I’m sure someone will find this post handy. I was following this guide: http://demazter.wordpress.com/2010/04/29/migrate-small-business-server-2003-to-exchange-2010-and-windows-2008-r2/ and got stuck at the migrating SharePoint Services 3.0 part. The part where you first create the new site and app pool and then go into SharePoint 3.0 Central Administration and try to create or extend a web application and utilize the site and app pool you just created has resulted in an error message once I submit the page that says “Value does not fall within the expected range.” What I ultimately did was delete the site and app pool and then went back to create or extend a web application, told it to create a new site and a new app pool, used the defaults just like you did when you manually created the site and app pool but when you get down to the application pool section use application pool name: companyweb, select a security account for this application pool. I didn’t know what to do so I choose predefined and network service. Follow the rest of the from the other walk through and you should be able to get passed the error message. However I went back, manually deleted the site and application pool and then used the original method which then worked. The only other caveat was that on other computers when accessing the companyweb site I was getting login prompts for username and password and any username or password I used wouldn’t allow me in and it would take me to an access denied page. I then found out that you have to set the search service account. I did that and it appears to be working. Hope this helps.
So basically this is what happens and the back story to this is that if you have a computer with re-directed folders, which normally would be in a corporate environment, and you attempt to download certain files, you end up with this error message in the IE10 download manager.
This was a problem with IE9 but it was fixed here: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2589171/en-us. It appears that with IE10, whatever fix they utilized, wasn’t retroactively applied to the IE10 code.
I did a little digging with Processor Monitor and found that I was getting a sharing violation error. I then Googled that, found a few web pages talking about the problem with IE9, finally read something about Microsoft Security Essentials being a partial culprit, did some testing and came to the conclusion that if you exclude .partial files from Microsoft Security Essentials, you can get around this temporarily. I say temporarily due to the fact that I hope Microsoft releases a fix for this although I am not getting my hopes up. What is the consequences of excluding .partial files from MSE? Well it basically means, I think, that every file you download isn’t going to be properly scanned. I may be wrong, it may scan the entire file after it’s put back together but I can’t say for sure. So if you do attempt this, you are doing this at your own risk, the possibility of downloading a malicious file and not being notified is very real.
It seems that ever since IE9 there has been a weird bug with Internet Explorer and redirected folders, specifically when you are trying to download a file. Sometimes the file will download, other times, and it’s very random, it will not work. The usual error is: This program couldn’t be downloaded in the download manager.
It appears to happen to anyone who has redirected folders enabled – this is going to be more for folks who are in the corporate world or someone tinkering with their own Active Directory setup at home.
It also appears that Microsoft fixed this in IE9 and released a patch but IE10 seems to have broken it yet again and there is no word from Microsoft on whether or not this will ever be fixed.
If anyone knows anything or maybe even an IE dev will see this but we’d like an answer please!
I recently had a client who’s hard drive failed. I replaced their hard drive roughly a year ago. I replaced it with this hard drive: Western Digital Scorpio Black 320 GB Sata 3.0 Gb-s 16 MB Cache 2.5-Inch Internal Retail Kit Drives WDBABD3200ANC-NRSN.
Upon finding out that it had failed using Hitachi’s Drive Fitness Test, I promptly went to the Western Digital website to start the RMA process. This hard drive comes with a 3-year warranty. I started the process and attempted to do an “Advanced RMA” which basically means that I give them a credit card and they put a hold on the card for the MSRP of the hard drive, which was $120.00. Then they send me the drive in hopes that I ship the drive back. Otherwise, they will charge the card the full price, which again would be $120.00.
I ended up getting an error message indicating that the “Advanced RMA” could not be performed. I tried again, same thing. In the end it told me I had to call in to Western Digital to process the RMA.
I call in only to find out that they DO NOT provide return shipping at no additional cost. Instead, they make YOU, the user, pay for shipping. So on top of putting the $120.00 hold they also make you pay for shipping back to them for their own failed product. Ingenius, is it not?
Anyways, I’m only complaining because if this had been a company called Seagate, this would NEVER have happened. First of all, you can pay a $10.00 fee (you do not get this back), and they not only ship you the drive next day air but they also provide a return shipping label which has been pre-paid! Can you believe it? Oh, I forgot to mention, THEY DO NOT PUT A HOLD FOR THE MSRP OF THE HARD DRIVE ON YOUR CREDIT CARