this:

cd x:\directory
rmdir x:\directory /s /q


This way the dir can't be deleted, as your in it.

From: Clayton Doige [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 6:33 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Slightly OT DOS Syntax Q

Dusting off some DOS and drawing a mind blank.

Wrote a short little batch file with the idea being that everything (files and 
folders) within in a certain directory is blown out everyday. Goes like this:

del c:\directory\ *.* /Q /S

this proceeds to delete every file in every subdirectory without user 
intervention, however it leaves the subfolders in place.

What switch do I use to get rid of the folders as well?

Thanks

Clayton





~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

RE: Slightly OT DOS Syntax Q

[Kennedy, Jim]

Brilliant.


From: Joseph L. Casale [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 9:12 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Slightly OT DOS Syntax Q

In my scripts, I do this:

cd x:\directory
rmdir x:\directory /s /q


This way the dir can't be deleted, as your in it.

From: Clayton Doige [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 6:33 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Slightly OT DOS Syntax Q

Dusting off some DOS and drawing a mind blank.

Wrote a short little batch file with the idea being that everything (files and 
folders) within in a certain directory is blown out everyday. Goes like this:

del c:\directory\ *.* /Q /S

this proceeds to delete every file in every subdirectory without user 
intervention, however it leaves the subfolders in place.

What switch do I use to get rid of the folders as well?

Thanks

Clayton










~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

RE: Slightly OT DOS Syntax Q

[Doige, Clayton]

Indeed, just spotted that deltree is the jobby there, oh joy lol

 

Clayton Doige

IT Project Manager

CME Development Corporation

T: 020 7430 5355

M: 07949 255062

E:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

W:www.cetv-net.com

From: Erik Goldoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: 28 October 2008 13:08
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Slightly OT DOS Syntax Q

 

not sure rmdir will let you delete a directory that has *any* contents,
including subdirectories...

 

if you always want to delete the entire contents of c:\directory,  I'd
suggest scripting with something like KILLDIR  < long link, watch for
wrap >

 

(
http://www.google.com/url?sa=U&start=1&q=http://shareware.pcmag.com/prod
uct.php%255Bid%255D43808%255Bcid%255D72%255BSiteID%255Dpcmag&usg=AFQjCNH
EtB-0k_UGjq2jTqjeO9BeF86w_g )

 

 

and script

 

c:

cd\

killdir c:\directory

md directory

 

if you have any special permissions to directory you'll need to recreate
those as well 

 


Erik Goldoff


IT  Consultant

Systems, Networks, & Security 

 

 



From: Doige, Clayton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 9:00 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Slightly OT DOS Syntax Q

If I use that, will it remove the root directory as well, or just the
sub directory stuff?

 

Eg:  rmdir c:\directory /q /s

 

Will that leave me with c:\directory, or just c:\?

 

thanks

 

Clayton Doige

IT Project Manager

CME Development Corporation

T: 020 7430 5355

M: 07949 255062

E:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

W:www.cetv-net.com

From: James Rankin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: 28 October 2008 12:36
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Slightly OT DOS Syntax Q

 

Try using rmdir instead

2008/10/28 Clayton Doige <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Dusting off some DOS and drawing a mind blank.

 

Wrote a short little batch file with the idea being that everything
(files and folders) within in a certain directory is blown out everyday.
Goes like this:

 

del c:\directory\ *.* /Q /S

 

this proceeds to delete every file in every subdirectory without user
intervention, however it leaves the subfolders in place.

 

What switch do I use to get rid of the folders as well?

 

Thanks

 

Clayton

 

 

 

 

 


__
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
__


__
This electronic mail message and any attached files contain information
intended for the exclusive use of the person(s) to whom it is addressed
and may contain information that is proprietary, privileged,
confidential and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you
are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
viewing, copying, disclosure or distribution of this message or its
contents may be subject to legal restriction or sanction. If you have
received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by
electronic mail and delete the original message and any attachments
without retaining any copies.
_

 

 

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.8.4/1749 - Release Date:
10/27/2008 10:44 PM

 

 

 


__
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
__


__
This electronic mail message and any attached files contain information 
intended for the exclusive use of the person(s) to whom it is addressed and may 
contain information that is proprietary, privileged, confidential and/or exempt 
from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, 
you are hereby notified that any viewing, copying, disclosure or distribution 
of this message or its contents may be subject to legal restriction or 
sanction. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender 
immediately by electronic mail and delete the original message and any 
attachments without retaining any copies. 
_
~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

Re: Slightly OT DOS Syntax Q

[James Rankin]

Woot!

2008/10/28 Joseph L. Casale <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

>  In my scripts, I do this:
>
>
>
> cd x:\directory
>
> rmdir x:\directory /s /q
>
>
>
>
>
> This way the dir can't be deleted, as your in it.
>
>
>
> *From:* Clayton Doige [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 28, 2008 6:33 AM
> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
> *Subject:* Slightly OT DOS Syntax Q
>
>
>
> Dusting off some DOS and drawing a mind blank.
>
>
>
> Wrote a short little batch file with the idea being that everything (files
> and folders) within in a certain directory is blown out everyday. Goes like
> this:
>
>
>
> del c:\directory\ *.* /Q /S
>
>
>
> this proceeds to delete every file in every subdirectory without user
> intervention, however it leaves the subfolders in place.
>
>
>
> What switch do I use to get rid of the folders as well?
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> Clayton
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

RE: Slightly OT DOS Syntax Q

[Doige, Clayton]

Would that apply to a mapped drive?

 

What I am ultimately trying to get to is a sharepoint backup using
stsadm to backup to our disaster recovery site so we can do a restore to
server there if we have to invoke for a lengthy time period.

 

So my idea is to run stsadm once a week to do the back up, but have the
same script kill off anything in the back up directory first as the I
have not been able to get the -overwrite option in stsadm to actually
overwrite the existing back up data.

 

If there is any easy way to run stsadm over the network to another
server and get the overwrite to actually work I would be home and
hosed...

 

Clayton Doige

IT Project Manager

CME Development Corporation

T: 020 7430 5355

M: 07949 255062

E:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

W:www.cetv-net.com

From: Joseph L. Casale [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: 28 October 2008 13:12
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Slightly OT DOS Syntax Q

 

In my scripts, I do this:

 

cd x:\directory

rmdir x:\directory /s /q

 

 

This way the dir can't be deleted, as your in it.

 

From: Clayton Doige [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 6:33 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Slightly OT DOS Syntax Q

 

Dusting off some DOS and drawing a mind blank.

 

Wrote a short little batch file with the idea being that everything
(files and folders) within in a certain directory is blown out everyday.
Goes like this:

 

del c:\directory\ *.* /Q /S

 

this proceeds to delete every file in every subdirectory without user
intervention, however it leaves the subfolders in place.

 

What switch do I use to get rid of the folders as well?

 

Thanks

 

Clayton

 

 

 

 

 


__
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
__


__
This electronic mail message and any attached files contain information 
intended for the exclusive use of the person(s) to whom it is addressed and may 
contain information that is proprietary, privileged, confidential and/or exempt 
from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, 
you are hereby notified that any viewing, copying, disclosure or distribution 
of this message or its contents may be subject to legal restriction or 
sanction. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender 
immediately by electronic mail and delete the original message and any 
attachments without retaining any copies. 
_
~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

RE: Slightly OT DOS Syntax Q

[Carl Houseman]

Why not try it before suspecting it of not working?

 

/S  Removes all directories and files in the specified directory

in addition to the directory itself.  Used to remove a directory

tree.

 

/Q  Quiet mode, do not ask if ok to remove a directory tree with /S

 

From: Erik Goldoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 9:08 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Slightly OT DOS Syntax Q

 

not sure rmdir will let you delete a directory that has *any* contents,
including subdirectories...

 

if you always want to delete the entire contents of c:\directory,  I'd
suggest scripting with something like KILLDIR  < long link, watch for wrap >

 

( http://www.google.com/url?sa=U

&start=1&q=http://shareware.pcmag.com/product.php%255Bid%255D43808%255Bcid%2
55D72%255BSiteID%255Dpcmag&usg=AFQjCNHEtB-0k_UGjq2jTqjeO9BeF86w_g )

 

 

and script

 

c:

cd\

killdir c:\directory

md directory

 

if you have any special permissions to directory you'll need to recreate
those as well 

 


Erik Goldoff


IT  Consultant

Systems, Networks, & Security 

 

 

  _  

From: Doige, Clayton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 9:00 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Slightly OT DOS Syntax Q

If I use that, will it remove the root directory as well, or just the sub
directory stuff?

 

Eg:  rmdir c:\directory /q /s

 

Will that leave me with c:\directory, or just c:\?

 

thanks

 

Clayton Doige

IT Project Manager

CME Development Corporation

T: 020 7430 5355

M: 07949 255062

E:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

W:www.cetv-net.com

From: James Rankin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: 28 October 2008 12:36
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Slightly OT DOS Syntax Q

 

Try using rmdir instead

2008/10/28 Clayton Doige <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Dusting off some DOS and drawing a mind blank.

 

Wrote a short little batch file with the idea being that everything (files
and folders) within in a certain directory is blown out everyday. Goes like
this:

 

del c:\directory\ *.* /Q /S

 

this proceeds to delete every file in every subdirectory without user
intervention, however it leaves the subfolders in place.

 

What switch do I use to get rid of the folders as well?

 

Thanks

 

Clayton

 

 

 

 

 


__
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
__


__
This electronic mail message and any attached files contain information
intended for the exclusive use of the person(s) to whom it is addressed and
may contain information that is proprietary, privileged, confidential and/or
exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any viewing, copying, disclosure or
distribution of this message or its contents may be subject to legal
restriction or sanction. If you have received this message in error, please
notify the sender immediately by electronic mail and delete the original
message and any attachments without retaining any copies.
_

 

 

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.8.4/1749 - Release Date: 10/27/2008
10:44 PM

 

 

 

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

Re: Slightly OT DOS Syntax Q

[mcn1964x]

Try using deltree

Cheers
Sent from my BlackBerry device on the Rogers Wireless Network

-Original Message-
From: "Doige, Clayton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2008 13:00:12 
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Slightly OT DOS Syntax Q


If I use that, will it remove the root directory as well, or just the
sub directory stuff?

 

Eg:  rmdir c:\directory /q /s

 

Will that leave me with c:\directory, or just c:\?

 

thanks

 

Clayton Doige

IT Project Manager

CME Development Corporation

T: 020 7430 5355

M: 07949 255062

E:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

W:www.cetv-net.com

From: James Rankin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: 28 October 2008 12:36
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Slightly OT DOS Syntax Q

 

Try using rmdir instead

2008/10/28 Clayton Doige <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Dusting off some DOS and drawing a mind blank.

 

Wrote a short little batch file with the idea being that everything
(files and folders) within in a certain directory is blown out everyday.
Goes like this:

 

del c:\directory\ *.* /Q /S

 

this proceeds to delete every file in every subdirectory without user
intervention, however it leaves the subfolders in place.

 

What switch do I use to get rid of the folders as well?

 

Thanks

 

Clayton

 

 

 

 

 


__
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
__


__
This electronic mail message and any attached files contain information 
intended for the exclusive use of the person(s) to whom it is addressed and may 
contain information that is proprietary, privileged, confidential and/or exempt 
from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, 
you are hereby notified that any viewing, copying, disclosure or distribution 
of this message or its contents may be subject to legal restriction or 
sanction. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender 
immediately by electronic mail and delete the original message and any 
attachments without retaining any 
copies._
~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

RE: Slightly OT DOS Syntax Q

[Erik Goldoff]

when I tried it I got 
 
G:\test1>rmdir *.* /s
*.*, Are you sure (Y/N)? y
The filename, directory name, or volume label syntax is incorrect.
 
I *DID* try it first, so now you know why I suspect it of not working  (
on an XP sp2 system )

Erik Goldoff


IT  Consultant

Systems, Networks, & Security 

 

  _  

From: Carl Houseman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 9:31 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Slightly OT DOS Syntax Q



Why not try it before suspecting it of not working?

 

/S  Removes all directories and files in the specified directory

in addition to the directory itself.  Used to remove a directory

tree.

 

/Q  Quiet mode, do not ask if ok to remove a directory tree with /S

 

From: Erik Goldoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 9:08 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Slightly OT DOS Syntax Q

 

not sure rmdir will let you delete a directory that has *any* contents,
including subdirectories...

 

if you always want to delete the entire contents of c:\directory,  I'd
suggest scripting with something like KILLDIR  < long link, watch for wrap >

 

( http://www.google.com/url?sa=U

&start=1&q=http://shareware.pcmag.com/product.php%255Bid%255D43808%255Bcid%2
55D72%255BSiteID%255Dpcmag&usg=AFQjCNHEtB-0k_UGjq2jTqjeO9BeF86w_g )

 

 

and script

 

c:

cd\

killdir c:\directory

md directory

 

if you have any special permissions to directory you'll need to recreate
those as well 

 


Erik Goldoff


IT  Consultant

Systems, Networks, & Security 

 

 

  _  

From: Doige, Clayton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 9:00 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Slightly OT DOS Syntax Q

If I use that, will it remove the root directory as well, or just the sub
directory stuff?

 

Eg:  rmdir c:\directory /q /s

 

Will that leave me with c:\directory, or just c:\?

 

thanks

 

Clayton Doige

IT Project Manager

CME Development Corporation

T: 020 7430 5355

M: 07949 255062

E:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

W:www.cetv-net.com

From: James Rankin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: 28 October 2008 12:36
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Slightly OT DOS Syntax Q

 

Try using rmdir instead

2008/10/28 Clayton Doige <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Dusting off some DOS and drawing a mind blank.

 

Wrote a short little batch file with the idea being that everything (files
and folders) within in a certain directory is blown out everyday. Goes like
this:

 

del c:\directory\ *.* /Q /S

 

this proceeds to delete every file in every subdirectory without user
intervention, however it leaves the subfolders in place.

 

What switch do I use to get rid of the folders as well?

 

Thanks

 

Clayton

 

 

 

 

 


__
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
__


__
This electronic mail message and any attached files contain information
intended for the exclusive use of the person(s) to whom it is addressed and
may contain information that is proprietary, privileged, confidential and/or
exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any viewing, copying, disclosure or
distribution of this message or its contents may be subject to legal
restriction or sanction. If you have received this message in error, please
notify the sender immediately by electronic mail and delete the original
message and any attachments without retaining any copies.
_

 

 

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.8.4/1749 - Release Date: 10/27/2008
10:44 PM

 

 

 


 


 

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.8.4/1749 - Release Date: 10/27/2008
10:44 PM



~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

Re: Slightly OT DOS Syntax Q

[James Rankin]

Don't you need to specify the directory path?

2008/10/28 Erik Goldoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

>  when I tried it I got
>
> G:\test1>rmdir *.* /s
> *.*, Are you sure (Y/N)? y
> The filename, directory name, or volume label syntax is incorrect.
>
> I *DID* try it first, so now you know why I suspect it of not working 
> ( on an XP sp2 system )
>  Erik Goldoff
>
> *IT  Consultant*
>
> *Systems, Networks, & Security *
>
>
>  --
> *From:* Carl Houseman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 28, 2008 9:31 AM
> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
> *Subject:* RE: Slightly OT DOS Syntax Q
>
>  Why not try it before suspecting it of not working?
>
>
>
> /S  Removes all directories and files in the specified directory
>
> in addition to the directory itself.  Used to remove a
> directory
>
> tree.
>
>
>
> /Q  Quiet mode, do not ask if ok to remove a directory tree with /S
>
>
>
> *From:* Erik Goldoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 28, 2008 9:08 AM
> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
> *Subject:* RE: Slightly OT DOS Syntax Q
>
>
>
> not sure rmdir will let you delete a directory that has *any* contents,
> including subdirectories...
>
>
>
> if you always want to delete the entire contents of c:\directory,  I'd
> suggest scripting with something like KILLDIR  < long link, watch for wrap >
>
>
>
> (
> http://www.google.com/url?sa=U&start=1&q=http://shareware.pcmag.com/product.php%255Bid%255D43808%255Bcid%255D72%255BSiteID%255Dpcmag&usg=AFQjCNHEtB-0k_UGjq2jTqjeO9BeF86w_g
>  )
>
>
>
>
>
> and script
>
>
>
> c:
>
> cd\
>
> killdir c:\directory
>
> md directory
>
>
>
> if you have any special permissions to directory you'll need to recreate
> those as well
>
>
> Erik Goldoff
>
> *IT  Consultant*
>
> *Systems, Networks, & Security *
>
>
>
>
>  --
>
> *From:* Doige, Clayton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 28, 2008 9:00 AM
> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
> *Subject:* RE: Slightly OT DOS Syntax Q
>
> If I use that, will it remove the root directory as well, or just the sub
> directory stuff?
>
>
>
> Eg:  rmdir c:\directory /q /s
>
>
>
> Will that leave me with c:\directory, or just c:\?
>
>
>
> thanks
>
>
>
> *Clayton Doige*
>
> IT Project Manager
>
> *C**M**E** Development Corporation*
>
> T: 020 7430 5355
>
> M: 07949 255062
>
> E:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> W:www.cetv-net.com
>
> *From:* James Rankin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> *Sent:* 28 October 2008 12:36
> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
> *Subject:* Re: Slightly OT DOS Syntax Q
>
>
>
> Try using rmdir instead
>
> 2008/10/28 Clayton Doige <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Dusting off some DOS and drawing a mind blank.
>
>
>
> Wrote a short little batch file with the idea being that everything (files
> and folders) within in a certain directory is blown out everyday. Goes like
> this:
>
>
>
> del c:\directory\ *.* /Q /S
>
>
>
> this proceeds to delete every file in every subdirectory without user
> intervention, however it leaves the subfolders in place.
>
>
>
> What switch do I use to get rid of the folders as well?
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> Clayton
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> __
> This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
> __
>
>
> __
> This electronic mail message and any attached files contain information
> intended for the exclusive use of the person(s) to whom it is addressed and
> may contain information that is proprietary, privileged, confidential and/or
> exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended
> recipient, you are hereby notified that any viewing, copying, disclosure or
> distribution of this message or its contents may be subject to legal
> restriction or sanction. If you have received this message in error, please
> notify the sender immediately by electronic mail and delete the original
> message and any attachments without retaining any copies.
> _
>
>
>
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
> Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.8.4/1749 - Release Date: 10/27/2008
> 10:44 PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
> Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.8.4/1749 - Release Date: 10/27/2008
> 10:44 PM
>
>
>
>
>
>

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

RE: Slightly OT DOS Syntax Q

[Erik Goldoff]

like this ?  :
 
G:\>rmdir g:\test1\*.* /s/q
The filename, directory name, or volume label syntax is incorrect.
 

Erik Goldoff


IT  Consultant

Systems, Networks, & Security 

 


  _  

From: James Rankin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 9:48 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Slightly OT DOS Syntax Q


Don't you need to specify the directory path?


2008/10/28 Erik Goldoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


when I tried it I got 
 
G:\test1>rmdir *.* /s
*.*, Are you sure (Y/N)? y
The filename, directory name, or volume label syntax is incorrect.
 
I *DID* try it first, so now you know why I suspect it of not working  (
on an XP sp2 system )


Erik Goldoff


IT  Consultant

Systems, Networks, & Security 

 

 


~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

Re: Slightly OT DOS Syntax Q

[James Rankin]

Like this rmdir g:\test1. But yes it deletes the whole shebang, which is why
you either need to be in the directory, or use a different tool.

2008/10/28 Erik Goldoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

>  like this ?  :
>
> G:\>rmdir g:\test1\*.* /s/q
> The filename, directory name, or volume label syntax is incorrect.
>
>  Erik Goldoff
>
> *IT  Consultant*
>
> *Systems, Networks, & Security *
>
> **
>  --
> *From:* James Rankin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 28, 2008 9:48 AM
> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
> *Subject:* Re: Slightly OT DOS Syntax Q
>
> Don't you need to specify the directory path?
>
> 2008/10/28 Erik Goldoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>>  when I tried it I got
>>
>> G:\test1>rmdir *.* /s
>> *.*, Are you sure (Y/N)? y
>> The filename, directory name, or volume label syntax is incorrect.
>>
>> I *DID* try it first, so now you know why I suspect it of not working 
>> ( on an XP sp2 system )
>>  Erik Goldoff
>>
>> *IT  Consultant*
>>
>> *Systems, Networks, & Security *
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

RE: KB958644

[Tim Vander Kooi]

I have had no issues with the patch either. I've run it on Server 2k3 with and 
without R2, XP SPs2 & 3, and Vista SP1. It's all been good, and for once it 
only takes a few seconds instead of minutes for my servers to reboot after 
patching. That was a nice change of pace.
TVK

...Don deserves it. ;-)

From: Ziots, Edward [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 3:11 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: KB958644

NO problems with the MS08-067 Patch, and Dam that was COLD TVK... Funny but 
Cold.

Z

Edward E. Ziots
Network Engineer
Lifespan Organization
MCSE,MCSA,MCP,Security+,Network+,CCA
Phone: 401-639-3505

From: Tim Vander Kooi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2008 7:49 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: KB958644

That how far back Don regression tests his wives. :-P


From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2008 5:32 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: KB958644

They probably only regression tested back to 1987.

From: Todd Lemmiksoo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2008 3:05 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: KB958644


Anyone have any issues with the RPC/SMB patch? One of my users is saying it 
effected his ProComm. In that all the dialup modem settings reset to defaults.

Todd Lemmiksoo
Network Administrator

All-Mode Communications, Inc.
1725 Dryden Road
Freeville, New York  13068
(607) 347-4164 x440
1-877-ALLMODE  (toll free)
http://www.all-mode.com





















~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

RE: Slightly OT DOS Syntax Q

[René de Haas]

Like rd /s test1

 

From: Erik Goldoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 3:00 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Slightly OT DOS Syntax Q

 

like this ?  :

 

G:\>rmdir g:\test1\*.* /s/q
The filename, directory name, or volume label syntax is incorrect.

 


Erik Goldoff


IT  Consultant

Systems, Networks, & Security 

 

 



From: James Rankin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 9:48 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Slightly OT DOS Syntax Q

Don't you need to specify the directory path?

2008/10/28 Erik Goldoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

when I tried it I got 

 

G:\test1>rmdir *.* /s
*.*, Are you sure (Y/N)? y
The filename, directory name, or volume label syntax is incorrect.

 

I *DID* try it first, so now you know why I suspect it of not working  ( on 
an XP sp2 system )


Erik Goldoff


IT  Consultant

Systems, Networks, & Security 

 

 

 

 

 


***
The information in this e-mail is confidential and intended solely for the 
individual or entity to whom it is addressed.  If you have received this e-mail 
in error please notify the sender by return e-mail delete this e-mail and 
refrain from any disclosure or action based on the information.
***

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

RE: Slightly OT DOS Syntax Q

[René de Haas]

Why not just

 

Rd /s test1

Md test1

 

Regards

René

 

From: René de Haas 
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 3:02 PM
To: 'NT System Admin Issues'
Subject: RE: Slightly OT DOS Syntax Q

 

Like rd /s test1

 

From: Erik Goldoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 3:00 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Slightly OT DOS Syntax Q

 

like this ?  :

 

G:\>rmdir g:\test1\*.* /s/q
The filename, directory name, or volume label syntax is incorrect.

 


Erik Goldoff


IT  Consultant

Systems, Networks, & Security 

 

 



From: James Rankin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 9:48 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Slightly OT DOS Syntax Q

Don't you need to specify the directory path?

2008/10/28 Erik Goldoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

when I tried it I got 

 

G:\test1>rmdir *.* /s
*.*, Are you sure (Y/N)? y
The filename, directory name, or volume label syntax is incorrect.

 

I *DID* try it first, so now you know why I suspect it of not working  ( on 
an XP sp2 system )


Erik Goldoff


IT  Consultant

Systems, Networks, & Security 

 

 

 

 

 


***
The information in this e-mail is confidential and intended solely for the 
individual or entity to whom it is addressed.  If you have received this e-mail 
in error please notify the sender by return e-mail delete this e-mail and 
refrain from any disclosure or action based on the information.
***

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

RE: Slightly OT DOS Syntax Q

[Carl Houseman]

The original syntax questioned by Clayton had the correct syntax. In two
tries you've changed it so it wouldn't work.

 

It is never proper at the command line to use two switches in succession
without separating them with spaces.

 

So it is like these:

 

rmdir g:\test1 /s /q

rmdir /s /q g:\test1

 

The above will eliminate test1 completely.  If you wish to retain an empty
test1 folder then:

 

cd /d g:\test1

rd . /s /q

 

Carl

 

From: Erik Goldoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 10:00 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Slightly OT DOS Syntax Q

 

like this ?  :

 

G:\>rmdir g:\test1\*.* /s/q
The filename, directory name, or volume label syntax is incorrect.

 


Erik Goldoff


IT  Consultant

Systems, Networks, & Security 

 

 

  _  

From: James Rankin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 9:48 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Slightly OT DOS Syntax Q

Don't you need to specify the directory path?

2008/10/28 Erik Goldoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

when I tried it I got 

 

G:\test1>rmdir *.* /s
*.*, Are you sure (Y/N)? y
The filename, directory name, or volume label syntax is incorrect.

 

I *DID* try it first, so now you know why I suspect it of not working  (
on an XP sp2 system )


Erik Goldoff


IT  Consultant

Systems, Networks, & Security 

 

 

 

 

 

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

Alerts on Install or Elevation of Priviledges

[Andy Ognenoff]

I have a user that is somehow installing stuff but his account is only a
standard restricted user. This is a standalone laptop, not on the domain at
all. Anyone know of a way I could send myself an alert via email if he
installs something or logs on as a different account than he should? 

Only thing I can think of is that he somehow got a hold of the local admin
password but I can't see how - yes we disable the LM hash.

 - Andy O.


~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

RE: Alerts on Install or Elevation of Priviledges

[James Winzenz]

Well, you'd have to have access to his event logs on his computer -
might be a bit more difficult since it is not on the domain, unless you
have the administrator password or you have an administrative account.
But you should be able to look for a couple of things:  1) in the
security log, you could look for logins by the administrator and 2) in
the system log, there should be some entries when an application is
installed.  You might also check the local users  to see if there is
another admin-equivalent account he might be using . . .

Thanks,

James Winzenz
Infrastructure Systems Engineer II - Security
Pulte Homes Information Services


-Original Message-
From: Andy Ognenoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 7:55 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Alerts on Install or Elevation of Priviledges

I have a user that is somehow installing stuff but his account is only a
standard restricted user. This is a standalone laptop, not on the domain
at
all. Anyone know of a way I could send myself an alert via email if he
installs something or logs on as a different account than he should? 

Only thing I can think of is that he somehow got a hold of the local
admin
password but I can't see how - yes we disable the LM hash.

 - Andy O.


~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~ 

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:  This email may contain confidential and privileged 
material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s).  Any review, use, 
distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited.  If you have 
received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by 
email and delete the message and any file attachments from your computer.  
Thank you.

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

RE: Alerts on Install or Elevation of Priviledges

[Andy Ognenoff]

Nothing in the security logs and nothing in the system log for as far back
as it goes.  We do have an admin equivalent account on each machine but he
shouldn't have the password for that either. I'm actually reimaging his
machine tomorrow but I wanted to see if anyone had advice for auditing this
in the future.

He's installed everything from Firefox 3 to XP SP3.  Nothing that shouldn't
be there but we want to be the ones doing the installing (after testing and
such.) He's only in town once a year so this is my opportunity to change
things up if need be.

 - Andy O.

>-Original Message-
>From: James Winzenz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 10:15 AM
>To: NT System Admin Issues
>Subject: RE: Alerts on Install or Elevation of Priviledges
>
>Well, you'd have to have access to his event logs on his computer -
>might be a bit more difficult since it is not on the domain, unless you
>have the administrator password or you have an administrative account.
>But you should be able to look for a couple of things:  1) in the
>security log, you could look for logins by the administrator and 2) in
>the system log, there should be some entries when an application is
>installed.  You might also check the local users  to see if there is
>another admin-equivalent account he might be using . . .


~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

RE: Alerts on Install or Elevation of Priviledges

[Andy Ognenoff]

Yep...I know, but the password wasn't reset. 

 - Andy O.

>-Original Message-
>From: Carl Houseman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 10:37 AM
>To: NT System Admin Issues
>Subject: RE: Alerts on Install or Elevation of Priviledges
>
>With physical access to a machine, any local account password can be reset.
>Even disabling the local administrator account isn't sufficient.
>
>http://home.eunet.no/pnordahl/ntpasswd/


~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

RE: Alerts on Install or Elevation of Priviledges

[Carl Houseman]

That's information that I didn't have before...

Also unknown, what exactly is being installed, and whether said product
requires administrator account access to be used or installed.

If you want help, explain *everything* that you know about a problem - leave
out no details.  You may find that by fully documenting a problem, you end
up solving it yourself.

Carl

-Original Message-
From: Andy Ognenoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 11:40 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Alerts on Install or Elevation of Priviledges

Yep...I know, but the password wasn't reset. 

 - Andy O.

>-Original Message-
>From: Carl Houseman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 10:37 AM
>To: NT System Admin Issues
>Subject: RE: Alerts on Install or Elevation of Priviledges
>
>With physical access to a machine, any local account password can be reset.
>Even disabling the local administrator account isn't sufficient.
>
>http://home.eunet.no/pnordahl/ntpasswd/


-Original Message-
From: Andy Ognenoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 10:55 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Alerts on Install or Elevation of Priviledges

I have a user that is somehow installing stuff but his account is only a
standard restricted user. This is a standalone laptop, not on the domain at
all. Anyone know of a way I could send myself an alert via email if he
installs something or logs on as a different account than he should? 

Only thing I can think of is that he somehow got a hold of the local admin
password but I can't see how - yes we disable the LM hash.

 - Andy O.


~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

RE: Alerts on Install or Elevation of Priviledges

[Carl Houseman]

With physical access to a machine, any local account password can be reset.
Even disabling the local administrator account isn't sufficient.

http://home.eunet.no/pnordahl/ntpasswd/

Carl 

-Original Message-
From: Andy Ognenoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 10:55 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Alerts on Install or Elevation of Priviledges

I have a user that is somehow installing stuff but his account is only a
standard restricted user. This is a standalone laptop, not on the domain at
all. Anyone know of a way I could send myself an alert via email if he
installs something or logs on as a different account than he should? 

Only thing I can think of is that he somehow got a hold of the local admin
password but I can't see how - yes we disable the LM hash.

 - Andy O.


~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

RE: Alerts on Install or Elevation of Priviledges

[Andy Ognenoff]

>That's information that I didn't have before...
>
>Also unknown, what exactly is being installed, and whether said product
>requires administrator account access to be used or installed.
>
>If you want help, explain *everything* that you know about a problem -
>leave
>out no details.  You may find that by fully documenting a problem, you end
>up solving it yourself.

No problem, I'll figure it out when I have the machine in front of me
tomorrow.  I was just looking for advice on a solution involving monitoring
the user's actions. I suppose I could just ask him too. :)

 - Andy O.



~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

RE: Slightly OT DOS Syntax Q

[Erik Goldoff]

thanks, but his *original* syntax was
del c:\directory\ *.* /Q /S
 
that's what I was trying to mimic  all has been resolved earlier,
thanks, and I like using the '.' shortcut for "current directory" 
 

Erik Goldoff


IT  Consultant

Systems, Networks, & Security 

 

  _  

From: Carl Houseman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 10:37 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Slightly OT DOS Syntax Q



The original syntax questioned by Clayton had the correct syntax. In two
tries you've changed it so it wouldn't work.

 

It is never proper at the command line to use two switches in succession
without separating them with spaces.

 

So it is like these:

 

rmdir g:\test1 /s /q

rmdir /s /q g:\test1

 

The above will eliminate test1 completely.  If you wish to retain an empty
test1 folder then:

 

cd /d g:\test1

rd . /s /q

 

Carl

 

From: Erik Goldoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 10:00 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Slightly OT DOS Syntax Q

 

like this ?  :

 

G:\>rmdir g:\test1\*.* /s/q
The filename, directory name, or volume label syntax is incorrect.

 


Erik Goldoff


IT  Consultant

Systems, Networks, & Security 

 

 

  _  

From: James Rankin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 9:48 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Slightly OT DOS Syntax Q

Don't you need to specify the directory path?

2008/10/28 Erik Goldoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

when I tried it I got 

 

G:\test1>rmdir *.* /s
*.*, Are you sure (Y/N)? y
The filename, directory name, or volume label syntax is incorrect.

 

I *DID* try it first, so now you know why I suspect it of not working  (
on an XP sp2 system )


Erik Goldoff


IT  Consultant

Systems, Networks, & Security 

 

 

 

 

 


 


 

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.8.4/1749 - Release Date: 10/28/2008
10:04 AM



~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

RE: Slightly OT DOS Syntax Q

[Doige, Clayton]

Hey, just to say thanks. Here's what I have working

 

Rmdir c:\directory /Q /S

Md c:\directory

 

>From there the stsadm sharepoint backs up into c:\directory and then is
replicated offsite, and then 24 hours later it will run again, so I get
current backups without disk space spiralling out of control

 

Thanks again

 

Clayton Doige

IT Project Manager

CME Development Corporation

T: 020 7430 5355

M: 07949 255062

E:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

W:www.cetv-net.com

From: Erik Goldoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: 28 October 2008 16:38
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Slightly OT DOS Syntax Q

 

thanks, but his *original* syntax was

del c:\directory\ *.* /Q /S

 

that's what I was trying to mimic  all has been resolved earlier,
thanks, and I like using the '.' shortcut for "current directory" 

 


Erik Goldoff


IT  Consultant

Systems, Networks, & Security 

 

 



From: Carl Houseman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 10:37 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Slightly OT DOS Syntax Q

The original syntax questioned by Clayton had the correct syntax. In two
tries you've changed it so it wouldn't work.

 

It is never proper at the command line to use two switches in succession
without separating them with spaces.

 

So it is like these:

 

rmdir g:\test1 /s /q

rmdir /s /q g:\test1

 

The above will eliminate test1 completely.  If you wish to retain an
empty test1 folder then:

 

cd /d g:\test1

rd . /s /q

 

Carl

 

From: Erik Goldoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 10:00 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Slightly OT DOS Syntax Q

 

like this ?  :

 

G:\>rmdir g:\test1\*.* /s/q
The filename, directory name, or volume label syntax is incorrect.

 


Erik Goldoff


IT  Consultant

Systems, Networks, & Security 

 

 



From: James Rankin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 9:48 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Slightly OT DOS Syntax Q

Don't you need to specify the directory path?

2008/10/28 Erik Goldoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

when I tried it I got 

 

G:\test1>rmdir *.* /s
*.*, Are you sure (Y/N)? y
The filename, directory name, or volume label syntax is incorrect.

 

I *DID* try it first, so now you know why I suspect it of not working
 ( on an XP sp2 system )


Erik Goldoff


IT  Consultant

Systems, Networks, & Security 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.8.4/1749 - Release Date:
10/28/2008 10:04 AM

 

 

 


__
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
__


__
This electronic mail message and any attached files contain information 
intended for the exclusive use of the person(s) to whom it is addressed and may 
contain information that is proprietary, privileged, confidential and/or exempt 
from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, 
you are hereby notified that any viewing, copying, disclosure or distribution 
of this message or its contents may be subject to legal restriction or 
sanction. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender 
immediately by electronic mail and delete the original message and any 
attachments without retaining any copies. 
_
~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

Re: KB958644

[Steven Peck]

We've had no issues with the patch.  The one issue we thought we had
turned out to be to restrictive settings on local laptop firewalls.

Steven

On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 7:07 AM, Tim Vander Kooi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have had no issues with the patch either. I've run it on Server 2k3 with
> and without R2, XP SPs2 & 3, and Vista SP1. It's all been good, and for once
> it only takes a few seconds instead of minutes for my servers to reboot
> after patching. That was a nice change of pace.
>
> TVK
>
>
>
> …Don deserves it. ;-)
>
>
>
> From: Ziots, Edward [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 3:11 AM
> To: NT System Admin Issues
> Subject: RE: KB958644
>
>
>
> NO problems with the MS08-067 Patch, and Dam that was COLD TVK… Funny but
> Cold.
>
>
>
> Z
>
>
>
> Edward E. Ziots
>
> Network Engineer
>
> Lifespan Organization
>
> MCSE,MCSA,MCP,Security+,Network+,CCA
>
> Phone: 401-639-3505
>
> 
>
> From: Tim Vander Kooi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, October 27, 2008 7:49 PM
> To: NT System Admin Issues
> Subject: RE: KB958644
>
>
>
> That how far back Don regression tests his wives. :-P
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, October 27, 2008 5:32 PM
> To: NT System Admin Issues
> Subject: RE: KB958644
>
>
>
> They probably only regression tested back to 1987.
>
>
>
> From: Todd Lemmiksoo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, October 27, 2008 3:05 PM
> To: NT System Admin Issues
> Subject: RE: KB958644
>
>
>
> Anyone have any issues with the RPC/SMB patch? One of my users is saying it
> effected his ProComm. In that all the dialup modem settings reset to
> defaults.
>
> Todd Lemmiksoo
> Network Administrator
>
> All-Mode Communications, Inc.
> 1725 Dryden Road
> Freeville, New York  13068
> (607) 347-4164 x440
> 1-877-ALLMODE  (toll free)
> http://www.all-mode.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

Vista login script mappin drive

[Glen Johnson]

Seeking advice.

Domain .vbs login script to map a common drive, works fine with XP and
has forever.

No work on Vista if user is a local admin.  Don't ask why.

Found this article and it offers a workaround.

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc766208.aspx

Create the launchapp.wsf to run the login script with elevated token
using the task scheduler.

Just wondering if anyone has set it up this way and did the script break
anything with XP clients.

Unfortunately we will have some users that will use both OSs for a while
so putting the user in a different OU isn't an option.

Thanks.

Glen.


~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

VISTA add MSMQ DCOM Query

[David McSpadden]

Vista Ultimate box keeps failing to add the MSMQ DCOM Query feature with
no real explanation.

Anyone seen this?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Data Security is everyone's responsibility.

 


~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

RE: Vista login script mappin drive

[Sam Cayze]

Vista Group Policies Preferences have made it possible to get rid of
these VBS login scripts.  Why not go that route?
 
Both local policies and group policies.
 
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc731892.aspx
 



From: Glen Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 12:16 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Vista login script mappin drive



Seeking advice.

Domain .vbs login script to map a common drive, works fine with XP and
has forever.

No work on Vista if user is a local admin.  Don't ask why.

Found this article and it offers a workaround.

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc766208.aspx

Create the launchapp.wsf to run the login script with elevated token
using the task scheduler.

Just wondering if anyone has set it up this way and did the script break
anything with XP clients.

Unfortunately we will have some users that will use both OSs for a while
so putting the user in a different OU isn't an option.

Thanks.

Glen.


 

 


~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

RE: GoDaddy SSL Error

[Sam Cayze]

Ok, found it happening again.  This time, I got a screenshot of the Cert
Path / Heirarchy.   It went away for the user all by itself after a few
minutes.  Weird!

When broken
 

When working:
 

 



-Original Message-
From: Sam Cayze [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2008 10:44 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: GoDaddy SSL Error

That's what I was thinking, but FF was 3.0  That's probably going to be
the most current list...

And I know I push all the Root Certs Update through Windows Update/WSUS.



-Original Message-
From: Terry Dickson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2008 10:36 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: GoDaddy SSL Error

Did you check the Certification Path?  I have seen this from multiple
providers, it usually turns out that PC had not had a Root Certs Update
in a while.

-Original Message-
From: Sam Cayze [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2008 10:26 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: GoDaddy SSL Error

So, I got 2 of those GoDaddy SSL Wildcard certs that I was asking about
last week.

Came into to work and I have 1 user that could not access 1 of the 2
sites that use the new SSL cert.  Both IE and FF threw her an error.
See attached for IE Error.

I though this was weird since:
1.  She could access the other site fine, which has a new godaddy cert
as well.
2.  FF and IE both gave her errors.  Don't IE and FF have their
own/separate list of trusted CA's?

Sam










~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <
http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <
http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~



~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~<><>

RE: GoDaddy SSL Error

[Sam Cayze]

Eh, I think I figured it out.  Turns out GoDaddy uses chained certs, and
I need to install an intermidiate cert on the computer account on the
web server.  Always used NetSol before this, never had to do that...



From: Sam Cayze [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 1:01 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: GoDaddy SSL Error



Ok, found it happening again.  This time, I got a screenshot of the Cert
Path / Heirarchy.   It went away for the user all by itself after a few
minutes.  Weird!

When broken
 

When working:
 

 



-Original Message-
From: Sam Cayze [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2008 10:44 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: GoDaddy SSL Error

That's what I was thinking, but FF was 3.0  That's probably going to be
the most current list...

And I know I push all the Root Certs Update through Windows Update/WSUS.



-Original Message-
From: Terry Dickson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2008 10:36 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: GoDaddy SSL Error

Did you check the Certification Path?  I have seen this from multiple
providers, it usually turns out that PC had not had a Root Certs Update
in a while.

-Original Message-
From: Sam Cayze [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2008 10:26 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: GoDaddy SSL Error

So, I got 2 of those GoDaddy SSL Wildcard certs that I was asking about
last week.

Came into to work and I have 1 user that could not access 1 of the 2
sites that use the new SSL cert.  Both IE and FF threw her an error.
See attached for IE Error.

I though this was weird since:
1.  She could access the other site fine, which has a new godaddy cert
as well.
2.  FF and IE both gave her errors.  Don't IE and FF have their
own/separate list of trusted CA's?

Sam










~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <
http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <
http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~



 

 


~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~<><>

RE: GoDaddy SSL Error

[Kennedy, Jim]

Yep, that is your answer. I didn't suggest that because you reported that only 
one user was having troublemaybe the rest just ignored it?


From: Sam Cayze [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 2:42 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: GoDaddy SSL Error

Eh, I think I figured it out.  Turns out GoDaddy uses chained certs, and I need 
to install an intermidiate cert on the computer account on the web server.  
Always used NetSol before this, never had to do that...


From: Sam Cayze [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 1:01 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: GoDaddy SSL Error

Ok, found it happening again.  This time, I got a screenshot of the Cert Path / 
Heirarchy.   It went away for the user all by itself after a few minutes.  
Weird!

When broken
[cid:image001.jpg@01C9390C.16D18370]

When working:
[cid:image002.jpg@01C9390C.16D18370]




-Original Message-
From: Sam Cayze [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2008 10:44 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: GoDaddy SSL Error

That's what I was thinking, but FF was 3.0  That's probably going to be the 
most current list...

And I know I push all the Root Certs Update through Windows Update/WSUS.



-Original Message-
From: Terry Dickson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2008 10:36 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: GoDaddy SSL Error

Did you check the Certification Path?  I have seen this from multiple 
providers, it usually turns out that PC had not had a Root Certs Update in a 
while.

-Original Message-
From: Sam Cayze [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2008 10:26 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: GoDaddy SSL Error

So, I got 2 of those GoDaddy SSL Wildcard certs that I was asking about last 
week.

Came into to work and I have 1 user that could not access 1 of the 2 sites that 
use the new SSL cert.  Both IE and FF threw her an error.
See attached for IE Error.

I though this was weird since:
1.  She could access the other site fine, which has a new godaddy cert as well.
2.  FF and IE both gave her errors.  Don't IE and FF have their own/separate 
list of trusted CA's?

Sam










~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ 
  ~

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ 
  ~











~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~<><>

RE: GoDaddy SSL Error

[Sam Cayze]

We have at least 20 internal users that rely and pound the site every
day, and it's used nationwide by thousands others.  I only heard from 2
people.  And even for those 2 people it was intermittent.  As always, I
am sure there are people who failed to notify me.
 
>From what I read on the tubes, it can be very intermittent if you don't
have the intermediate cert.  
 
Given that, it still doesn't really make sense or anything though.  I'm
not 100% sold yet on the fix yet, but the urgency to ask for help on the
list have sure gone down...



From: Kennedy, Jim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 1:47 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: GoDaddy SSL Error



Yep, that is your answer. I didn't suggest that because you reported
that only one user was having troublemaybe the rest just ignored it?

 

 

From: Sam Cayze [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 2:42 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: GoDaddy SSL Error

 

Eh, I think I figured it out.  Turns out GoDaddy uses chained certs, and
I need to install an intermidiate cert on the computer account on the
web server.  Always used NetSol before this, never had to do that...

 



From: Sam Cayze [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 1:01 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: GoDaddy SSL Error

Ok, found it happening again.  This time, I got a screenshot of the Cert
Path / Heirarchy.   It went away for the user all by itself after a few
minutes.  Weird!

When broken
 

When working:
 

 



-Original Message-
From: Sam Cayze [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2008 10:44 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: GoDaddy SSL Error

That's what I was thinking, but FF was 3.0  That's probably going to be
the most current list...

And I know I push all the Root Certs Update through Windows Update/WSUS.



-Original Message-
From: Terry Dickson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2008 10:36 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: GoDaddy SSL Error

Did you check the Certification Path?  I have seen this from multiple
providers, it usually turns out that PC had not had a Root Certs Update
in a while.

-Original Message-
From: Sam Cayze [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2008 10:26 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: GoDaddy SSL Error

So, I got 2 of those GoDaddy SSL Wildcard certs that I was asking about
last week.

Came into to work and I have 1 user that could not access 1 of the 2
sites that use the new SSL cert.  Both IE and FF threw her an error.
See attached for IE Error.

I though this was weird since:
1.  She could access the other site fine, which has a new godaddy cert
as well.
2.  FF and IE both gave her errors.  Don't IE and FF have their
own/separate list of trusted CA's?

Sam










~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <
http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <
http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

 


~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~<><>

RE: GoDaddy SSL Error

[Sean Rector]

We had this problem with a Verisign cert.  We installed the
intermediate, and the problem went away.

 

Sean Rector, MCSE

 

From: Sam Cayze [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 2:42 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: GoDaddy SSL Error

 

Eh, I think I figured it out.  Turns out GoDaddy uses chained certs, and
I need to install an intermidiate cert on the computer account on the
web server.  Always used NetSol before this, never had to do that...

 



From: Sam Cayze [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 1:01 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: GoDaddy SSL Error

Ok, found it happening again.  This time, I got a screenshot of the Cert
Path / Heirarchy.   It went away for the user all by itself after a few
minutes.  Weird!

When broken
 

When working:
 

 



-Original Message-
From: Sam Cayze [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2008 10:44 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: GoDaddy SSL Error

That's what I was thinking, but FF was 3.0  That's probably going to be
the most current list...

And I know I push all the Root Certs Update through Windows Update/WSUS.



-Original Message-
From: Terry Dickson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2008 10:36 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: GoDaddy SSL Error

Did you check the Certification Path?  I have seen this from multiple
providers, it usually turns out that PC had not had a Root Certs Update
in a while.

-Original Message-
From: Sam Cayze [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2008 10:26 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: GoDaddy SSL Error

So, I got 2 of those GoDaddy SSL Wildcard certs that I was asking about
last week.

Came into to work and I have 1 user that could not access 1 of the 2
sites that use the new SSL cert.  Both IE and FF threw her an error.
See attached for IE Error.

I though this was weird since:
1.  She could access the other site fine, which has a new godaddy cert
as well.
2.  FF and IE both gave her errors.  Don't IE and FF have their
own/separate list of trusted CA's?

Sam










~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <
http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <
http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~

 

 

 

 

 

 

Virginia Opera's 2008-2009 Season ... "Viva la passione!"
IL TROVATORE - THE ELIXIR OF LOVE - TOSCA - THE BARBER OF SEVILLE
Visit us online at www.vaopera.org or call 1-866-OPERA-VA (1-866-673-7282).
Subscribe or purchase tickets online now!
 
This e-mail and any attached files are confidential and intended solely for the 
intended recipient(s). Unless otherwise specified, persons unnamed as 
recipients may not read, distribute, copy or alter this e-mail. Any views or 
opinions expressed in this e-mail belong to the author and may not necessarily 
represent those of Virginia Opera. Although precautions have been taken to 
ensure no viruses are present, Virginia Opera cannot accept responsibility for 
any loss or damage that may arise from the use of this e-mail or attachments.

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~<><>

RE: GoDaddy SSL Error

[Kennedy, Jim]

I have the same cert setup from godaddy. And ours looks exactly like your 
second screen shot. You defiantly need the top one, that should have come with 
your wildcard cert. I recall they downloaded together in a single zipbut it 
was a while ago.



From: Sam Cayze [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 3:01 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: GoDaddy SSL Error

We have at least 20 internal users that rely and pound the site every day, and 
it's used nationwide by thousands others.  I only heard from 2 people.  And 
even for those 2 people it was intermittent.  As always, I am sure there are 
people who failed to notify me.

>From what I read on the tubes, it can be very intermittent if you don't have 
>the intermediate cert.

Given that, it still doesn't really make sense or anything though.  I'm not 
100% sold yet on the fix yet, but the urgency to ask for help on the list have 
sure gone down...


From: Kennedy, Jim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 1:47 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: GoDaddy SSL Error
Yep, that is your answer. I didn't suggest that because you reported that only 
one user was having troublemaybe the rest just ignored it?


From: Sam Cayze [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 2:42 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: GoDaddy SSL Error

Eh, I think I figured it out.  Turns out GoDaddy uses chained certs, and I need 
to install an intermidiate cert on the computer account on the web server.  
Always used NetSol before this, never had to do that...


From: Sam Cayze [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 1:01 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: GoDaddy SSL Error

Ok, found it happening again.  This time, I got a screenshot of the Cert Path / 
Heirarchy.   It went away for the user all by itself after a few minutes.  
Weird!

When broken
[cid:image001.jpg@01C9390E.746521C0]

When working:
[cid:image002.jpg@01C9390E.746521C0]




-Original Message-
From: Sam Cayze [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2008 10:44 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: GoDaddy SSL Error

That's what I was thinking, but FF was 3.0  That's probably going to be the 
most current list...

And I know I push all the Root Certs Update through Windows Update/WSUS.



-Original Message-
From: Terry Dickson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2008 10:36 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: GoDaddy SSL Error

Did you check the Certification Path?  I have seen this from multiple 
providers, it usually turns out that PC had not had a Root Certs Update in a 
while.

-Original Message-
From: Sam Cayze [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2008 10:26 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: GoDaddy SSL Error

So, I got 2 of those GoDaddy SSL Wildcard certs that I was asking about last 
week.

Came into to work and I have 1 user that could not access 1 of the 2 sites that 
use the new SSL cert.  Both IE and FF threw her an error.
See attached for IE Error.

I though this was weird since:
1.  She could access the other site fine, which has a new godaddy cert as well.
2.  FF and IE both gave her errors.  Don't IE and FF have their own/separate 
list of trusted CA's?

Sam










~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ 
  ~

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ 
  ~





















~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~<><>

Blackberry question

[Joe Heaton]

Can anyone tell me how the Blackberry Professional Software stacks up
against BES?  I'm being asked to give a comparison between the WinMobile
devices we're using, and Blackberry devices.  If the execs decide to go
with Blackberry against my recommendations, I'd prefer to go with the
Professional software, if it will meet our needs.  I'm looking at the
Blackberry website currently, but would like to hear personal, real
world experiences, vs. the sales info on the site.

 

Thanks,

 

Joe Heaton

AISA

Employment Training Panel

1100 J Street, 4th Floor

Sacramento, CA  95814

(916) 327-5276

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

 


~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

RE: Vista login script mappin drive

[Glen Johnson]

It didn't work for me using the .vbs script, until I turned UAC off.

With UAC off, it works normally.

Not sure if that would hold true if the user isn't a local admin.

We'll see.

Thanks for sharing.

Glen.

 

From: Spencer Read [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 3:17 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Vista login script mappin drive

 

I have set it and XP clients get an error in the event log - that seems
the only thing I've found

 

...Spence

 

From: Glen Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: 28 October 2008 17:16
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Vista login script mappin drive

 

Seeking advice.

Domain .vbs login script to map a common drive, works fine with XP and
has forever.

No work on Vista if user is a local admin.  Don't ask why.

Found this article and it offers a workaround.

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc766208.aspx

Create the launchapp.wsf to run the login script with elevated token
using the task scheduler.

Just wondering if anyone has set it up this way and did the script break
anything with XP clients.

Unfortunately we will have some users that will use both OSs for a while
so putting the user in a different OU isn't an option.

Thanks.

Glen.

 

 

 

 

 

 

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

Backup Solutions for lower stress levels?

[Spencer Read]

I currently have 5 servers running Exchange 2003, SQL 2005, Intranets,
Websites and all the other usual stuff running on Windows 2003 R2 - no
Sharepoint yet but that might be coming soon!  They all backup to a
raid1 array in 1 server and then this is copied to a removable drive for
offsite storage

 

My question is - are there any products that will make managing this
easier on my stress levels?

 

I have got

Batch files doing systemstate ntbackups - 4 logfiles

Batch files doing exchange ntbackup  - 1 logfile

Auto Exmerge export - 1 logfile

Robocopy copying everything  - 7 logfiles

SQL backups to disk - 9 logfiles

There is also backup exec but I'm allergic to anything Symantec lately!

 

All I want (Am I asking too much) is 1 solution that can do D2D2D and
possibly D2D2T that can cope with all of the above and make the
management easier?

I seem to spend a good hour each day reading through the logfiles to
check for errors and I'm still not convinced that I could get everything
back if something happened!

 

Thanks

 

...Spence

 

 

 


~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

RE: Vista login script mappin drive

[Spencer Read]

My place had vista before I arrived (for a second stint!)

I haven't changed anything but now you mention it I've never seen the
UAC prompts - so I'm guessing it's disabled

 

...Spence

 

From: Glen Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: 28 October 2008 19:29
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Vista login script mappin drive

 

It didn't work for me using the .vbs script, until I turned UAC off.

With UAC off, it works normally.

Not sure if that would hold true if the user isn't a local admin.

We'll see.

Thanks for sharing.

Glen.

 

From: Spencer Read [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 3:17 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Vista login script mappin drive

 

I have set it and XP clients get an error in the event log - that seems
the only thing I've found

 

...Spence

 

From: Glen Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: 28 October 2008 17:16
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Vista login script mappin drive

 

Seeking advice.

Domain .vbs login script to map a common drive, works fine with XP and
has forever.

No work on Vista if user is a local admin.  Don't ask why.

Found this article and it offers a workaround.

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc766208.aspx

Create the launchapp.wsf to run the login script with elevated token
using the task scheduler.

Just wondering if anyone has set it up this way and did the script break
anything with XP clients.

Unfortunately we will have some users that will use both OSs for a while
so putting the user in a different OU isn't an option.

Thanks.

Glen.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

RE: Backup Solutions for lower stress levels?

[Ken Cornetet]

Microsoft's DPM.

 

From: Spencer Read [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 3:34 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Backup Solutions for lower stress levels?

 

I currently have 5 servers running Exchange 2003, SQL 2005, Intranets,
Websites and all the other usual stuff running on Windows 2003 R2 - no
Sharepoint yet but that might be coming soon!  They all backup to a
raid1 array in 1 server and then this is copied to a removable drive for
offsite storage

 

My question is - are there any products that will make managing this
easier on my stress levels?

 

I have got

Batch files doing systemstate ntbackups - 4 logfiles

Batch files doing exchange ntbackup  - 1 logfile

Auto Exmerge export - 1 logfile

Robocopy copying everything  - 7 logfiles

SQL backups to disk - 9 logfiles

There is also backup exec but I'm allergic to anything Symantec lately!

 

All I want (Am I asking too much) is 1 solution that can do D2D2D and
possibly D2D2T that can cope with all of the above and make the
management easier?

I seem to spend a good hour each day reading through the logfiles to
check for errors and I'm still not convinced that I could get everything
back if something happened!

 

Thanks

 

...Spence

 

 

 

 

 

 

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

RE: Vista login script mappin drive

[Spencer Read]

I have set it and XP clients get an error in the event log - that seems
the only thing I've found

 

...Spence

 

From: Glen Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: 28 October 2008 17:16
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Vista login script mappin drive

 

Seeking advice.

Domain .vbs login script to map a common drive, works fine with XP and
has forever.

No work on Vista if user is a local admin.  Don't ask why.

Found this article and it offers a workaround.

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc766208.aspx

Create the launchapp.wsf to run the login script with elevated token
using the task scheduler.

Just wondering if anyone has set it up this way and did the script break
anything with XP clients.

Unfortunately we will have some users that will use both OSs for a while
so putting the user in a different OU isn't an option.

Thanks.

Glen.

 

 

 

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

RE: Backup Solutions for lower stress levels?

[Tim Vander Kooi]

+1

From: Ken Cornetet [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 2:45 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Backup Solutions for lower stress levels?

Microsoft's DPM.

From: Spencer Read [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 3:34 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Backup Solutions for lower stress levels?

I currently have 5 servers running Exchange 2003, SQL 2005, Intranets, Websites 
and all the other usual stuff running on Windows 2003 R2 - no Sharepoint yet 
but that might be coming soon!  They all backup to a raid1 array in 1 server 
and then this is copied to a removable drive for offsite storage

My question is - are there any products that will make managing this easier on 
my stress levels?

I have got
Batch files doing systemstate ntbackups - 4 logfiles
Batch files doing exchange ntbackup  - 1 logfile
Auto Exmerge export - 1 logfile
Robocopy copying everything  - 7 logfiles
SQL backups to disk - 9 logfiles
There is also backup exec but I'm allergic to anything Symantec lately!

All I want (Am I asking too much) is 1 solution that can do D2D2D and possibly 
D2D2T that can cope with all of the above and make the management easier?
I seem to spend a good hour each day reading through the logfiles to check for 
errors and I'm still not convinced that I could get everything back if 
something happened!

Thanks

...Spence














~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

RE: Backup Solutions for lower stress levels?

[Phil Thompson]

Actually Microsoft's backup program is suppose to work very well and does what 
you have requested.


Phil
From: Spencer Read [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 3:34 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Backup Solutions for lower stress levels?

I currently have 5 servers running Exchange 2003, SQL 2005, Intranets, Websites 
and all the other usual stuff running on Windows 2003 R2 - no Sharepoint yet 
but that might be coming soon!  They all backup to a raid1 array in 1 server 
and then this is copied to a removable drive for offsite storage

My question is - are there any products that will make managing this easier on 
my stress levels?

I have got
Batch files doing systemstate ntbackups - 4 logfiles
Batch files doing exchange ntbackup  - 1 logfile
Auto Exmerge export - 1 logfile
Robocopy copying everything  - 7 logfiles
SQL backups to disk - 9 logfiles
There is also backup exec but I'm allergic to anything Symantec lately!

All I want (Am I asking too much) is 1 solution that can do D2D2D and possibly 
D2D2T that can cope with all of the above and make the management easier?
I seem to spend a good hour each day reading through the logfiles to check for 
errors and I'm still not convinced that I could get everything back if 
something happened!

Thanks

...Spence









~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

Basic Drive Partition Question

[Bill Lambert]

We've been arguing here...and I can't find anything definitive on
Google...

 

Is there any gain in performance if you have a single (NTFS) drive in
two partitions?  One partition for the OS and the other for everything
else?

 

I say no but it wouldn't be the first time I've been wrong.

 

Bill Lambert

Windows System Administrator

Concuity

A healthcare division of Trintech, Inc.  

Phone  847-941-9206

Fax  847-465-9147

 

NASDAQ: TTPA

The information contained in this e-mail message, including any attached
files, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the
recipient(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient (or
authorized to receive information for the recipient) you are hereby
notified that you have received this communication in error and that any
review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is
strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error,
please contact the sender by reply email and delete all copies of this
message.  Thank you.

 


~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~<>

RE: Basic Drive Partition Question

[Kennedy, Jim]

Performance no, perhaps even a small hit to performance. But you can keep the 
data on another partition to keep it from filling and crashing the whole OS if 
it were just all on one partition.


From: Bill Lambert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 3:57 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Basic Drive Partition Question

We've been arguing here...and I can't find anything definitive on Google...

Is there any gain in performance if you have a single (NTFS) drive in two 
partitions?  One partition for the OS and the other for everything else?

I say no but it wouldn't be the first time I've been wrong.

Bill Lambert
Windows System Administrator
Concuity
A healthcare division of Trintech, Inc.
Phone  847-941-9206
Fax  847-465-9147
[cid:image001.gif@01C93915.B524E400]
NASDAQ: TTPA
The information contained in this e-mail message, including any attached files, 
is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) 
named above. If you are not the intended recipient (or authorized to receive 
information for the recipient) you are hereby notified that you have received 
this communication in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, 
or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this 
communication in error, please contact the sender by reply email and delete all 
copies of this message.  Thank you.







~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~<>

Re: Basic Drive Partition Question

[John Cook]

No articles but it's common knowledge that you have to have seperate spindles 
to maintain performance with Exchange. You're still doing read|write with a 
single drives heads no matter how you split it up.
John W. Cook
Systems Administrator
Partnership For Strong Families
Painfully sent to you from my Blackberry


From: Bill Lambert
To: NT System Admin Issues
Sent: Tue Oct 28 15:56:54 2008
Subject: Basic Drive Partition Question
We’ve been arguing here…and I can’t find anything definitive on Google…

Is there any gain in performance if you have a single (NTFS) drive in two 
partitions?  One partition for the OS and the other for everything else?

I say no but it wouldn’t be the first time I’ve been wrong.

Bill Lambert
Windows System Administrator
Concuity
A healthcare division of Trintech, Inc.
Phone  847-941-9206
Fax  847-465-9147
[cid:image001.gif@01C9390D.6A9AFCB0]
NASDAQ: TTPA
The information contained in this e-mail message, including any attached files, 
is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) 
named above. If you are not the intended recipient (or authorized to receive 
information for the recipient) you are hereby notified that you have received 
this communication in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, 
or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this 
communication in error, please contact the sender by reply email and delete all 
copies of this message.  Thank you.








CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT: The information transmitted, or contained or 
attached to or with this Notice is intended only for the person or entity to 
which it is addressed and may contain Protected Health Information (PHI), 
confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, transmission, 
dissemination, or other use of, and taking any action in reliance upon this 
information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient without 
the express written consent of the sender are prohibited. This information may 
be protected by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 
(HIPAA), and other Federal and Florida laws. Improper or unauthorized use or 
disclosure of this information could result in civil and/or criminal penalties.
Consider the environment. Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need 
to.

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~
<>

RE: Backup Solutions for lower stress levels?

[Sam Cayze]

+1, perhaps just add some email alerts to your scripting, and automate
things a little but more.  
 
I set my critical scripts to update a central repository as well as
email out alerts.  If the repositories are not updated, an alert in
generated that something is broken, and is failing to run/send email
alerts.  THEN, I go look at logs.
 
 



From: Phil Thompson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 2:53 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Backup Solutions for lower stress levels?



Actually Microsoft's backup program is suppose to work very well and
does what you have requested.

 

 

Phil

From: Spencer Read [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 3:34 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Backup Solutions for lower stress levels?

 

I currently have 5 servers running Exchange 2003, SQL 2005, Intranets,
Websites and all the other usual stuff running on Windows 2003 R2 - no
Sharepoint yet but that might be coming soon!  They all backup to a
raid1 array in 1 server and then this is copied to a removable drive for
offsite storage

 

My question is - are there any products that will make managing this
easier on my stress levels?

 

I have got

Batch files doing systemstate ntbackups - 4 logfiles

Batch files doing exchange ntbackup  - 1 logfile

Auto Exmerge export - 1 logfile

Robocopy copying everything  - 7 logfiles

SQL backups to disk - 9 logfiles

There is also backup exec but I'm allergic to anything Symantec lately!

 

All I want (Am I asking too much) is 1 solution that can do D2D2D and
possibly D2D2T that can cope with all of the above and make the
management easier?

I seem to spend a good hour each day reading through the logfiles to
check for errors and I'm still not convinced that I could get everything
back if something happened!

 

Thanks

 

...Spence

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

 


~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

RE: Basic Drive Partition Question

[Sam Cayze]

I say yes.   What if you create a partition on the faster, outer edge of
the drive platters, and put your most accessed system files there, or
the whole OS?  And less accessed files toward the inside of the drive.
 
 



From: Kennedy, Jim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 2:56 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Basic Drive Partition Question



Performance no, perhaps even a small hit to performance. But you can
keep the data on another partition to keep it from filling and crashing
the whole OS if it were just all on one partition.

 

 

From: Bill Lambert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 3:57 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Basic Drive Partition Question

 

We've been arguing here...and I can't find anything definitive on
Google...

 

Is there any gain in performance if you have a single (NTFS) drive in
two partitions?  One partition for the OS and the other for everything
else?

 

I say no but it wouldn't be the first time I've been wrong.

 

Bill Lambert

Windows System Administrator

Concuity

A healthcare division of Trintech, Inc.  

Phone  847-941-9206

Fax  847-465-9147

 

NASDAQ: TTPA

The information contained in this e-mail message, including any attached
files, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the
recipient(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient (or
authorized to receive information for the recipient) you are hereby
notified that you have received this communication in error and that any
review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is
strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error,
please contact the sender by reply email and delete all copies of this
message.  Thank you.

 

 

 

 


 

 


~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~<>

RE: Basic Drive Partition Question

[NTSysAdmin]

Lol...that's too funny!!!

From: Sam Cayze [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 5:31 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Basic Drive Partition Question

I say yes.   What if you create a partition on the faster, outer edge of the 
drive platters, and put your most accessed system files there, or the whole OS? 
 And less accessed files toward the inside of the drive.




From: Kennedy, Jim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 2:56 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Basic Drive Partition Question
Performance no, perhaps even a small hit to performance. But you can keep the 
data on another partition to keep it from filling and crashing the whole OS if 
it were just all on one partition.


From: Bill Lambert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 3:57 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Basic Drive Partition Question

We've been arguing here...and I can't find anything definitive on Google...

Is there any gain in performance if you have a single (NTFS) drive in two 
partitions?  One partition for the OS and the other for everything else?

I say no but it wouldn't be the first time I've been wrong.

Bill Lambert
Windows System Administrator
Concuity
A healthcare division of Trintech, Inc.
Phone  847-941-9206
Fax  847-465-9147
[cid:image001.gif@01C93924.347A83A0]
NASDAQ: TTPA
The information contained in this e-mail message, including any attached files, 
is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) 
named above. If you are not the intended recipient (or authorized to receive 
information for the recipient) you are hereby notified that you have received 
this communication in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, 
or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this 
communication in error, please contact the sender by reply email and delete all 
copies of this message.  Thank you.

















~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~<>

RE: Blackberry question

[Martin Blackstone]

Your execs sound like smart guys.

Here is a product comparison.

http://na.blackberry.com/eng/services/professional/#tab_tab_compare

 

Professional is essentially for smaller deployments. It's like BES SBS. It
won't support over 30 BB devices.

 

 

From: Joe Heaton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 12:07 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Blackberry question

 

Can anyone tell me how the Blackberry Professional Software stacks up
against BES?  I'm being asked to give a comparison between the WinMobile
devices we're using, and Blackberry devices.  If the execs decide to go with
Blackberry against my recommendations, I'd prefer to go with the
Professional software, if it will meet our needs.  I'm looking at the
Blackberry website currently, but would like to hear personal, real world
experiences, vs. the sales info on the site.

 

Thanks,

 

Joe Heaton

AISA

Employment Training Panel

1100 J Street, 4th Floor

Sacramento, CA  95814

(916) 327-5276

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

 

 

 

 

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

RE: Basic Drive Partition Question

[Michael B. Smith]

Not funny at all, actually; it used to be quite common to avoid "full
stroke" access. You never wanted a disk to use more than 20% of its stroke
time in order to maximize performance. I saw this in mainframes, in large
database rollouts, in large Exchange rollouts, etc.

 

Regards,

 

Michael B. Smith, MCITP:SA,EMA/MCSE/Exchange MVP

My blog: http://TheEssentialExchange.com/blogs/michael

Link with me at: http://www.linkedin.com/in/theessentialexchange

 

From: Steve Moffat [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of NTSysAdmin
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 4:40 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Basic Drive Partition Question

 

Lol...that's too funny!!!

 

From: Sam Cayze [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 5:31 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Basic Drive Partition Question

 

I say yes.   What if you create a partition on the faster, outer edge of the
drive platters, and put your most accessed system files there, or the whole
OS?  And less accessed files toward the inside of the drive.

 

 

 

  _  

From: Kennedy, Jim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 2:56 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Basic Drive Partition Question

Performance no, perhaps even a small hit to performance. But you can keep
the data on another partition to keep it from filling and crashing the whole
OS if it were just all on one partition.

 

 

From: Bill Lambert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 3:57 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Basic Drive Partition Question

 

We've been arguing here.and I can't find anything definitive on Google.

 

Is there any gain in performance if you have a single (NTFS) drive in two
partitions?  One partition for the OS and the other for everything else?

 

I say no but it wouldn't be the first time I've been wrong.

 

Bill Lambert

Windows System Administrator

Concuity

A healthcare division of Trintech, Inc.  

Phone  847-941-9206

Fax  847-465-9147



NASDAQ: TTPA

The information contained in this e-mail message, including any attached
files, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the
recipient(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient (or
authorized to receive information for the recipient) you are hereby notified
that you have received this communication in error and that any review,
dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please contact
the sender by reply email and delete all copies of this message.  Thank you.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~<>

RE: Basic Drive Partition Question

[lists]

Sam what software do you use to accomplish that partitioning?

 

Cheers.

 

From: Sam Cayze [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 5:31 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Basic Drive Partition Question

 

I say yes.   What if you create a partition on the faster, outer edge of
the drive platters, and put your most accessed system files there, or
the whole OS?  And less accessed files toward the inside of the drive.

 

 

 



From: Kennedy, Jim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 2:56 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Basic Drive Partition Question

Performance no, perhaps even a small hit to performance. But you can
keep the data on another partition to keep it from filling and crashing
the whole OS if it were just all on one partition.

 

 

From: Bill Lambert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 3:57 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Basic Drive Partition Question

 

We've been arguing here...and I can't find anything definitive on
Google...

 

Is there any gain in performance if you have a single (NTFS) drive in
two partitions?  One partition for the OS and the other for everything
else?

 

I say no but it wouldn't be the first time I've been wrong.

 

Bill Lambert

Windows System Administrator

Concuity

A healthcare division of Trintech, Inc.  

Phone  847-941-9206

Fax  847-465-9147

 

NASDAQ: TTPA

The information contained in this e-mail message, including any attached
files, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the
recipient(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient (or
authorized to receive information for the recipient) you are hereby
notified that you have received this communication in error and that any
review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is
strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error,
please contact the sender by reply email and delete all copies of this
message.  Thank you.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~<>

RE: Blackberry question

[Joe Heaton]

Martin,

 

Sounds like you prefer Blackberry to WM.  Can you give me some reasons
for this?  Not asking for flames, but real, honest reasons.

 

Joe Heaton

Employment Training Panel

 

From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 1:44 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Blackberry question

 

Your execs sound like smart guys.

Here is a product comparison.

http://na.blackberry.com/eng/services/professional/#tab_tab_compare

 

Professional is essentially for smaller deployments. It's like BES SBS.
It won't support over 30 BB devices.

 

 

From: Joe Heaton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 12:07 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Blackberry question

 

Can anyone tell me how the Blackberry Professional Software stacks up
against BES?  I'm being asked to give a comparison between the WinMobile
devices we're using, and Blackberry devices.  If the execs decide to go
with Blackberry against my recommendations, I'd prefer to go with the
Professional software, if it will meet our needs.  I'm looking at the
Blackberry website currently, but would like to hear personal, real
world experiences, vs. the sales info on the site.

 

Thanks,

 

Joe Heaton

AISA

Employment Training Panel

1100 J Street, 4th Floor

Sacramento, CA  95814

(916) 327-5276

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

RE: Basic Drive Partition Question

[Sam Cayze]

ha ha, none :)
 
I don't actually follow this practice...  But I KNOW there is software
out there that can do this!
 
More info after a quick google search...
http://partition.radified.com/partitioning_2.htm
 
 
 
 



From: Stephan Barr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
lists
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 3:50 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Basic Drive Partition Question



Sam what software do you use to accomplish that partitioning?

 

Cheers.

 

From: Sam Cayze [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 5:31 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Basic Drive Partition Question

 

I say yes.   What if you create a partition on the faster, outer edge of
the drive platters, and put your most accessed system files there, or
the whole OS?  And less accessed files toward the inside of the drive.

 

 

 



From: Kennedy, Jim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 2:56 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Basic Drive Partition Question

Performance no, perhaps even a small hit to performance. But you can
keep the data on another partition to keep it from filling and crashing
the whole OS if it were just all on one partition.

 

 

From: Bill Lambert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 3:57 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Basic Drive Partition Question

 

We've been arguing here...and I can't find anything definitive on
Google...

 

Is there any gain in performance if you have a single (NTFS) drive in
two partitions?  One partition for the OS and the other for everything
else?

 

I say no but it wouldn't be the first time I've been wrong.

 

Bill Lambert

Windows System Administrator

Concuity

A healthcare division of Trintech, Inc.  

Phone  847-941-9206

Fax  847-465-9147

 

NASDAQ: TTPA

The information contained in this e-mail message, including any attached
files, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the
recipient(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient (or
authorized to receive information for the recipient) you are hereby
notified that you have received this communication in error and that any
review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is
strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error,
please contact the sender by reply email and delete all copies of this
message.  Thank you.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

 


~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~<>

RE: Basic Drive Partition Question

[NTSysAdmin]

>From a friend of mine at Fujitsu.

There is no longer any point to short stroking a drive. Modern Drives have 
recording density zones that basically change with the distance from center. I 
am not sure there's been a non-zoned drive made in about a decade...:)

S

From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 5:44 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Basic Drive Partition Question

Not funny at all, actually; it used to be quite common to avoid "full stroke" 
access. You never wanted a disk to use more than 20% of its stroke time in 
order to maximize performance. I saw this in mainframes, in large database 
rollouts, in large Exchange rollouts, etc.

Regards,

Michael B. Smith, MCITP:SA,EMA/MCSE/Exchange MVP
My blog: http://TheEssentialExchange.com/blogs/michael
Link with me at: http://www.linkedin.com/in/theessentialexchange

From: Steve Moffat [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of NTSysAdmin
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 4:40 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Basic Drive Partition Question

Lol...that's too funny!!!

From: Sam Cayze [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 5:31 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Basic Drive Partition Question

I say yes.   What if you create a partition on the faster, outer edge of the 
drive platters, and put your most accessed system files there, or the whole OS? 
 And less accessed files toward the inside of the drive.




From: Kennedy, Jim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 2:56 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Basic Drive Partition Question
Performance no, perhaps even a small hit to performance. But you can keep the 
data on another partition to keep it from filling and crashing the whole OS if 
it were just all on one partition.


From: Bill Lambert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 3:57 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Basic Drive Partition Question

We've been arguing here...and I can't find anything definitive on Google...

Is there any gain in performance if you have a single (NTFS) drive in two 
partitions?  One partition for the OS and the other for everything else?

I say no but it wouldn't be the first time I've been wrong.

Bill Lambert
Windows System Administrator
Concuity
A healthcare division of Trintech, Inc.
Phone  847-941-9206
Fax  847-465-9147
[cid:image001.gif@01C93926.B896F090]
NASDAQ: TTPA
The information contained in this e-mail message, including any attached files, 
is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) 
named above. If you are not the intended recipient (or authorized to receive 
information for the recipient) you are hereby notified that you have received 
this communication in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, 
or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this 
communication in error, please contact the sender by reply email and delete all 
copies of this message.  Thank you.



























~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~<>

RE: Blackberry question

[Martin Blackstone]

This was something I posted on another list and I admit I may be off base on
some of it.

 

The device: 

Frequent OS updates. RIM makes OS updates available and free. Whereas with
WM, you are pretty much stuck with the version that came on your phone. I'm
not saying it's impossible to get updated WM versions, just that it's not a
given like it is on BB.  While my WM5 users are still on WM5, my BB users
have gone from 3.x to 4.x, and 4.5 coming soon. Each of those offers a slew
of new or upgraded features. To me that has to be one of the best parts of
the whole system. Sure some WM users get upgrades, but you are at the mercy
of the provider and not all of them are so generous.

 

Battery life rocks. I can go days and days and days without a recharge.
Sure, some WM devices do that too, but not all.

 

Since RIM not only builds the OS, but the phones, there are no issues with
underpowered CPU's / hardware. Some WM devices are just damn slow. That's
because the OS and device are not designed together.

 

BES:

I don't have to upgrade my whole Exchange environment to get new server side
features.

Just my BES server which takes about 30 minutes and is free as long as I
have a valid support contract which isn't too expensive at all.

 

Centrally managed. I can view all users, all user statistics, etc in one
screen. Right now I'm looking at all my users and their PIN's. Plus their
status, last contact date and time, sent / received messages and the times,
filtered messages, pending one. 

 

I can create filters for my users on the fly if need be.

 

I can set policies and deploy software. In the next version of BES I will be
able to do OTA OS upgrades of devices.

 

I can enable / disable PIM sync data from the server side at a fairly
granular level if I wished.

 

I can see what the users device is and all the specs on the device. Model,
OS version, hardware, software, applications. For example from the BES
server, I can see that I have Gmail, Google Maps, Jewel Rumble, and Live
Search installed on my BB.

 

Nobody can connect a device to my BES without getting an account setup by
me. No rogue phones, etc.

 

 

From: Joe Heaton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 1:51 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Blackberry question

 

Martin,

 

Sounds like you prefer Blackberry to WM.  Can you give me some reasons for
this?  Not asking for flames, but real, honest reasons.

 

Joe Heaton

Employment Training Panel

 

From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 1:44 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Blackberry question

 

Your execs sound like smart guys.

Here is a product comparison.

http://na.blackberry.com/eng/services/professional/#tab_tab_compare

 

Professional is essentially for smaller deployments. It's like BES SBS. It
won't support over 30 BB devices.

 

 

From: Joe Heaton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 12:07 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Blackberry question

 

Can anyone tell me how the Blackberry Professional Software stacks up
against BES?  I'm being asked to give a comparison between the WinMobile
devices we're using, and Blackberry devices.  If the execs decide to go with
Blackberry against my recommendations, I'd prefer to go with the
Professional software, if it will meet our needs.  I'm looking at the
Blackberry website currently, but would like to hear personal, real world
experiences, vs. the sales info on the site.

 

Thanks,

 

Joe Heaton

AISA

Employment Training Panel

1100 J Street, 4th Floor

Sacramento, CA  95814

(916) 327-5276

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

RE: Basic Drive Partition Question

[Sam Cayze]

Interesting, I see your point.  Still though, the head would be
jumping around a lot less.  Wouldn't that contribute to some gains?



From: Steve Moffat [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of NTSysAdmin
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 3:58 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Basic Drive Partition Question



>From a friend of mine at Fujitsu.

 

There is no longer any point to short stroking a drive. Modern Drives
have recording density zones that basically change with the distance
from center. I am not sure there's been a non-zoned drive made in about
a decade...:)

 

S

 

From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 5:44 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Basic Drive Partition Question

 

Not funny at all, actually; it used to be quite common to avoid "full
stroke" access. You never wanted a disk to use more than 20% of its
stroke time in order to maximize performance. I saw this in mainframes,
in large database rollouts, in large Exchange rollouts, etc.

 

Regards,

 

Michael B. Smith, MCITP:SA,EMA/MCSE/Exchange MVP

My blog: http://TheEssentialExchange.com/blogs/michael

Link with me at: http://www.linkedin.com/in/theessentialexchange

 

From: Steve Moffat [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of NTSysAdmin
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 4:40 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Basic Drive Partition Question

 

Lol...that's too funny!!!

 

From: Sam Cayze [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 5:31 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Basic Drive Partition Question

 

I say yes.   What if you create a partition on the faster, outer edge of
the drive platters, and put your most accessed system files there, or
the whole OS?  And less accessed files toward the inside of the drive.

 

 

 



From: Kennedy, Jim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 2:56 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Basic Drive Partition Question

Performance no, perhaps even a small hit to performance. But you can
keep the data on another partition to keep it from filling and crashing
the whole OS if it were just all on one partition.

 

 

From: Bill Lambert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 3:57 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Basic Drive Partition Question

 

We've been arguing here...and I can't find anything definitive on
Google...

 

Is there any gain in performance if you have a single (NTFS) drive in
two partitions?  One partition for the OS and the other for everything
else?

 

I say no but it wouldn't be the first time I've been wrong.

 

Bill Lambert

Windows System Administrator

Concuity

A healthcare division of Trintech, Inc.  

Phone  847-941-9206

Fax  847-465-9147

 

NASDAQ: TTPA

The information contained in this e-mail message, including any attached
files, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the
recipient(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient (or
authorized to receive information for the recipient) you are hereby
notified that you have received this communication in error and that any
review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is
strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error,
please contact the sender by reply email and delete all copies of this
message.  Thank you.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

 


~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~<>

RE: Blackberry question

[Joe Heaton]

Is there ever an issue with e-mail attachments?  For instance, someone
sends you a word document.  Can you open that on your BB?  My
understanding was that there was no native support for Office docs.  How
about PDFs?  Again, I'm not trying to flame here, just trying to get a
better understanding of what the real truth is.

 

Thanks,

 

Joe Heaton

Employment Training Panel

 

From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 2:01 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Blackberry question

 

This was something I posted on another list and I admit I may be off
base on some of it.

 

The device: 

Frequent OS updates. RIM makes OS updates available and free. Whereas
with WM, you are pretty much stuck with the version that came on your
phone. I'm not saying it's impossible to get updated WM versions, just
that it's not a given like it is on BB.  While my WM5 users are still on
WM5, my BB users have gone from 3.x to 4.x, and 4.5 coming soon. Each of
those offers a slew of new or upgraded features. To me that has to be
one of the best parts of the whole system. Sure some WM users get
upgrades, but you are at the mercy of the provider and not all of them
are so generous.

 

Battery life rocks. I can go days and days and days without a recharge.
Sure, some WM devices do that too, but not all.

 

Since RIM not only builds the OS, but the phones, there are no issues
with underpowered CPU's / hardware. Some WM devices are just damn slow.
That's because the OS and device are not designed together.

 

BES:

I don't have to upgrade my whole Exchange environment to get new server
side features.

Just my BES server which takes about 30 minutes and is free as long as I
have a valid support contract which isn't too expensive at all.

 

Centrally managed. I can view all users, all user statistics, etc in one
screen. Right now I'm looking at all my users and their PIN's. Plus
their status, last contact date and time, sent / received messages and
the times, filtered messages, pending one. 

 

 

I can create filters for my users on the fly if need be.

 

I can set policies and deploy software. In the next version of BES I
will be able to do OTA OS upgrades of devices.

 

I can enable / disable PIM sync data from the server side at a fairly
granular level if I wished.

 

I can see what the users device is and all the specs on the device.
Model, OS version, hardware, software, applications. For example from
the BES server, I can see that I have Gmail, Google Maps, Jewel Rumble,
and Live Search installed on my BB.

 

Nobody can connect a device to my BES without getting an account setup
by me. No rogue phones, etc.

 

 

From: Joe Heaton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 1:51 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Blackberry question

 

Martin,

 

Sounds like you prefer Blackberry to WM.  Can you give me some reasons
for this?  Not asking for flames, but real, honest reasons.

 

Joe Heaton

Employment Training Panel

 

From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 1:44 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Blackberry question

 

Your execs sound like smart guys.

Here is a product comparison.

http://na.blackberry.com/eng/services/professional/#tab_tab_compare

 

Professional is essentially for smaller deployments. It's like BES SBS.
It won't support over 30 BB devices.

 

 

From: Joe Heaton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 12:07 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Blackberry question

 

Can anyone tell me how the Blackberry Professional Software stacks up
against BES?  I'm being asked to give a comparison between the WinMobile
devices we're using, and Blackberry devices.  If the execs decide to go
with Blackberry against my recommendations, I'd prefer to go with the
Professional software, if it will meet our needs.  I'm looking at the
Blackberry website currently, but would like to hear personal, real
world experiences, vs. the sales info on the site.

 

Thanks,

 

Joe Heaton

AISA

Employment Training Panel

1100 J Street, 4th Floor

Sacramento, CA  95814

(916) 327-5276

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

RE: Basic Drive Partition Question

[NTSysAdmin]

Dunno. I bow to her expertise.


From: Sam Cayze [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 6:02 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Basic Drive Partition Question

Interesting, I see your point.  Still though, the head would be jumping 
around a lot less.  Wouldn't that contribute to some gains?


From: Steve Moffat [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of NTSysAdmin
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 3:58 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Basic Drive Partition Question
>From a friend of mine at Fujitsu.

There is no longer any point to short stroking a drive. Modern Drives have 
recording density zones that basically change with the distance from center. I 
am not sure there's been a non-zoned drive made in about a decade...:)

S

From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 5:44 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Basic Drive Partition Question

Not funny at all, actually; it used to be quite common to avoid "full stroke" 
access. You never wanted a disk to use more than 20% of its stroke time in 
order to maximize performance. I saw this in mainframes, in large database 
rollouts, in large Exchange rollouts, etc.

Regards,

Michael B. Smith, MCITP:SA,EMA/MCSE/Exchange MVP
My blog: http://TheEssentialExchange.com/blogs/michael
Link with me at: http://www.linkedin.com/in/theessentialexchange

From: Steve Moffat [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of NTSysAdmin
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 4:40 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Basic Drive Partition Question

Lol...that's too funny!!!

From: Sam Cayze [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 5:31 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Basic Drive Partition Question

I say yes.   What if you create a partition on the faster, outer edge of the 
drive platters, and put your most accessed system files there, or the whole OS? 
 And less accessed files toward the inside of the drive.




From: Kennedy, Jim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 2:56 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Basic Drive Partition Question
Performance no, perhaps even a small hit to performance. But you can keep the 
data on another partition to keep it from filling and crashing the whole OS if 
it were just all on one partition.


From: Bill Lambert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 3:57 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Basic Drive Partition Question

We've been arguing here...and I can't find anything definitive on Google...

Is there any gain in performance if you have a single (NTFS) drive in two 
partitions?  One partition for the OS and the other for everything else?

I say no but it wouldn't be the first time I've been wrong.

Bill Lambert
Windows System Administrator
Concuity
A healthcare division of Trintech, Inc.
Phone  847-941-9206
Fax  847-465-9147
[cid:image001.gif@01C93929.229FA520]
NASDAQ: TTPA
The information contained in this e-mail message, including any attached files, 
is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) 
named above. If you are not the intended recipient (or authorized to receive 
information for the recipient) you are hereby notified that you have received 
this communication in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, 
or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this 
communication in error, please contact the sender by reply email and delete all 
copies of this message.  Thank you.





































~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~<>

RE: Basic Drive Partition Question

[Michael B. Smith]

I said "USED TO BE". I'm old. J

 

Regards,

 

Michael B. Smith, MCITP:SA,EMA/MCSE/Exchange MVP

My blog: http://TheEssentialExchange.com/blogs/michael

Link with me at: http://www.linkedin.com/in/theessentialexchange

 

From: Sam Cayze [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 5:02 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Basic Drive Partition Question

 

Interesting, I see your point.  Still though, the head would be jumping
around a lot less.  Wouldn't that contribute to some gains?

 

  _  

From: Steve Moffat [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of NTSysAdmin
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 3:58 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Basic Drive Partition Question

>From a friend of mine at Fujitsu.

 

There is no longer any point to short stroking a drive. Modern Drives have
recording density zones that basically change with the distance from center.
I am not sure there's been a non-zoned drive made in about a decade...:)

 

S

 

From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 5:44 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Basic Drive Partition Question

 

Not funny at all, actually; it used to be quite common to avoid "full
stroke" access. You never wanted a disk to use more than 20% of its stroke
time in order to maximize performance. I saw this in mainframes, in large
database rollouts, in large Exchange rollouts, etc.

 

Regards,

 

Michael B. Smith, MCITP:SA,EMA/MCSE/Exchange MVP

My blog: http://TheEssentialExchange.com/blogs/michael

Link with me at: http://www.linkedin.com/in/theessentialexchange

 

From: Steve Moffat [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of NTSysAdmin
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 4:40 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Basic Drive Partition Question

 

Lol...that's too funny!!!

 

From: Sam Cayze [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 5:31 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Basic Drive Partition Question

 

I say yes.   What if you create a partition on the faster, outer edge of the
drive platters, and put your most accessed system files there, or the whole
OS?  And less accessed files toward the inside of the drive.

 

 

 

  _  

From: Kennedy, Jim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 2:56 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Basic Drive Partition Question

Performance no, perhaps even a small hit to performance. But you can keep
the data on another partition to keep it from filling and crashing the whole
OS if it were just all on one partition.

 

 

From: Bill Lambert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 3:57 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Basic Drive Partition Question

 

We've been arguing here.and I can't find anything definitive on Google.

 

Is there any gain in performance if you have a single (NTFS) drive in two
partitions?  One partition for the OS and the other for everything else?

 

I say no but it wouldn't be the first time I've been wrong.

 

Bill Lambert

Windows System Administrator

Concuity

A healthcare division of Trintech, Inc.  

Phone  847-941-9206

Fax  847-465-9147



NASDAQ: TTPA

The information contained in this e-mail message, including any attached
files, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the
recipient(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient (or
authorized to receive information for the recipient) you are hereby notified
that you have received this communication in error and that any review,
dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please contact
the sender by reply email and delete all copies of this message.  Thank you.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~<>

RE: Basic Drive Partition Question

[Sam Cayze]

I expect a full report from her by the morning.
 
:)
 
Sam

 


From: Steve Moffat [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of NTSysAdmin
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 4:15 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Basic Drive Partition Question



Dunno. I bow to her expertise.

 

 

From: Sam Cayze [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 6:02 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Basic Drive Partition Question

 

Interesting, I see your point.  Still though, the head would be
jumping around a lot less.  Wouldn't that contribute to some gains?

 



From: Steve Moffat [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of NTSysAdmin
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 3:58 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Basic Drive Partition Question

>From a friend of mine at Fujitsu.

 

There is no longer any point to short stroking a drive. Modern Drives
have recording density zones that basically change with the distance
from center. I am not sure there's been a non-zoned drive made in about
a decade...:)

 

S

 

From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 5:44 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Basic Drive Partition Question

 

Not funny at all, actually; it used to be quite common to avoid "full
stroke" access. You never wanted a disk to use more than 20% of its
stroke time in order to maximize performance. I saw this in mainframes,
in large database rollouts, in large Exchange rollouts, etc.

 

Regards,

 

Michael B. Smith, MCITP:SA,EMA/MCSE/Exchange MVP

My blog: http://TheEssentialExchange.com/blogs/michael

Link with me at: http://www.linkedin.com/in/theessentialexchange

 

From: Steve Moffat [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of NTSysAdmin
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 4:40 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Basic Drive Partition Question

 

Lol...that's too funny!!!

 

From: Sam Cayze [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 5:31 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Basic Drive Partition Question

 

I say yes.   What if you create a partition on the faster, outer edge of
the drive platters, and put your most accessed system files there, or
the whole OS?  And less accessed files toward the inside of the drive.

 

 

 



From: Kennedy, Jim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 2:56 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Basic Drive Partition Question

Performance no, perhaps even a small hit to performance. But you can
keep the data on another partition to keep it from filling and crashing
the whole OS if it were just all on one partition.

 

 

From: Bill Lambert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 3:57 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Basic Drive Partition Question

 

We've been arguing here...and I can't find anything definitive on
Google...

 

Is there any gain in performance if you have a single (NTFS) drive in
two partitions?  One partition for the OS and the other for everything
else?

 

I say no but it wouldn't be the first time I've been wrong.

 

Bill Lambert

Windows System Administrator

Concuity

A healthcare division of Trintech, Inc.  

Phone  847-941-9206

Fax  847-465-9147

 

NASDAQ: TTPA

The information contained in this e-mail message, including any attached
files, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the
recipient(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient (or
authorized to receive information for the recipient) you are hereby
notified that you have received this communication in error and that any
review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is
strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error,
please contact the sender by reply email and delete all copies of this
message.  Thank you.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

 


~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~<>

RE: Blackberry question

[NTSysAdmin]

No issues with .docs or .pdf's

From: Joe Heaton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 6:14 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Blackberry question

Is there ever an issue with e-mail attachments?  For instance, someone sends 
you a word document.  Can you open that on your BB?  My understanding was that 
there was no native support for Office docs.  How about PDFs?  Again, I'm not 
trying to flame here, just trying to get a better understanding of what the 
real truth is.

Thanks,

Joe Heaton
Employment Training Panel

From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 2:01 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Blackberry question


This was something I posted on another list and I admit I may be off base on 
some of it.



The device:

Frequent OS updates. RIM makes OS updates available and free. Whereas with WM, 
you are pretty much stuck with the version that came on your phone. I'm not 
saying it's impossible to get updated WM versions, just that it's not a given 
like it is on BB.  While my WM5 users are still on WM5, my BB users have gone 
from 3.x to 4.x, and 4.5 coming soon. Each of those offers a slew of new or 
upgraded features. To me that has to be one of the best parts of the whole 
system. Sure some WM users get upgrades, but you are at the mercy of the 
provider and not all of them are so generous.



Battery life rocks. I can go days and days and days without a recharge. Sure, 
some WM devices do that too, but not all.



Since RIM not only builds the OS, but the phones, there are no issues with 
underpowered CPU's / hardware. Some WM devices are just damn slow. That's 
because the OS and device are not designed together.



BES:

I don't have to upgrade my whole Exchange environment to get new server side 
features.

Just my BES server which takes about 30 minutes and is free as long as I have a 
valid support contract which isn't too expensive at all.



Centrally managed. I can view all users, all user statistics, etc in one 
screen. Right now I'm looking at all my users and their PIN's. Plus their 
status, last contact date and time, sent / received messages and the times, 
filtered messages, pending one.





I can create filters for my users on the fly if need be.



I can set policies and deploy software. In the next version of BES I will be 
able to do OTA OS upgrades of devices.



I can enable / disable PIM sync data from the server side at a fairly granular 
level if I wished.



I can see what the users device is and all the specs on the device. Model, OS 
version, hardware, software, applications. For example from the BES server, I 
can see that I have Gmail, Google Maps, Jewel Rumble, and Live Search installed 
on my BB.



Nobody can connect a device to my BES without getting an account setup by me. 
No rogue phones, etc.


From: Joe Heaton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 1:51 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Blackberry question

Martin,

Sounds like you prefer Blackberry to WM.  Can you give me some reasons for 
this?  Not asking for flames, but real, honest reasons.

Joe Heaton
Employment Training Panel

From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 1:44 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Blackberry question

Your execs sound like smart guys.
Here is a product comparison.
http://na.blackberry.com/eng/services/professional/#tab_tab_compare

Professional is essentially for smaller deployments. It's like BES SBS. It 
won't support over 30 BB devices.


From: Joe Heaton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 12:07 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Blackberry question

Can anyone tell me how the Blackberry Professional Software stacks up against 
BES?  I'm being asked to give a comparison between the WinMobile devices we're 
using, and Blackberry devices.  If the execs decide to go with Blackberry 
against my recommendations, I'd prefer to go with the Professional software, if 
it will meet our needs.  I'm looking at the Blackberry website currently, but 
would like to hear personal, real world experiences, vs. the sales info on the 
site.

Thanks,

Joe Heaton
AISA
Employment Training Panel
1100 J Street, 4th Floor
Sacramento, CA  95814
(916) 327-5276
[EMAIL PROTECTED]



























~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

RE: Basic Drive Partition Question

[NTSysAdmin]

Before Mulholland chips in...Not as old as me!!

:)

From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 6:10 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Basic Drive Partition Question

I said "USED TO BE". I'm old. :)

Regards,

Michael B. Smith, MCITP:SA,EMA/MCSE/Exchange MVP
My blog: http://TheEssentialExchange.com/blogs/michael
Link with me at: http://www.linkedin.com/in/theessentialexchange

From: Sam Cayze [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 5:02 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Basic Drive Partition Question

Interesting, I see your point.  Still though, the head would be jumping 
around a lot less.  Wouldn't that contribute to some gains?


From: Steve Moffat [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of NTSysAdmin
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 3:58 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Basic Drive Partition Question
>From a friend of mine at Fujitsu.

There is no longer any point to short stroking a drive. Modern Drives have 
recording density zones that basically change with the distance from center. I 
am not sure there's been a non-zoned drive made in about a decade...:)

S

From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 5:44 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Basic Drive Partition Question

Not funny at all, actually; it used to be quite common to avoid "full stroke" 
access. You never wanted a disk to use more than 20% of its stroke time in 
order to maximize performance. I saw this in mainframes, in large database 
rollouts, in large Exchange rollouts, etc.

Regards,

Michael B. Smith, MCITP:SA,EMA/MCSE/Exchange MVP
My blog: http://TheEssentialExchange.com/blogs/michael
Link with me at: http://www.linkedin.com/in/theessentialexchange

From: Steve Moffat [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of NTSysAdmin
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 4:40 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Basic Drive Partition Question

Lol...that's too funny!!!

From: Sam Cayze [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 5:31 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Basic Drive Partition Question

I say yes.   What if you create a partition on the faster, outer edge of the 
drive platters, and put your most accessed system files there, or the whole OS? 
 And less accessed files toward the inside of the drive.




From: Kennedy, Jim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 2:56 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Basic Drive Partition Question
Performance no, perhaps even a small hit to performance. But you can keep the 
data on another partition to keep it from filling and crashing the whole OS if 
it were just all on one partition.


From: Bill Lambert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 3:57 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Basic Drive Partition Question

We've been arguing here...and I can't find anything definitive on Google...

Is there any gain in performance if you have a single (NTFS) drive in two 
partitions?  One partition for the OS and the other for everything else?

I say no but it wouldn't be the first time I've been wrong.

Bill Lambert
Windows System Administrator
Concuity
A healthcare division of Trintech, Inc.
Phone  847-941-9206
Fax  847-465-9147
[cid:image001.gif@01C93929.FD67CB10]
NASDAQ: TTPA
The information contained in this e-mail message, including any attached files, 
is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) 
named above. If you are not the intended recipient (or authorized to receive 
information for the recipient) you are hereby notified that you have received 
this communication in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, 
or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this 
communication in error, please contact the sender by reply email and delete all 
copies of this message.  Thank you.










































~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~<>

RE: Blackberry question

[Martin Blackstone]

Yea, it's no problem. Even Office 2007 attachments work for me.

Granted I'm running the 4.5 BB OS which is out for some carriers and in beta
for others. I've been running it forever and it rocks.

Between that and the latest BES version, they have made up for a lot of
those functions that were lacking from BB but already in WM.

 

4.5 features.

 

. BlackBerry Maps with Points of Interest (H) 
. Improved media player with playlist support and automatic playlist
generation (H) 
. Voice note recording (H) 
. Video recording on Curve models (H) 
. Streaming support for YouTube and Sling Player (H)
. Microsoft Office document editing with DocumentsToGo (H)
. Native format attachment downloading (S)
. HTML e-mails (S)
. Over-the-air device upgrades (S) 
. Free/busy calendar lookup (S) 
. Searching the server for old e-mail messages (S)

 

 

From: Joe Heaton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 2:14 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Blackberry question

 

Is there ever an issue with e-mail attachments?  For instance, someone sends
you a word document.  Can you open that on your BB?  My understanding was
that there was no native support for Office docs.  How about PDFs?  Again,
I'm not trying to flame here, just trying to get a better understanding of
what the real truth is.

 

Thanks,

 

Joe Heaton

Employment Training Panel

 

From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 2:01 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Blackberry question

 

This was something I posted on another list and I admit I may be off base on
some of it.

 

The device: 

Frequent OS updates. RIM makes OS updates available and free. Whereas with
WM, you are pretty much stuck with the version that came on your phone. I'm
not saying it's impossible to get updated WM versions, just that it's not a
given like it is on BB.  While my WM5 users are still on WM5, my BB users
have gone from 3.x to 4.x, and 4.5 coming soon. Each of those offers a slew
of new or upgraded features. To me that has to be one of the best parts of
the whole system. Sure some WM users get upgrades, but you are at the mercy
of the provider and not all of them are so generous.

 

Battery life rocks. I can go days and days and days without a recharge.
Sure, some WM devices do that too, but not all.

 

Since RIM not only builds the OS, but the phones, there are no issues with
underpowered CPU's / hardware. Some WM devices are just damn slow. That's
because the OS and device are not designed together.

 

BES:

I don't have to upgrade my whole Exchange environment to get new server side
features.

Just my BES server which takes about 30 minutes and is free as long as I
have a valid support contract which isn't too expensive at all.

 

Centrally managed. I can view all users, all user statistics, etc in one
screen. Right now I'm looking at all my users and their PIN's. Plus their
status, last contact date and time, sent / received messages and the times,
filtered messages, pending one. 

 

 

I can create filters for my users on the fly if need be.

 

I can set policies and deploy software. In the next version of BES I will be
able to do OTA OS upgrades of devices.

 

I can enable / disable PIM sync data from the server side at a fairly
granular level if I wished.

 

I can see what the users device is and all the specs on the device. Model,
OS version, hardware, software, applications. For example from the BES
server, I can see that I have Gmail, Google Maps, Jewel Rumble, and Live
Search installed on my BB.

 

Nobody can connect a device to my BES without getting an account setup by
me. No rogue phones, etc.

 

 

From: Joe Heaton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 1:51 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Blackberry question

 

Martin,

 

Sounds like you prefer Blackberry to WM.  Can you give me some reasons for
this?  Not asking for flames, but real, honest reasons.

 

Joe Heaton

Employment Training Panel

 

From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 1:44 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Blackberry question

 

Your execs sound like smart guys.

Here is a product comparison.

http://na.blackberry.com/eng/services/professional/#tab_tab_compare

 

Professional is essentially for smaller deployments. It's like BES SBS. It
won't support over 30 BB devices.

 

 

From: Joe Heaton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 12:07 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Blackberry question

 

Can anyone tell me how the Blackberry Professional Software stacks up
against BES?  I'm being asked to give a comparison between the WinMobile
devices we're using, and Blackberry devices.  If the execs decide to go with
Blackberry against my recommendations, I'd prefer to go with the
Professional software, if it will meet our needs.  I'm looking at the
Blackberry website currently, but would like to hear p

More Updates

[Martin Blackstone]

Why did my WSUS download more updates today? Seriously? 

 


New Update Alert


The following 16 new updates have been synchronized to T3UTIL since Tuesday,
October 28, 2008 7:15 PM (GMT).


Critical and Security Updates


  System Update Readiness Tool for
x64 based systems (KB947821) [August 2008]
This tool is being offered because an inconsistency was found in the Windows
servicing store which may prevent the successful installation of future
updates, service packs, and software. This tool checks your computer for
such inconsistencies and attempts to resolve issues if found.


  System Update Readiness Tool
(KB947821) [August 2008]
This tool is being offered because an inconsistency was found in the Windows
servicing store which may prevent the successful installation of future
updates, service packs, and software. This tool checks your computer for
such inconsistencies and attempts to resolve issues if found.


  System Update Readiness Tool for
Itanium-based Systems (KB947821) [August 2008]
This tool is being offered because an inconsistency was found in the Windows
servicing store which may prevent the successful installation of future
updates, service packs, and software. This tool checks your computer for
such inconsistencies and attempts to resolve issues if found.


  Security Update for Windows
Server 2008 for Itanium-based Systems (KB953155)
A security issue has been identified that could allow an unauthenticated
remote attacker to compromise your Microsoft Windows-based system and gain
control over it. You can help protect your computer by installing this
update from Microsoft. After you install this item, you may have to restart
your computer. This update is provided to you and licensed under the Windows
Server 2008 License Terms.


  Security Update for Windows
Vista for x64-based Systems (KB953155)
A security issue has been identified that could allow an unauthenticated
remote attacker to compromise your Microsoft Windows-based system and gain
control over it. You can help protect your computer by installing this
update from Microsoft. After you install this item, you may have to restart
your computer. This update is provided to you and licensed under the Windows
Vista License Terms.


  Security Update for Windows
Vista (KB953155)
A security issue has been identified that could allow an unauthenticated
remote attacker to compromise your Microsoft Windows-based system and gain
control over it. You can help protect your computer by installing this
update from Microsoft. After you install this item, you may have to restart
your computer. This update is provided to you and licensed under the Windows
Vista License Terms.


Other Updates


  Windows XP Service Pack 3
(KB936929)
Windows XP Service Pack 3 (SP3) is an update to Windows XP that addresses
key feedback from our customers and is a cumulative update that includes all
previously released updates for Windows XP, including security updates.
Windows XP SP3 contains a small number of new updates and should not
significantly change the Windows XP experience. After you install this item,
you may have to restart your computer.


  Group Policy Preference Client
Side Extensions for Windows XP (KB943729)
Multiple Group Policy Preferences have been added to the Windows Server 2008
Group Policy Management Console (which are also available through the Remote
Server Administration Toolset (RSAT) for Windows Vista SP1). Group Policy
Preferences enable information technology professionals to configure,
deploy, and manage operating system and application settings they previously
were not able to manage using Group Policy. After you install this update,
your computer will be able to process the new Group Policy Preference
extensions. After you install this item, you may have to restart your
computer.


  SQL Server 2008 Books
Online (August 2008)
SQL Server 2008, the latest release of Microsoft SQL Server, provides a
comprehensive data platform. Books Online is the primary documentation for
SQL Server 2008.


  Update for Office Communications
Server 2007, Audio/Video Conferencing server(KB 956831)
This Package fixes issues described in KB Article 956831


  Update for Office Communications
Server 2007, Mediation Server (KB 956829)
This Package fixes issues described in KB Article 956829


  Update for Windows Server 2008 for
Itanium-based Systems (KB957200)
This is a reliability update. This update resolves some performance and
reliability issues in 

Re: Blackberry question

[Stefan Jafs]

I'm running the Bold on 4.6 and it even allows you to edit Word and Excel 
files, pdf works great

 
Sent from BlackBerry Bold



From: Steve Moffat 
To: NT System Admin Issues 
Sent: Tue Oct 28 17:19:01 2008
Subject: RE: Blackberry question 


No issues with .docs or .pdf's

 

From: Joe Heaton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 6:14 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Blackberry question

 

Is there ever an issue with e-mail attachments?  For instance, someone sends 
you a word document.  Can you open that on your BB?  My understanding was that 
there was no native support for Office docs.  How about PDFs?  Again, I’m not 
trying to flame here, just trying to get a better understanding of what the 
real truth is.

 

Thanks,

 

Joe Heaton

Employment Training Panel

 

From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 2:01 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Blackberry question

 

This was something I posted on another list and I admit I may be off base on 
some of it.

 

The device: 

Frequent OS updates. RIM makes OS updates available and free. Whereas with WM, 
you are pretty much stuck with the version that came on your phone. I’m not 
saying it’s impossible to get updated WM versions, just that it’s not a given 
like it is on BB.  While my WM5 users are still on WM5, my BB users have gone 
from 3.x to 4.x, and 4.5 coming soon. Each of those offers a slew of new or 
upgraded features. To me that has to be one of the best parts of the whole 
system. Sure some WM users get upgrades, but you are at the mercy of the 
provider and not all of them are so generous.

 

Battery life rocks. I can go days and days and days without a recharge. Sure, 
some WM devices do that too, but not all.

 

Since RIM not only builds the OS, but the phones, there are no issues with 
underpowered CPU’s / hardware. Some WM devices are just damn slow. That’s 
because the OS and device are not designed together.

 

BES:

I don’t have to upgrade my whole Exchange environment to get new server side 
features.

Just my BES server which takes about 30 minutes and is free as long as I have a 
valid support contract which isn’t too expensive at all.

 

Centrally managed. I can view all users, all user statistics, etc in one 
screen. Right now I’m looking at all my users and their PIN’s. Plus their 
status, last contact date and time, sent / received messages and the times, 
filtered messages, pending one. 

 

 

I can create filters for my users on the fly if need be.

 

I can set policies and deploy software. In the next version of BES I will be 
able to do OTA OS upgrades of devices.

 

I can enable / disable PIM sync data from the server side at a fairly granular 
level if I wished.

 

I can see what the users device is and all the specs on the device. Model, OS 
version, hardware, software, applications. For example from the BES server, I 
can see that I have Gmail, Google Maps, Jewel Rumble, and Live Search installed 
on my BB.

 

Nobody can connect a device to my BES without getting an account setup by me. 
No rogue phones, etc.

 

 

From: Joe Heaton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 1:51 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Blackberry question

 

Martin,

 

Sounds like you prefer Blackberry to WM.  Can you give me some reasons for 
this?  Not asking for flames, but real, honest reasons.

 

Joe Heaton

Employment Training Panel

 

From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 1:44 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Blackberry question

 

Your execs sound like smart guys.

Here is a product comparison.

http://na.blackberry.com/eng/services/professional/#tab_tab_compare

 

Professional is essentially for smaller deployments. It’s like BES SBS. It 
won’t support over 30 BB devices.

 

 

From: Joe Heaton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 12:07 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Blackberry question

 

Can anyone tell me how the Blackberry Professional Software stacks up against 
BES?  I’m being asked to give a comparison between the WinMobile devices we’re 
using, and Blackberry devices.  If the execs decide to go with Blackberry 
against my recommendations, I’d prefer to go with the Professional software, if 
it will meet our needs.  I’m looking at the Blackberry website currently, but 
would like to hear personal, real world experiences, vs. the sales info on the 
site.

 

Thanks,

 

Joe Heaton

AISA

Employment Training Panel

1100 J Street, 4th Floor

Sacramento, CA  95814

(916) 327-5276

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

 




This email and any attached files are confidential and intended solely for the 
intended recipient(s). If you are not the named recipient you should not read, 
distribute, copy or alter this email. Any views or opinions

RE: Blackberry question

[Joe Heaton]

Hmm, looking like the arguments for not going BB aren't really valid
arguments anymore.  Our carrier is Verizon, and they offer the Pearl,
Curve, the 8703e and the 8830 World Edition.  Any recommendations as to
model?

 

Looking at the specs on Verizon's website, I'm only seeing the version
of the desktop software.  Is that the same as what will be on the phone?
If so, the 8830 has 4.2, and the Curve has 4.3.

 

Should I hold out to see if they can deliver 4.5?

 

Joe Heaton

Employment Training Panel

 

From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 2:25 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Blackberry question

 

Yea, it's no problem. Even Office 2007 attachments work for me.

Granted I'm running the 4.5 BB OS which is out for some carriers and in
beta for others. I've been running it forever and it rocks.

Between that and the latest BES version, they have made up for a lot of
those functions that were lacking from BB but already in WM.

 

4.5 features.

 

* BlackBerry Maps with Points of Interest (H) 
* Improved media player with playlist support and automatic playlist
generation (H) 
* Voice note recording (H) 
* Video recording on Curve models (H) 
* Streaming support for YouTube and Sling Player (H)
* Microsoft Office document editing with DocumentsToGo (H)
* Native format attachment downloading (S)
* HTML e-mails (S)
* Over-the-air device upgrades (S) 
* Free/busy calendar lookup (S) 
* Searching the server for old e-mail messages (S)

 

 

From: Joe Heaton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 2:14 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Blackberry question

 

Is there ever an issue with e-mail attachments?  For instance, someone
sends you a word document.  Can you open that on your BB?  My
understanding was that there was no native support for Office docs.  How
about PDFs?  Again, I'm not trying to flame here, just trying to get a
better understanding of what the real truth is.

 

Thanks,

 

Joe Heaton

Employment Training Panel

 

From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 2:01 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Blackberry question

 

This was something I posted on another list and I admit I may be off
base on some of it.

 

The device: 

Frequent OS updates. RIM makes OS updates available and free. Whereas
with WM, you are pretty much stuck with the version that came on your
phone. I'm not saying it's impossible to get updated WM versions, just
that it's not a given like it is on BB.  While my WM5 users are still on
WM5, my BB users have gone from 3.x to 4.x, and 4.5 coming soon. Each of
those offers a slew of new or upgraded features. To me that has to be
one of the best parts of the whole system. Sure some WM users get
upgrades, but you are at the mercy of the provider and not all of them
are so generous.

 

Battery life rocks. I can go days and days and days without a recharge.
Sure, some WM devices do that too, but not all.

 

Since RIM not only builds the OS, but the phones, there are no issues
with underpowered CPU's / hardware. Some WM devices are just damn slow.
That's because the OS and device are not designed together.

 

BES:

I don't have to upgrade my whole Exchange environment to get new server
side features.

Just my BES server which takes about 30 minutes and is free as long as I
have a valid support contract which isn't too expensive at all.

 

Centrally managed. I can view all users, all user statistics, etc in one
screen. Right now I'm looking at all my users and their PIN's. Plus
their status, last contact date and time, sent / received messages and
the times, filtered messages, pending one. 

 

 

I can create filters for my users on the fly if need be.

 

I can set policies and deploy software. In the next version of BES I
will be able to do OTA OS upgrades of devices.

 

I can enable / disable PIM sync data from the server side at a fairly
granular level if I wished.

 

I can see what the users device is and all the specs on the device.
Model, OS version, hardware, software, applications. For example from
the BES server, I can see that I have Gmail, Google Maps, Jewel Rumble,
and Live Search installed on my BB.

 

Nobody can connect a device to my BES without getting an account setup
by me. No rogue phones, etc.

 

 

From: Joe Heaton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 1:51 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Blackberry question

 

Martin,

 

Sounds like you prefer Blackberry to WM.  Can you give me some reasons
for this?  Not asking for flames, but real, honest reasons.

 

Joe Heaton

Employment Training Panel

 

From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 1:44 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Blackberry question

 

Your execs sound like smart guys.

Here is a product comparison.

http://na.blackberry.com/eng/services/professional/#tab_tab_compare

 

P

RE: Basic Drive Partition Question

[Michael B. Smith]

I covered this recently in pretty good detail on my blog and in EMO. Start here:

 

http://theessentialexchange.com/blogs/michael/archive/2008/09/19/it-s-all-about-the-iops-silly.aspx

 

I’ve got a half-chapter on this topic in my upcoming book, because it’s 
something that confuses far too many people. There I include examples 
calculating the numbers of disks required for small, medium, and large 
organizations; how RAID-1 and RAID-5 affect those IOPS calculations, and 
whether you actually need more than one disk (if not for RAID). And, of course, 
how you properly monitor for all of this.

 

Regards,

 

Michael B. Smith, MCITP:SA,EMA/MCSE/Exchange MVP

My blog: http://TheEssentialExchange.com/blogs/michael

Link with me at: http://www.linkedin.com/in/theessentialexchange

 

From: John Cook [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 4:01 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Basic Drive Partition Question

 

No articles but it's common knowledge that you have to have seperate spindles 
to maintain performance with Exchange. You're still doing read|write with a 
single drives heads no matter how you split it up. 
John W. Cook 
Systems Administrator 
Partnership For Strong Families 
Painfully sent to you from my Blackberry

  _  

From: Bill Lambert 
To: NT System Admin Issues 
Sent: Tue Oct 28 15:56:54 2008
Subject: Basic Drive Partition Question 

We’ve been arguing here…and I can’t find anything definitive on Google…

 

Is there any gain in performance if you have a single (NTFS) drive in two 
partitions?  One partition for the OS and the other for everything else?

 

I say no but it wouldn’t be the first time I’ve been wrong.

 

Bill Lambert

Windows System Administrator

Concuity

A healthcare division of Trintech, Inc.  

Phone  847-941-9206

Fax  847-465-9147



NASDAQ: TTPA

The information contained in this e-mail message, including any attached files, 
is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) 
named above. If you are not the intended recipient (or authorized to receive 
information for the recipient) you are hereby notified that you have received 
this communication in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, 
or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this 
communication in error, please contact the sender by reply email and delete all 
copies of this message.  Thank you.

 

 

 

 

 

  _  

CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT: The information transmitted, or contained or 
attached to or with this Notice is intended only for the person or entity to 
which it is addressed and may contain Protected Health Information (PHI), 
confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, transmission, 
dissemination, or other use of, and taking any action in reliance upon this 
information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient without 
the express written consent of the sender are prohibited. This information may 
be protected by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 
(HIPAA), and other Federal and Florida laws. Improper or unauthorized use or 
disclosure of this information could result in civil and/or criminal penalties.
Consider the environment. Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need 
to.

 

 

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~<>

RE: More Updates

[NTSysAdmin]

Yup, I have them on mine also.

S

From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 6:29 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: More Updates

Why did my WSUS download more updates today? Seriously?

New Update Alert

The following 16 new updates have been synchronized to T3UTIL since Tuesday, 
October 28, 2008 7:15 PM (GMT).

Critical and Security Updates

System Update Readiness Tool for x64 based systems (KB947821) [August 
2008]
This tool is being offered because an inconsistency was found in the Windows 
servicing store which may prevent the successful installation of future 
updates, service packs, and software. This tool checks your computer for such 
inconsistencies and attempts to resolve issues if found.

System Update Readiness Tool (KB947821) [August 
2008]
This tool is being offered because an inconsistency was found in the Windows 
servicing store which may prevent the successful installation of future 
updates, service packs, and software. This tool checks your computer for such 
inconsistencies and attempts to resolve issues if found.

System Update Readiness Tool for Itanium-based Systems (KB947821) [August 
2008]
This tool is being offered because an inconsistency was found in the Windows 
servicing store which may prevent the successful installation of future 
updates, service packs, and software. This tool checks your computer for such 
inconsistencies and attempts to resolve issues if found.

Security Update for Windows Server 2008 for Itanium-based Systems 
(KB953155)
A security issue has been identified that could allow an unauthenticated remote 
attacker to compromise your Microsoft Windows-based system and gain control 
over it. You can help protect your computer by installing this update from 
Microsoft. After you install this item, you may have to restart your computer. 
This update is provided to you and licensed under the Windows Server 2008 
License Terms.

Security Update for Windows Vista for x64-based Systems 
(KB953155)
A security issue has been identified that could allow an unauthenticated remote 
attacker to compromise your Microsoft Windows-based system and gain control 
over it. You can help protect your computer by installing this update from 
Microsoft. After you install this item, you may have to restart your computer. 
This update is provided to you and licensed under the Windows Vista License 
Terms.

Security Update for Windows Vista 
(KB953155)
A security issue has been identified that could allow an unauthenticated remote 
attacker to compromise your Microsoft Windows-based system and gain control 
over it. You can help protect your computer by installing this update from 
Microsoft. After you install this item, you may have to restart your computer. 
This update is provided to you and licensed under the Windows Vista License 
Terms.

Other Updates

Windows XP Service Pack 3 (KB936929)
Windows XP Service Pack 3 (SP3) is an update to Windows XP that addresses key 
feedback from our customers and is a cumulative update that includes all 
previously released updates for Windows XP, including security updates. Windows 
XP SP3 contains a small number of new updates and should not significantly 
change the Windows XP experience. After you install this item, you may have to 
restart your computer.

Group Policy Preference Client Side Extensions for Windows XP 
(KB943729)
Multiple Group Policy Preferences have been added to the Windows Server 2008 
Group Policy Management Console (which are also available through the Remote 
Server Administration Toolset (RSAT) for Windows Vista SP1). Group Policy 
Preferences enable information technology professionals to configure, deploy, 
and manage operating system and application settings they previously were not 
able to manage using Group Policy. After you install this update, your computer 
will be able to process the new Group Policy Preference extensions. After you 
install this item, you may have to restart your computer.

SQL Server 2008 Books Online (August 
2008)
SQL Server 2008, the latest release of Microsoft SQL Server, provides a 
comprehensive data platform. Books Online is the primary documentation for SQL 
Server 2008.

Update for Office Communications Server 2007, Audio/Video Conferencing 
server(KB 956831)
This Package fixes issues described in KB Article 956831

Update for Office Communications Server 2007, Mediation Server (KB 
956829)
This Package fixes issues described in KB Article 956829

Update for Windows Ser

RE: Blackberry question

[Martin Blackstone]

OK, a couple of things.

The 8703 is ancient. The 8830 is not too new either, but its dual band for
your folks that go overseas.  They can add a GSM SIM to it and use it that
way. CDMA isn't to prevalent anywhere but in the US.

The Curve is the newest model to go to Verizon. Typically CDMA carriers get
models about 1 year after GSM. The newest BB handheld coming to Verizon is
the storm which is the all touch screen model.

You can typically find BB OS updates for the Verizon BB's here:
http://vzw.smithmicro.com/blackberry/

 

So for your users I would go with the Curve for folks who want a full QWERTY
keyboard. Pearl (AKA Lady Blackberry) is an option as well for folks who
don't care about typing. The Storm is getting rave reviews as well.

 

 

From: Joe Heaton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 2:31 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Blackberry question

 

Hmm, looking like the arguments for not going BB aren't really valid
arguments anymore.  Our carrier is Verizon, and they offer the Pearl, Curve,
the 8703e and the 8830 World Edition.  Any recommendations as to model?

 

Looking at the specs on Verizon's website, I'm only seeing the version of
the desktop software.  Is that the same as what will be on the phone?  If
so, the 8830 has 4.2, and the Curve has 4.3.

 

Should I hold out to see if they can deliver 4.5?

 

Joe Heaton

Employment Training Panel

 

From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 2:25 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Blackberry question

 

Yea, it's no problem. Even Office 2007 attachments work for me.

Granted I'm running the 4.5 BB OS which is out for some carriers and in beta
for others. I've been running it forever and it rocks.

Between that and the latest BES version, they have made up for a lot of
those functions that were lacking from BB but already in WM.

 

4.5 features.

 

. BlackBerry Maps with Points of Interest (H) 
. Improved media player with playlist support and automatic playlist
generation (H) 
. Voice note recording (H) 
. Video recording on Curve models (H) 
. Streaming support for YouTube and Sling Player (H)
. Microsoft Office document editing with DocumentsToGo (H)
. Native format attachment downloading (S)
. HTML e-mails (S)
. Over-the-air device upgrades (S) 
. Free/busy calendar lookup (S) 
. Searching the server for old e-mail messages (S)

 

 

From: Joe Heaton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 2:14 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Blackberry question

 

Is there ever an issue with e-mail attachments?  For instance, someone sends
you a word document.  Can you open that on your BB?  My understanding was
that there was no native support for Office docs.  How about PDFs?  Again,
I'm not trying to flame here, just trying to get a better understanding of
what the real truth is.

 

Thanks,

 

Joe Heaton

Employment Training Panel

 

From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 2:01 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Blackberry question

 

This was something I posted on another list and I admit I may be off base on
some of it.

 

The device: 

Frequent OS updates. RIM makes OS updates available and free. Whereas with
WM, you are pretty much stuck with the version that came on your phone. I'm
not saying it's impossible to get updated WM versions, just that it's not a
given like it is on BB.  While my WM5 users are still on WM5, my BB users
have gone from 3.x to 4.x, and 4.5 coming soon. Each of those offers a slew
of new or upgraded features. To me that has to be one of the best parts of
the whole system. Sure some WM users get upgrades, but you are at the mercy
of the provider and not all of them are so generous.

 

Battery life rocks. I can go days and days and days without a recharge.
Sure, some WM devices do that too, but not all.

 

Since RIM not only builds the OS, but the phones, there are no issues with
underpowered CPU's / hardware. Some WM devices are just damn slow. That's
because the OS and device are not designed together.

 

BES:

I don't have to upgrade my whole Exchange environment to get new server side
features.

Just my BES server which takes about 30 minutes and is free as long as I
have a valid support contract which isn't too expensive at all.

 

Centrally managed. I can view all users, all user statistics, etc in one
screen. Right now I'm looking at all my users and their PIN's. Plus their
status, last contact date and time, sent / received messages and the times,
filtered messages, pending one. 

 

 

I can create filters for my users on the fly if need be.

 

I can set policies and deploy software. In the next version of BES I will be
able to do OTA OS upgrades of devices.

 

I can enable / disable PIM sync data from the server side at a fairly
granular level if I wished.

 

I can see what the users device is and all the specs on the device. Model,
OS ve

RE: Blackberry question

[Martin Blackstone]

Oh yea, here is what I call the motherload link.

http://www.dynoplex.com/rimos.shtml

 

Links to all the carriers and their respective BB OS updates.

 

From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 2:43 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Blackberry question

 

OK, a couple of things.

The 8703 is ancient. The 8830 is not too new either, but its dual band for
your folks that go overseas.  They can add a GSM SIM to it and use it that
way. CDMA isn't to prevalent anywhere but in the US.

The Curve is the newest model to go to Verizon. Typically CDMA carriers get
models about 1 year after GSM. The newest BB handheld coming to Verizon is
the storm which is the all touch screen model.

You can typically find BB OS updates for the Verizon BB's here:
http://vzw.smithmicro.com/blackberry/

 

So for your users I would go with the Curve for folks who want a full QWERTY
keyboard. Pearl (AKA Lady Blackberry) is an option as well for folks who
don't care about typing. The Storm is getting rave reviews as well.

 

 

From: Joe Heaton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 2:31 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Blackberry question

 

Hmm, looking like the arguments for not going BB aren't really valid
arguments anymore.  Our carrier is Verizon, and they offer the Pearl, Curve,
the 8703e and the 8830 World Edition.  Any recommendations as to model?

 

Looking at the specs on Verizon's website, I'm only seeing the version of
the desktop software.  Is that the same as what will be on the phone?  If
so, the 8830 has 4.2, and the Curve has 4.3.

 

Should I hold out to see if they can deliver 4.5?

 

Joe Heaton

Employment Training Panel

 

From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 2:25 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Blackberry question

 

Yea, it's no problem. Even Office 2007 attachments work for me.

Granted I'm running the 4.5 BB OS which is out for some carriers and in beta
for others. I've been running it forever and it rocks.

Between that and the latest BES version, they have made up for a lot of
those functions that were lacking from BB but already in WM.

 

4.5 features.

 

. BlackBerry Maps with Points of Interest (H) 
. Improved media player with playlist support and automatic playlist
generation (H) 
. Voice note recording (H) 
. Video recording on Curve models (H) 
. Streaming support for YouTube and Sling Player (H)
. Microsoft Office document editing with DocumentsToGo (H)
. Native format attachment downloading (S)
. HTML e-mails (S)
. Over-the-air device upgrades (S) 
. Free/busy calendar lookup (S) 
. Searching the server for old e-mail messages (S)

 

 

From: Joe Heaton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 2:14 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Blackberry question

 

Is there ever an issue with e-mail attachments?  For instance, someone sends
you a word document.  Can you open that on your BB?  My understanding was
that there was no native support for Office docs.  How about PDFs?  Again,
I'm not trying to flame here, just trying to get a better understanding of
what the real truth is.

 

Thanks,

 

Joe Heaton

Employment Training Panel

 

From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 2:01 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Blackberry question

 

This was something I posted on another list and I admit I may be off base on
some of it.

 

The device: 

Frequent OS updates. RIM makes OS updates available and free. Whereas with
WM, you are pretty much stuck with the version that came on your phone. I'm
not saying it's impossible to get updated WM versions, just that it's not a
given like it is on BB.  While my WM5 users are still on WM5, my BB users
have gone from 3.x to 4.x, and 4.5 coming soon. Each of those offers a slew
of new or upgraded features. To me that has to be one of the best parts of
the whole system. Sure some WM users get upgrades, but you are at the mercy
of the provider and not all of them are so generous.

 

Battery life rocks. I can go days and days and days without a recharge.
Sure, some WM devices do that too, but not all.

 

Since RIM not only builds the OS, but the phones, there are no issues with
underpowered CPU's / hardware. Some WM devices are just damn slow. That's
because the OS and device are not designed together.

 

BES:

I don't have to upgrade my whole Exchange environment to get new server side
features.

Just my BES server which takes about 30 minutes and is free as long as I
have a valid support contract which isn't too expensive at all.

 

Centrally managed. I can view all users, all user statistics, etc in one
screen. Right now I'm looking at all my users and their PIN's. Plus their
status, last contact date and time, sent / received messages and the times,
filtered messages, pending one. 

 

 

I can create filters for my users on the fly if need

Re: Blackberry question

[Eric Woodford]

I personally don't like the pearl. Something about a roller ball on a
handheld just doesn't work for me. I have an 8703 and it works beautifully.
Yes, I have a wheel, but it makes sense.

Handheld software can be downloaded from:
http://vzw.smithmicro.com/blackberry/download.aspx?ct=corporate


On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 2:31 PM, Joe Heaton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>  Hmm, looking like the arguments for not going BB aren't really valid
> arguments anymore.  Our carrier is Verizon, and they offer the Pearl, Curve,
> the 8703e and the 8830 World Edition.  Any recommendations as to model?
>
>
>
> Looking at the specs on Verizon's website, I'm only seeing the version of
> the desktop software.  Is that the same as what will be on the phone?  If
> so, the 8830 has 4.2, and the Curve has 4.3.
>
>
>
> Should I hold out to see if they can deliver 4.5?
>
>
>
> Joe Heaton
>
> Employment Training Panel
>
>
>
> *From:* Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 28, 2008 2:25 PM
> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
> *Subject:* RE: Blackberry question
>
>
>
> Yea, it's no problem. Even Office 2007 attachments work for me.
>
> Granted I'm running the 4.5 BB OS which is out for some carriers and in
> beta for others. I've been running it forever and it rocks.
>
> Between that and the latest BES version, they have made up for a lot of
> those functions that were lacking from BB but already in WM.
>
>
>
> 4.5 features.
>
>
>
> • BlackBerry Maps with Points of Interest (H)
> • Improved media player with playlist support and automatic playlist
> generation (H)
> • Voice note recording (H)
> • Video recording on Curve models (H)
> • Streaming support for YouTube and Sling Player (H)
> • Microsoft Office document editing with DocumentsToGo (H)
> • Native format attachment downloading (S)
> • HTML e-mails (S)
> • Over-the-air device upgrades (S)
> • Free/busy calendar lookup (S)
> • Searching the server for old e-mail messages (S)
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Joe Heaton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 28, 2008 2:14 PM
> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
> *Subject:* RE: Blackberry question
>
>
>
> Is there ever an issue with e-mail attachments?  For instance, someone
> sends you a word document.  Can you open that on your BB?  My understanding
> was that there was no native support for Office docs.  How about PDFs?
> Again, I'm not trying to flame here, just trying to get a better
> understanding of what the real truth is.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> Joe Heaton
>
> Employment Training Panel
>
>
>
> *From:* Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 28, 2008 2:01 PM
> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
> *Subject:* RE: Blackberry question
>
>
>
> This was something I posted on another list and I admit I may be off base
> on some of it.
>
>
>
> The device:
>
> Frequent OS updates. RIM makes OS updates available and free. Whereas with
> WM, you are pretty much stuck with the version that came on your phone. I'm
> not saying it's impossible to get updated WM versions, just that it's not a
> given like it is on BB.  While my WM5 users are still on WM5, my BB users
> have gone from 3.x to 4.x, and 4.5 coming soon. Each of those offers a slew
> of new or upgraded features. To me that has to be one of the best parts of
> the whole system. Sure some WM users get upgrades, but you are at the mercy
> of the provider and not all of them are so generous.
>
>
>
> Battery life rocks. I can go days and days and days without a recharge.
> Sure, some WM devices do that too, but not all.
>
>
>
> Since RIM not only builds the OS, but the phones, there are no issues with
> underpowered CPU's / hardware. Some WM devices are just damn slow. That's
> because the OS and device are not designed together.
>
>
>
> BES:
>
> I don't have to upgrade my whole Exchange environment to get new server
> side features.
>
> Just my BES server which takes about 30 minutes and is free as long as I
> have a valid support contract which isn't too expensive at all.
>
>
>
> Centrally managed. I can view all users, all user statistics, etc in one
> screen. Right now I'm looking at all my users and their PIN's. Plus their
> status, last contact date and time, sent / received messages and the times,
> filtered messages, pending one.
>
>
>
>
>
> I can create filters for my users on the fly if need be.
>
>
>
> I can set policies and deploy software. In the next version of BES I will
> be able to do OTA OS upgrades of devices.
>
>
>
> I can enable / disable PIM sync data from the server side at a fairly
> granular level if I wished.
>
>
>
> I can see what the users device is and all the specs on the device. Model,
> OS version, hardware, software, applications. For example from the BES
> server, I can see that I have Gmail, Google Maps, Jewel Rumble, and Live
> Search installed on my BB.
>
>
>
> Nobody can connect a device to my BES without getting an account setup by
> me. No rogue phones, etc.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Joe Heaton [mai

Re: Blackberry question

[Micheal Espinola Jr]

I agree. I don't like manipulating balls either.

--
ME2



On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 5:36 PM, Eric Woodford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I personally don't like the pearl. Something about a roller ball on a
> handheld just doesn't work for me. I have an 8703 and it works beautifully.
> Yes, I have a wheel, but it makes sense.
>
> Handheld software can be downloaded from:
> http://vzw.smithmicro.com/blackberry/download.aspx?ct=corporate
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 2:31 PM, Joe Heaton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Hmm, looking like the arguments for not going BB aren't really valid
>> arguments anymore.  Our carrier is Verizon, and they offer the Pearl, Curve,
>> the 8703e and the 8830 World Edition.  Any recommendations as to model?
>>
>>
>>
>> Looking at the specs on Verizon's website, I'm only seeing the version of
>> the desktop software.  Is that the same as what will be on the phone?  If
>> so, the 8830 has 4.2, and the Curve has 4.3.
>>
>>
>>
>> Should I hold out to see if they can deliver 4.5?
>>
>>
>>
>> Joe Heaton
>>
>> Employment Training Panel
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 2:25 PM
>> To: NT System Admin Issues
>> Subject: RE: Blackberry question
>>
>>
>>
>> Yea, it's no problem. Even Office 2007 attachments work for me.
>>
>> Granted I'm running the 4.5 BB OS which is out for some carriers and in
>> beta for others. I've been running it forever and it rocks.
>>
>> Between that and the latest BES version, they have made up for a lot of
>> those functions that were lacking from BB but already in WM.
>>
>>
>>
>> 4.5 features.
>>
>>
>>
>> • BlackBerry Maps with Points of Interest (H)
>> • Improved media player with playlist support and automatic playlist
>> generation (H)
>> • Voice note recording (H)
>> • Video recording on Curve models (H)
>> • Streaming support for YouTube and Sling Player (H)
>> • Microsoft Office document editing with DocumentsToGo (H)
>> • Native format attachment downloading (S)
>> • HTML e-mails (S)
>> • Over-the-air device upgrades (S)
>> • Free/busy calendar lookup (S)
>> • Searching the server for old e-mail messages (S)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Joe Heaton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 2:14 PM
>> To: NT System Admin Issues
>> Subject: RE: Blackberry question
>>
>>
>>
>> Is there ever an issue with e-mail attachments?  For instance, someone
>> sends you a word document.  Can you open that on your BB?  My understanding
>> was that there was no native support for Office docs.  How about PDFs?
>> Again, I'm not trying to flame here, just trying to get a better
>> understanding of what the real truth is.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>>
>>
>> Joe Heaton
>>
>> Employment Training Panel
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 2:01 PM
>> To: NT System Admin Issues
>> Subject: RE: Blackberry question
>>
>>
>>
>> This was something I posted on another list and I admit I may be off base
>> on some of it.
>>
>>
>>
>> The device:
>>
>> Frequent OS updates. RIM makes OS updates available and free. Whereas with
>> WM, you are pretty much stuck with the version that came on your phone. I'm
>> not saying it's impossible to get updated WM versions, just that it's not a
>> given like it is on BB.  While my WM5 users are still on WM5, my BB users
>> have gone from 3.x to 4.x, and 4.5 coming soon. Each of those offers a slew
>> of new or upgraded features. To me that has to be one of the best parts of
>> the whole system. Sure some WM users get upgrades, but you are at the mercy
>> of the provider and not all of them are so generous.
>>
>>
>>
>> Battery life rocks. I can go days and days and days without a recharge.
>> Sure, some WM devices do that too, but not all.
>>
>>
>>
>> Since RIM not only builds the OS, but the phones, there are no issues with
>> underpowered CPU's / hardware. Some WM devices are just damn slow. That's
>> because the OS and device are not designed together.
>>
>>
>>
>> BES:
>>
>> I don't have to upgrade my whole Exchange environment to get new server
>> side features.
>>
>> Just my BES server which takes about 30 minutes and is free as long as I
>> have a valid support contract which isn't too expensive at all.
>>
>>
>>
>> Centrally managed. I can view all users, all user statistics, etc in one
>> screen. Right now I'm looking at all my users and their PIN's. Plus their
>> status, last contact date and time, sent / received messages and the times,
>> filtered messages, pending one.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I can create filters for my users on the fly if need be.
>>
>>
>>
>> I can set policies and deploy software. In the next version of BES I will
>> be able to do OTA OS upgrades of devices.
>>
>>
>>
>> I can enable / disable PIM sync data from the server side at a fairly
>> granular level if I wished.
>>
>>
>>
>> I can see what the users device is and all the specs on the device. Model,
>> OS version, hardware, software, applic

RE: Blackberry question

[Joe Heaton]

Martin,

 

Can you do stuff like RDP, and VPN with a BB?

 

Joe Heaton

Employment Training Panel

 

From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 2:25 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Blackberry question

 

Yea, it's no problem. Even Office 2007 attachments work for me.

Granted I'm running the 4.5 BB OS which is out for some carriers and in
beta for others. I've been running it forever and it rocks.

Between that and the latest BES version, they have made up for a lot of
those functions that were lacking from BB but already in WM.

 

4.5 features.

 

* BlackBerry Maps with Points of Interest (H) 
* Improved media player with playlist support and automatic playlist
generation (H) 
* Voice note recording (H) 
* Video recording on Curve models (H) 
* Streaming support for YouTube and Sling Player (H)
* Microsoft Office document editing with DocumentsToGo (H)
* Native format attachment downloading (S)
* HTML e-mails (S)
* Over-the-air device upgrades (S) 
* Free/busy calendar lookup (S) 
* Searching the server for old e-mail messages (S)

 

 

From: Joe Heaton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 2:14 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Blackberry question

 

Is there ever an issue with e-mail attachments?  For instance, someone
sends you a word document.  Can you open that on your BB?  My
understanding was that there was no native support for Office docs.  How
about PDFs?  Again, I'm not trying to flame here, just trying to get a
better understanding of what the real truth is.

 

Thanks,

 

Joe Heaton

Employment Training Panel

 

From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 2:01 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Blackberry question

 

This was something I posted on another list and I admit I may be off
base on some of it.

 

The device: 

Frequent OS updates. RIM makes OS updates available and free. Whereas
with WM, you are pretty much stuck with the version that came on your
phone. I'm not saying it's impossible to get updated WM versions, just
that it's not a given like it is on BB.  While my WM5 users are still on
WM5, my BB users have gone from 3.x to 4.x, and 4.5 coming soon. Each of
those offers a slew of new or upgraded features. To me that has to be
one of the best parts of the whole system. Sure some WM users get
upgrades, but you are at the mercy of the provider and not all of them
are so generous.

 

Battery life rocks. I can go days and days and days without a recharge.
Sure, some WM devices do that too, but not all.

 

Since RIM not only builds the OS, but the phones, there are no issues
with underpowered CPU's / hardware. Some WM devices are just damn slow.
That's because the OS and device are not designed together.

 

BES:

I don't have to upgrade my whole Exchange environment to get new server
side features.

Just my BES server which takes about 30 minutes and is free as long as I
have a valid support contract which isn't too expensive at all.

 

Centrally managed. I can view all users, all user statistics, etc in one
screen. Right now I'm looking at all my users and their PIN's. Plus
their status, last contact date and time, sent / received messages and
the times, filtered messages, pending one. 

 

 

I can create filters for my users on the fly if need be.

 

I can set policies and deploy software. In the next version of BES I
will be able to do OTA OS upgrades of devices.

 

I can enable / disable PIM sync data from the server side at a fairly
granular level if I wished.

 

I can see what the users device is and all the specs on the device.
Model, OS version, hardware, software, applications. For example from
the BES server, I can see that I have Gmail, Google Maps, Jewel Rumble,
and Live Search installed on my BB.

 

Nobody can connect a device to my BES without getting an account setup
by me. No rogue phones, etc.

 

 

From: Joe Heaton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 1:51 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Blackberry question

 

Martin,

 

Sounds like you prefer Blackberry to WM.  Can you give me some reasons
for this?  Not asking for flames, but real, honest reasons.

 

Joe Heaton

Employment Training Panel

 

From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 1:44 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Blackberry question

 

Your execs sound like smart guys.

Here is a product comparison.

http://na.blackberry.com/eng/services/professional/#tab_tab_compare

 

Professional is essentially for smaller deployments. It's like BES SBS.
It won't support over 30 BB devices.

 

 

From: Joe Heaton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 12:07 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Blackberry question

 

Can anyone tell me how the Blackberry Professional Software stacks up
against BES?  I'm being asked to give a comparison between the WinMobile
devices

RE: Blackberry question

[Martin Blackstone]

I've never seen it.

 

From: Joe Heaton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 3:35 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Blackberry question

 

Martin,

 

Can you do stuff like RDP, and VPN with a BB?

 

Joe Heaton

Employment Training Panel

 

From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 2:25 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Blackberry question

 

Yea, it's no problem. Even Office 2007 attachments work for me.

Granted I'm running the 4.5 BB OS which is out for some carriers and in beta
for others. I've been running it forever and it rocks.

Between that and the latest BES version, they have made up for a lot of
those functions that were lacking from BB but already in WM.

 

4.5 features.

 

. BlackBerry Maps with Points of Interest (H) 
. Improved media player with playlist support and automatic playlist
generation (H) 
. Voice note recording (H) 
. Video recording on Curve models (H) 
. Streaming support for YouTube and Sling Player (H)
. Microsoft Office document editing with DocumentsToGo (H)
. Native format attachment downloading (S)
. HTML e-mails (S)
. Over-the-air device upgrades (S) 
. Free/busy calendar lookup (S) 
. Searching the server for old e-mail messages (S)

 

 

From: Joe Heaton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 2:14 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Blackberry question

 

Is there ever an issue with e-mail attachments?  For instance, someone sends
you a word document.  Can you open that on your BB?  My understanding was
that there was no native support for Office docs.  How about PDFs?  Again,
I'm not trying to flame here, just trying to get a better understanding of
what the real truth is.

 

Thanks,

 

Joe Heaton

Employment Training Panel

 

From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 2:01 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Blackberry question

 

This was something I posted on another list and I admit I may be off base on
some of it.

 

The device: 

Frequent OS updates. RIM makes OS updates available and free. Whereas with
WM, you are pretty much stuck with the version that came on your phone. I'm
not saying it's impossible to get updated WM versions, just that it's not a
given like it is on BB.  While my WM5 users are still on WM5, my BB users
have gone from 3.x to 4.x, and 4.5 coming soon. Each of those offers a slew
of new or upgraded features. To me that has to be one of the best parts of
the whole system. Sure some WM users get upgrades, but you are at the mercy
of the provider and not all of them are so generous.

 

Battery life rocks. I can go days and days and days without a recharge.
Sure, some WM devices do that too, but not all.

 

Since RIM not only builds the OS, but the phones, there are no issues with
underpowered CPU's / hardware. Some WM devices are just damn slow. That's
because the OS and device are not designed together.

 

BES:

I don't have to upgrade my whole Exchange environment to get new server side
features.

Just my BES server which takes about 30 minutes and is free as long as I
have a valid support contract which isn't too expensive at all.

 

Centrally managed. I can view all users, all user statistics, etc in one
screen. Right now I'm looking at all my users and their PIN's. Plus their
status, last contact date and time, sent / received messages and the times,
filtered messages, pending one. 

 

 

I can create filters for my users on the fly if need be.

 

I can set policies and deploy software. In the next version of BES I will be
able to do OTA OS upgrades of devices.

 

I can enable / disable PIM sync data from the server side at a fairly
granular level if I wished.

 

I can see what the users device is and all the specs on the device. Model,
OS version, hardware, software, applications. For example from the BES
server, I can see that I have Gmail, Google Maps, Jewel Rumble, and Live
Search installed on my BB.

 

Nobody can connect a device to my BES without getting an account setup by
me. No rogue phones, etc.

 

 

From: Joe Heaton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 1:51 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Blackberry question

 

Martin,

 

Sounds like you prefer Blackberry to WM.  Can you give me some reasons for
this?  Not asking for flames, but real, honest reasons.

 

Joe Heaton

Employment Training Panel

 

From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 1:44 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Blackberry question

 

Your execs sound like smart guys.

Here is a product comparison.

http://na.blackberry.com/eng/services/professional/#tab_tab_compare

 

Professional is essentially for smaller deployments. It's like BES SBS. It
won't support over 30 BB devices.

 

 

From: Joe Heaton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 12:07 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Bl

RE: Blackberry question

[Martin Blackstone]

I felt that way as well until I got a Curve. The ball rocks.

 

From: Eric Woodford [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 2:37 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Blackberry question

 

I personally don't like the pearl. Something about a roller ball on a
handheld just doesn't work for me. I have an 8703 and it works beautifully.
Yes, I have a wheel, but it makes sense. 

Handheld software can be downloaded from:
http://vzw.smithmicro.com/blackberry/download.aspx?ct=corporate



On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 2:31 PM, Joe Heaton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Hmm, looking like the arguments for not going BB aren't really valid
arguments anymore.  Our carrier is Verizon, and they offer the Pearl, Curve,
the 8703e and the 8830 World Edition.  Any recommendations as to model?

 

Looking at the specs on Verizon's website, I'm only seeing the version of
the desktop software.  Is that the same as what will be on the phone?  If
so, the 8830 has 4.2, and the Curve has 4.3.

 

Should I hold out to see if they can deliver 4.5?

 

Joe Heaton

Employment Training Panel

 

From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 2:25 PM


To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Blackberry question

 

Yea, it's no problem. Even Office 2007 attachments work for me.

Granted I'm running the 4.5 BB OS which is out for some carriers and in beta
for others. I've been running it forever and it rocks.

Between that and the latest BES version, they have made up for a lot of
those functions that were lacking from BB but already in WM.

 

4.5 features.

 

. BlackBerry Maps with Points of Interest (H) 
. Improved media player with playlist support and automatic playlist
generation (H) 
. Voice note recording (H) 
. Video recording on Curve models (H) 
. Streaming support for YouTube and Sling Player (H)
. Microsoft Office document editing with DocumentsToGo (H)
. Native format attachment downloading (S)
. HTML e-mails (S)
. Over-the-air device upgrades (S) 
. Free/busy calendar lookup (S) 
. Searching the server for old e-mail messages (S)

 

 

From: Joe Heaton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 2:14 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Blackberry question

 

Is there ever an issue with e-mail attachments?  For instance, someone sends
you a word document.  Can you open that on your BB?  My understanding was
that there was no native support for Office docs.  How about PDFs?  Again,
I'm not trying to flame here, just trying to get a better understanding of
what the real truth is.

 

Thanks,

 

Joe Heaton

Employment Training Panel

 

From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 2:01 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Blackberry question

 

This was something I posted on another list and I admit I may be off base on
some of it.

 

The device: 

Frequent OS updates. RIM makes OS updates available and free. Whereas with
WM, you are pretty much stuck with the version that came on your phone. I'm
not saying it's impossible to get updated WM versions, just that it's not a
given like it is on BB.  While my WM5 users are still on WM5, my BB users
have gone from 3.x to 4.x, and 4.5 coming soon. Each of those offers a slew
of new or upgraded features. To me that has to be one of the best parts of
the whole system. Sure some WM users get upgrades, but you are at the mercy
of the provider and not all of them are so generous.

 

Battery life rocks. I can go days and days and days without a recharge.
Sure, some WM devices do that too, but not all.

 

Since RIM not only builds the OS, but the phones, there are no issues with
underpowered CPU's / hardware. Some WM devices are just damn slow. That's
because the OS and device are not designed together.

 

BES:

I don't have to upgrade my whole Exchange environment to get new server side
features.

Just my BES server which takes about 30 minutes and is free as long as I
have a valid support contract which isn't too expensive at all.

 

Centrally managed. I can view all users, all user statistics, etc in one
screen. Right now I'm looking at all my users and their PIN's. Plus their
status, last contact date and time, sent / received messages and the times,
filtered messages, pending one. 

 

 

I can create filters for my users on the fly if need be.

 

I can set policies and deploy software. In the next version of BES I will be
able to do OTA OS upgrades of devices.

 

I can enable / disable PIM sync data from the server side at a fairly
granular level if I wished.

 

I can see what the users device is and all the specs on the device. Model,
OS version, hardware, software, applications. For example from the BES
server, I can see that I have Gmail, Google Maps, Jewel Rumble, and Live
Search installed on my BB.

 

Nobody can connect a device to my BES without getting an account setup by
me. No rogue phones, etc.

 

 

From: Joe Heaton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED

Re: More Updates

[Devin Meade]

+1.  It sure was nice to look at the WSUS console w/o any exclamation points
by each comp.  That didn't last long...




On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 4:34 PM, NTSysAdmin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>  Yup, I have them on mine also.
>
>
>
> S
>
>
>
> *From:* Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 28, 2008 6:29 PM
> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
> *Subject:* More Updates
>
>
>
> Why did my WSUS download more updates today? Seriously?
>
>
>
> *New Update Alert*
>
> The following 16 new updates have been synchronized to T3UTIL since
> Tuesday, October 28, 2008 7:15 PM (GMT).
>
> *Critical and Security Updates*
>
> *System Update Readiness Tool for x64 based systems (KB947821) [August
> 2008]* 
> This tool is being offered because an inconsistency was found in the
> Windows servicing store which may prevent the successful installation of
> future updates, service packs, and software. This tool checks your computer
> for such inconsistencies and attempts to resolve issues if found.
>
> *System Update Readiness Tool (KB947821) [August 
> 2008]*
> This tool is being offered because an inconsistency was found in the
> Windows servicing store which may prevent the successful installation of
> future updates, service packs, and software. This tool checks your computer
> for such inconsistencies and attempts to resolve issues if found.
>
> *System Update Readiness Tool for Itanium-based Systems (KB947821) [August
> 2008]* 
> This tool is being offered because an inconsistency was found in the
> Windows servicing store which may prevent the successful installation of
> future updates, service packs, and software. This tool checks your computer
> for such inconsistencies and attempts to resolve issues if found.
>
> *Security Update for Windows Server 2008 for Itanium-based Systems
> (KB953155)* 
> A security issue has been identified that could allow an unauthenticated
> remote attacker to compromise your Microsoft Windows-based system and gain
> control over it. You can help protect your computer by installing this
> update from Microsoft. After you install this item, you may have to restart
> your computer. This update is provided to you and licensed under the Windows
> Server 2008 License Terms.
>
> *Security Update for Windows Vista for x64-based Systems 
> (KB953155)*
> A security issue has been identified that could allow an unauthenticated
> remote attacker to compromise your Microsoft Windows-based system and gain
> control over it. You can help protect your computer by installing this
> update from Microsoft. After you install this item, you may have to restart
> your computer. This update is provided to you and licensed under the Windows
> Vista License Terms.
>
> *Security Update for Windows Vista 
> (KB953155)*
> A security issue has been identified that could allow an unauthenticated
> remote attacker to compromise your Microsoft Windows-based system and gain
> control over it. You can help protect your computer by installing this
> update from Microsoft. After you install this item, you may have to restart
> your computer. This update is provided to you and licensed under the Windows
> Vista License Terms.
>
> *Other Updates*
>
> *Windows XP Service Pack 3 (KB936929)*
> Windows XP Service Pack 3 (SP3) is an update to Windows XP that addresses
> key feedback from our customers and is a cumulative update that includes all
> previously released updates for Windows XP, including security updates.
> Windows XP SP3 contains a small number of new updates and should not
> significantly change the Windows XP experience. After you install this item,
> you may have to restart your computer.
>
> *Group Policy Preference Client Side Extensions for Windows XP 
> (KB943729)*
> Multiple Group Policy Preferences have been added to the Windows Server
> 2008 Group Policy Management Console (which are also available through the
> Remote Server Administration Toolset (RSAT) for Windows Vista SP1). Group
> Policy Preferences enable information technology professionals to configure,
> deploy, and manage operating system and application settings they previously
> were not able to manage using Group Policy. After you install this update,
> your computer will be able to process the new Group Policy Preference
> extensions. After you install this item, you may have to restart your
> computer.
>
> *SQL Server 2008 Books Online (August 
> 2008)*
> SQL Server 2008, the latest release of Microsoft SQL Server, provides a
> comprehensive data platform. Books Online is the primary documentation for
> SQL Server 2008.
>
> *Update for 

RE: More Updates

[Martin Blackstone]

I'm not going to approve them till next month. I can't do this for the 3rd
time this month.

The first time was the usual. The second understandable. The 3rd?
Ridiculous.

 

From: Steve Moffat [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of NTSysAdmin
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 2:34 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: More Updates

 

Yup, I have them on mine also.

 

S

 

From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 6:29 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: More Updates

 

Why did my WSUS download more updates today? Seriously? 

 


New Update Alert


The following 16 new updates have been synchronized to T3UTIL since Tuesday,
October 28, 2008 7:15 PM (GMT).


Critical and Security Updates


  System Update Readiness Tool for
x64 based systems (KB947821) [August 2008]
This tool is being offered because an inconsistency was found in the Windows
servicing store which may prevent the successful installation of future
updates, service packs, and software. This tool checks your computer for
such inconsistencies and attempts to resolve issues if found.


  System Update Readiness Tool
(KB947821) [August 2008]
This tool is being offered because an inconsistency was found in the Windows
servicing store which may prevent the successful installation of future
updates, service packs, and software. This tool checks your computer for
such inconsistencies and attempts to resolve issues if found.


  System Update Readiness Tool for
Itanium-based Systems (KB947821) [August 2008]
This tool is being offered because an inconsistency was found in the Windows
servicing store which may prevent the successful installation of future
updates, service packs, and software. This tool checks your computer for
such inconsistencies and attempts to resolve issues if found.


  Security Update for Windows
Server 2008 for Itanium-based Systems (KB953155)
A security issue has been identified that could allow an unauthenticated
remote attacker to compromise your Microsoft Windows-based system and gain
control over it. You can help protect your computer by installing this
update from Microsoft. After you install this item, you may have to restart
your computer. This update is provided to you and licensed under the Windows
Server 2008 License Terms.


  Security Update for Windows
Vista for x64-based Systems (KB953155)
A security issue has been identified that could allow an unauthenticated
remote attacker to compromise your Microsoft Windows-based system and gain
control over it. You can help protect your computer by installing this
update from Microsoft. After you install this item, you may have to restart
your computer. This update is provided to you and licensed under the Windows
Vista License Terms.


  Security Update for Windows
Vista (KB953155)
A security issue has been identified that could allow an unauthenticated
remote attacker to compromise your Microsoft Windows-based system and gain
control over it. You can help protect your computer by installing this
update from Microsoft. After you install this item, you may have to restart
your computer. This update is provided to you and licensed under the Windows
Vista License Terms.


Other Updates


  Windows XP Service Pack 3
(KB936929)
Windows XP Service Pack 3 (SP3) is an update to Windows XP that addresses
key feedback from our customers and is a cumulative update that includes all
previously released updates for Windows XP, including security updates.
Windows XP SP3 contains a small number of new updates and should not
significantly change the Windows XP experience. After you install this item,
you may have to restart your computer.


  Group Policy Preference Client
Side Extensions for Windows XP (KB943729)
Multiple Group Policy Preferences have been added to the Windows Server 2008
Group Policy Management Console (which are also available through the Remote
Server Administration Toolset (RSAT) for Windows Vista SP1). Group Policy
Preferences enable information technology professionals to configure,
deploy, and manage operating system and application settings they previously
were not able to manage using Group Policy. After you install this update,
your computer will be able to process the new Group Policy Preference
extensions. After you install this item, you may have to restart your
computer.


  SQL Server 2008 Books
Online (August 2008)
SQL Server 2008, the latest release of Microsoft SQL Server, provides a
comprehensive data platform. Books Online is the primary documentation for
SQL Server 2008.


  Upda

Server 08 R2 - 64-bit only!

[Michael B. Smith]

I'm not at PDC'08, 'cuz I'm heading to Vegas for Connections'08 in two
weeks, but Paul Thurrott's article today raises some interesting points!

 

http://windowsitpro.com/article/articleid/100640/something-for-everyone-at-p
dc-2008.html

 

>From that article:

Server 08 R2 will be 64-bit only.

The big news with Server 08 R2 is that it will actually break the
compatibility model with Server 08 due to the architectural changes
Microsoft is making.

Big stuff is coming!

 

Regards,

 

Michael B. Smith, MCITP:SA,EMA/MCSE/Exchange MVP

My blog: http://TheEssentialExchange.com/blogs/michael

Link with me at: http://www.linkedin.com/in/theessentialexchange

 


~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

RE: Blackberry question

[Malcolm Reitz]

If you are running BES, you don't need to VPN because you are
essentially on your corporate network through the BES MDS Connection
Service.

 

There are a few RDP clients out there. I've used the one from Rove
Mobile (their Mobile Admin product) and it works extremely well. 

 

Our users like the Curve best. Some prefer the smaller size of the
Pearl, but many prefer the full qwerty keyboard on the Curve.

 

Malcolm 

From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, 28 October, 2008 17:38
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Blackberry question

 

I've never seen it.

 

From: Joe Heaton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 3:35 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Blackberry question

 

Martin,

 

Can you do stuff like RDP, and VPN with a BB?

 

Joe Heaton

Employment Training Panel

 

From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 2:25 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Blackberry question

 

Yea, it's no problem. Even Office 2007 attachments work for me.

Granted I'm running the 4.5 BB OS which is out for some carriers and in
beta for others. I've been running it forever and it rocks.

Between that and the latest BES version, they have made up for a lot of
those functions that were lacking from BB but already in WM.

 

4.5 features.

 

* BlackBerry Maps with Points of Interest (H) 
* Improved media player with playlist support and automatic playlist
generation (H) 
* Voice note recording (H) 
* Video recording on Curve models (H) 
* Streaming support for YouTube and Sling Player (H)
* Microsoft Office document editing with DocumentsToGo (H)
* Native format attachment downloading (S)
* HTML e-mails (S)
* Over-the-air device upgrades (S) 
* Free/busy calendar lookup (S) 
* Searching the server for old e-mail messages (S)

 

 

From: Joe Heaton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 2:14 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Blackberry question

 

Is there ever an issue with e-mail attachments?  For instance, someone
sends you a word document.  Can you open that on your BB?  My
understanding was that there was no native support for Office docs.  How
about PDFs?  Again, I'm not trying to flame here, just trying to get a
better understanding of what the real truth is.

 

Thanks,

 

Joe Heaton

Employment Training Panel

 

From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 2:01 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Blackberry question

 

This was something I posted on another list and I admit I may be off
base on some of it.

 

The device: 

Frequent OS updates. RIM makes OS updates available and free. Whereas
with WM, you are pretty much stuck with the version that came on your
phone. I'm not saying it's impossible to get updated WM versions, just
that it's not a given like it is on BB.  While my WM5 users are still on
WM5, my BB users have gone from 3.x to 4.x, and 4.5 coming soon. Each of
those offers a slew of new or upgraded features. To me that has to be
one of the best parts of the whole system. Sure some WM users get
upgrades, but you are at the mercy of the provider and not all of them
are so generous.

 

Battery life rocks. I can go days and days and days without a recharge.
Sure, some WM devices do that too, but not all.

 

Since RIM not only builds the OS, but the phones, there are no issues
with underpowered CPU's / hardware. Some WM devices are just damn slow.
That's because the OS and device are not designed together.

 

BES:

I don't have to upgrade my whole Exchange environment to get new server
side features.

Just my BES server which takes about 30 minutes and is free as long as I
have a valid support contract which isn't too expensive at all.

 

Centrally managed. I can view all users, all user statistics, etc in one
screen. Right now I'm looking at all my users and their PIN's. Plus
their status, last contact date and time, sent / received messages and
the times, filtered messages, pending one. 

 

 

I can create filters for my users on the fly if need be.

 

I can set policies and deploy software. In the next version of BES I
will be able to do OTA OS upgrades of devices.

 

I can enable / disable PIM sync data from the server side at a fairly
granular level if I wished.

 

I can see what the users device is and all the specs on the device.
Model, OS version, hardware, software, applications. For example from
the BES server, I can see that I have Gmail, Google Maps, Jewel Rumble,
and Live Search installed on my BB.

 

Nobody can connect a device to my BES without getting an account setup
by me. No rogue phones, etc.

 

 

From: Joe Heaton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 1:51 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Blackberry question

 

Martin,

 

Sounds like you prefer Blackberry to WM.  Can you give me some reasons
for this?  Not asking for flames, but real, honest reasons.

RE: Basic Drive Partition Question

[Erik Goldoff]

The drive heads are still gonna have to thrash back and forth from partition
zone to partition zone, which is NEVER gonna be faster than having separate
spindles, and the same or slower than a single partition with everything on
it.
 

Erik Goldoff


IT  Consultant

Systems, Networks, & Security 

 

  _  

From: Sam Cayze [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 4:31 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Basic Drive Partition Question


I say yes.   What if you create a partition on the faster, outer edge of the
drive platters, and put your most accessed system files there, or the whole
OS?  And less accessed files toward the inside of the drive.
 
 

  _  

From: Kennedy, Jim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 2:56 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Basic Drive Partition Question



Performance no, perhaps even a small hit to performance. But you can keep
the data on another partition to keep it from filling and crashing the whole
OS if it were just all on one partition.

 

 

From: Bill Lambert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 3:57 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Basic Drive Partition Question

 

We’ve been arguing here…and I can’t find anything definitive on Google…

 

Is there any gain in performance if you have a single (NTFS) drive in two
partitions?  One partition for the OS and the other for everything else?

 

I say no but it wouldn’t be the first time I’ve been wrong.

 

Bill Lambert

Windows System Administrator

Concuity

A healthcare division of Trintech, Inc.  

Phone  847-941-9206

Fax  847-465-9147



NASDAQ: TTPA

The information contained in this e-mail message, including any attached
files, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the
recipient(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient (or
authorized to receive information for the recipient) you are hereby notified
that you have received this communication in error and that any review,
dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please contact
the sender by reply email and delete all copies of this message.  Thank you.

 

 

 

 


 


 


 


 

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.8.4/1749 - Release Date: 10/28/2008
10:04 AM



~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~<>

Unknown account created and added to local admins group

[Clubber Lang]

An account has been created and added to the local Administrators group on
an XP workstation that's a member of a domain. The name of the account is a
long string of random small and capital letters like this:
wiwr7eyieUEIRU4EYSRI

I see in the Security log when the account was added, then a password added,
then added to the local Adminsitrators group, and it all occurred within 1
minute. But is there a way to tell if another local or domain account was
used to do the adding, and if so which one?

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

RE: Basic Drive Partition Question

[Greg Mulholland]

No way in hell would I put mbs in your bracket!! :p

You did ask for it!

From: Steve Moffat [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of NTSysAdmin
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 8:21 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Basic Drive Partition Question

Before Mulholland chips in...Not as old as me!!

:)

From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 6:10 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Basic Drive Partition Question

I said "USED TO BE". I'm old. :)

Regards,

Michael B. Smith, MCITP:SA,EMA/MCSE/Exchange MVP
My blog: http://TheEssentialExchange.com/blogs/michael
Link with me at: http://www.linkedin.com/in/theessentialexchange

From: Sam Cayze [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 5:02 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Basic Drive Partition Question

Interesting, I see your point.  Still though, the head would be jumping 
around a lot less.  Wouldn't that contribute to some gains?


From: Steve Moffat [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of NTSysAdmin
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 3:58 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Basic Drive Partition Question
>From a friend of mine at Fujitsu.

There is no longer any point to short stroking a drive. Modern Drives have 
recording density zones that basically change with the distance from center. I 
am not sure there's been a non-zoned drive made in about a decade...:)

S

From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 5:44 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Basic Drive Partition Question

Not funny at all, actually; it used to be quite common to avoid "full stroke" 
access. You never wanted a disk to use more than 20% of its stroke time in 
order to maximize performance. I saw this in mainframes, in large database 
rollouts, in large Exchange rollouts, etc.

Regards,

Michael B. Smith, MCITP:SA,EMA/MCSE/Exchange MVP
My blog: http://TheEssentialExchange.com/blogs/michael
Link with me at: http://www.linkedin.com/in/theessentialexchange

From: Steve Moffat [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of NTSysAdmin
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 4:40 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Basic Drive Partition Question

Lol...that's too funny!!!

From: Sam Cayze [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 5:31 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Basic Drive Partition Question

I say yes.   What if you create a partition on the faster, outer edge of the 
drive platters, and put your most accessed system files there, or the whole OS? 
 And less accessed files toward the inside of the drive.




From: Kennedy, Jim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 2:56 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Basic Drive Partition Question
Performance no, perhaps even a small hit to performance. But you can keep the 
data on another partition to keep it from filling and crashing the whole OS if 
it were just all on one partition.


From: Bill Lambert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 3:57 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Basic Drive Partition Question

We've been arguing here...and I can't find anything definitive on Google...

Is there any gain in performance if you have a single (NTFS) drive in two 
partitions?  One partition for the OS and the other for everything else?

I say no but it wouldn't be the first time I've been wrong.

Bill Lambert
Windows System Administrator
Concuity
A healthcare division of Trintech, Inc.
Phone  847-941-9206
Fax  847-465-9147
[cid:image001.gif@01C939B0.7D339690]
NASDAQ: TTPA
The information contained in this e-mail message, including any attached files, 
is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) 
named above. If you are not the intended recipient (or authorized to receive 
information for the recipient) you are hereby notified that you have received 
this communication in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, 
or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this 
communication in error, please contact the sender by reply email and delete all 
copies of this message.  Thank you.















































~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~<>

Re: Blackberry question

[John Cook]

+1 on the Rove product
John W. Cook
Systems Administrator
Partnership For Strong Families
Painfully sent to you from my Blackberry


From: Malcolm Reitz
To: NT System Admin Issues
Sent: Tue Oct 28 19:02:16 2008
Subject: RE: Blackberry question
If you are running BES, you don’t need to VPN because you are essentially on 
your corporate network through the BES MDS Connection Service.

There are a few RDP clients out there. I’ve used the one from Rove Mobile 
(their Mobile Admin product) and it works extremely well.

Our users like the Curve best. Some prefer the smaller size of the Pearl, but 
many prefer the full qwerty keyboard on the Curve.

Malcolm
From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, 28 October, 2008 17:38
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Blackberry question

I’ve never seen it.

From: Joe Heaton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 3:35 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Blackberry question

Martin,

Can you do stuff like RDP, and VPN with a BB?

Joe Heaton
Employment Training Panel

From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 2:25 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Blackberry question

Yea, it’s no problem. Even Office 2007 attachments work for me.
Granted I’m running the 4.5 BB OS which is out for some carriers and in beta 
for others. I’ve been running it forever and it rocks.
Between that and the latest BES version, they have made up for a lot of those 
functions that were lacking from BB but already in WM.

4.5 features.

• BlackBerry Maps with Points of Interest (H)
• Improved media player with playlist support and automatic playlist generation 
(H)
• Voice note recording (H)
• Video recording on Curve models (H)
• Streaming support for YouTube and Sling Player (H)
• Microsoft Office document editing with DocumentsToGo (H)
• Native format attachment downloading (S)
• HTML e-mails (S)
• Over-the-air device upgrades (S)
• Free/busy calendar lookup (S)
• Searching the server for old e-mail messages (S)


From: Joe Heaton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 2:14 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Blackberry question

Is there ever an issue with e-mail attachments?  For instance, someone sends 
you a word document.  Can you open that on your BB?  My understanding was that 
there was no native support for Office docs.  How about PDFs?  Again, I’m not 
trying to flame here, just trying to get a better understanding of what the 
real truth is.

Thanks,

Joe Heaton
Employment Training Panel

From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 2:01 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Blackberry question


This was something I posted on another list and I admit I may be off base on 
some of it.



The device:

Frequent OS updates. RIM makes OS updates available and free. Whereas with WM, 
you are pretty much stuck with the version that came on your phone. I’m not 
saying it’s impossible to get updated WM versions, just that it’s not a given 
like it is on BB.  While my WM5 users are still on WM5, my BB users have gone 
from 3.x to 4.x, and 4.5 coming soon. Each of those offers a slew of new or 
upgraded features. To me that has to be one of the best parts of the whole 
system. Sure some WM users get upgrades, but you are at the mercy of the 
provider and not all of them are so generous.



Battery life rocks. I can go days and days and days without a recharge. Sure, 
some WM devices do that too, but not all.



Since RIM not only builds the OS, but the phones, there are no issues with 
underpowered CPU’s / hardware. Some WM devices are just damn slow. That’s 
because the OS and device are not designed together.



BES:

I don’t have to upgrade my whole Exchange environment to get new server side 
features.

Just my BES server which takes about 30 minutes and is free as long as I have a 
valid support contract which isn’t too expensive at all.



Centrally managed. I can view all users, all user statistics, etc in one 
screen. Right now I’m looking at all my users and their PIN’s. Plus their 
status, last contact date and time, sent / received messages and the times, 
filtered messages, pending one.





I can create filters for my users on the fly if need be.



I can set policies and deploy software. In the next version of BES I will be 
able to do OTA OS upgrades of devices.



I can enable / disable PIM sync data from the server side at a fairly granular 
level if I wished.



I can see what the users device is and all the specs on the device. Model, OS 
version, hardware, software, applications. For example from the BES server, I 
can see that I have Gmail, Google Maps, Jewel Rumble, and Live Search installed 
on my BB.



Nobody can connect a device to my BES without getting an account setup by me. 
No rogue phones, etc.


From: Joe Heaton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 

RE: Unknown account created and added to local admins group

[Ken Schaefer]

How are you finding out this information at the moment? As best I can tell, you 
can use object access auditing to get this information - but if you have that 
on already...

Cheers
Ken

From: Clubber Lang [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, 29 October 2008 10:14 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Unknown account created and added to local admins group

An account has been created and added to the local Administrators group on an 
XP workstation that's a member of a domain. The name of the account is a long 
string of random small and capital letters like this:  wiwr7eyieUEIRU4EYSRI

I see in the Security log when the account was added, then a password added, 
then added to the local Adminsitrators group, and it all occurred within 1 
minute. But is there a way to tell if another local or domain account was used 
to do the adding, and if so which one?





~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

RE: Blackberry question

[Richards, Brian D]

I note from that side-by-side that Professional is 'sized to run on
email server', which I thought was interesting...



From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 4:44 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Blackberry question



Your execs sound like smart guys.

Here is a product comparison.

http://na.blackberry.com/eng/services/professional/#tab_tab_compare

 

Professional is essentially for smaller deployments. It's like BES SBS.
It won't support over 30 BB devices.

 

 

From: Joe Heaton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 12:07 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Blackberry question

 

Can anyone tell me how the Blackberry Professional Software stacks up
against BES?  I'm being asked to give a comparison between the WinMobile
devices we're using, and Blackberry devices.  If the execs decide to go
with Blackberry against my recommendations, I'd prefer to go with the
Professional software, if it will meet our needs.  I'm looking at the
Blackberry website currently, but would like to hear personal, real
world experiences, vs. the sales info on the site.

 

Thanks,

 

Joe Heaton

AISA

Employment Training Panel

1100 J Street, 4th Floor

Sacramento, CA  95814

(916) 327-5276

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

 

 

 

 


 

 


~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

RE: Blackberry question

[Martin Blackstone]

I've noticed that as well. I would never ever install BES directly on my
Exchange server.

 

From: Richards, Brian D [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 2:09 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Blackberry question

 

I note from that side-by-side that Professional is 'sized to run on email
server', which I thought was interesting...

 

  _  

From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 4:44 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Blackberry question

Your execs sound like smart guys.

Here is a product comparison.

http://na.blackberry.com/eng/services/professional/#tab_tab_compare

 

Professional is essentially for smaller deployments. It's like BES SBS. It
won't support over 30 BB devices.

 

 

From: Joe Heaton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 12:07 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Blackberry question

 

Can anyone tell me how the Blackberry Professional Software stacks up
against BES?  I'm being asked to give a comparison between the WinMobile
devices we're using, and Blackberry devices.  If the execs decide to go with
Blackberry against my recommendations, I'd prefer to go with the
Professional software, if it will meet our needs.  I'm looking at the
Blackberry website currently, but would like to hear personal, real world
experiences, vs. the sales info on the site.

 

Thanks,

 

Joe Heaton

AISA

Employment Training Panel

1100 J Street, 4th Floor

Sacramento, CA  95814

(916) 327-5276

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

Re: Unknown account created and added to local admins group

[Clubber Lang]

 By looking at the security log in the event viewer of the workstation.

So if I haven't set up object access auditing already, it's too late to
gather any more data for this event. Is that about right?

On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 6:02 PM, Ken Schaefer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>  How are you finding out this information at the moment? As best I can
> tell, you can use object access auditing to get this information – but if
> you have that on already...
>
>
>
> Cheers
>
> Ken
>
>
>
> *From:* Clubber Lang [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, 29 October 2008 10:14 AM
> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
> *Subject:* Unknown account created and added to local admins group
>
>
>
> An account has been created and added to the local Administrators group on
> an XP workstation that's a member of a domain. The name of the account is a
> long string of random small and capital letters like this:
> wiwr7eyieUEIRU4EYSRI
>
> I see in the Security log when the account was added, then a password
> added, then added to the local Adminsitrators group, and it all occurred
> within 1 minute. But is there a way to tell if another local or domain
> account was used to do the adding, and if so which one?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

RE: Blackberry question

[Amer Karim]

BES can be virtualised, but I have BPS installed on several SBS servers
(including my own) without any issues.  Just an FYI...FWIW...

 

Regards,

Amer Karim

 

From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: October-28-08 10:08 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Blackberry question

 

I've noticed that as well. I would never ever install BES directly on my
Exchange server.

 

From: Richards, Brian D [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 2:09 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Blackberry question

 

I note from that side-by-side that Professional is 'sized to run on email
server', which I thought was interesting...

 

  _  

From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 4:44 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Blackberry question

Your execs sound like smart guys.

Here is a product comparison.

http://na.blackberry.com/eng/services/professional/#tab_tab_compare

 

Professional is essentially for smaller deployments. It's like BES SBS. It
won't support over 30 BB devices.

 

 

From: Joe Heaton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 12:07 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Blackberry question

 

Can anyone tell me how the Blackberry Professional Software stacks up
against BES?  I'm being asked to give a comparison between the WinMobile
devices we're using, and Blackberry devices.  If the execs decide to go with
Blackberry against my recommendations, I'd prefer to go with the
Professional software, if it will meet our needs.  I'm looking at the
Blackberry website currently, but would like to hear personal, real world
experiences, vs. the sales info on the site.

 

Thanks,

 

Joe Heaton

AISA

Employment Training Panel

1100 J Street, 4th Floor

Sacramento, CA  95814

(916) 327-5276

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

Barracuda and EmailReg.Org

[Michael Brummet]

Have any of you run into this? 

>From http://zacharyozer.blogspot.com/
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Biggest. Spam Scam. Ever. 
A few years ago, MIT purchased an anti-spam solution from Barracuda, a firm 
specializing in network security products.

I just received an email on one of The Tech's mailing lists about how email 
from The Tech's mail server are being rejected by the Barracuda Spam 
Filters. I've edited the message, but goes something like this:

 Forwarded Message 
From: Mail Delivery System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Mail delivery failed: returning message to sender
Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2008 00:00:00 -

This message was created automatically by mail delivery software.

A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its
recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address(es) failed:

[EMAIL PROTECTED]
SMTP error from remote mail server after RCPT TO:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
host W92-130-BARRACUDA-3.mit.edu [18.7.21.224]:
554 Service unavailable; Client host [18.187.1.1] blocked using Barracuda 
Reputation; http://bbl.barracudacentral.com/q.cgi?ip=18.187.1.1
Following the link, you're taken to a page where you're asked to fill out a 
form (which includes a CAPTCHA) in order to verify that you're not spamming 
people.

Were this where things had ended, I would have forgotten this whole thing. 
While I don't necessarily think requiring people to fill out a quick form is 
the best way to fight spam, its certainly not completely unreasonable to ask 
them to do it once in a while. Extra kudos if they can use some sort of 
certificate, signature, etc to bypass it.

However, what follows is one of the most perverted uses of technology and 
diabolically brilliant business plans I have ever witnessed.

Lets assume you'd like to avoid being caught by this spam filter in the 
future. Barracuda allows you to register with EmailReg.org, an 
'organization' which maintains a list of domains and the IP address of their 
associated mail server. To sweeten the pot, they allow anyone to query their 
database for free in order verify the authenticity of an email.

Many of you are scratching your heads, so let me provide an example. Lets 
say that you run Google.com. You register with EmailReg.org and tell them, 
'Any email that comes from google.com will have to come from one of our SMTP 
servers. Their IP addresses are 1.2.3.4 and 9.8.7.6'. This means that an 
email which claims to be from [EMAIL PROTECTED] that didn't come from those IP 
address probably isn't actually from someone who works at Google and can 
probably be marked as spam. (Note that identity verification is a big part 
of spam protection, since spammers often pretend to be someone else, in an 
attempt to hide how much mail they're sending.)

What a great idea right? Spam protection that works and is transparent to 
users?

Until you realize that they charge $20 to register your domain. Per year.

Effectively, this means that you have to pay $20 per year to send email to 
people on domains that use this service to verify email authenticity. This 
wouldn't be that big of a deal if EmailReg was the definitive source for 
this information, or if they had some new and brilliant technology, or if 
there weren't any other good solutions. Instead, EmailReg is nobody, their 
product is a whitelist (albeit with two parameters – domain and IP), and 
there are a hundred other, perfectly viable anti-spam techniques. Somehow, 
they've managed to get a major corporation (Baracuda) on board and they're 
now gouging people to send e-mail – something which is supposed to be 
free.

I salute the businessman who came up with this idea and the salesman who got 
Barracuda on board.

Beyond that, I'm furious. 
 

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~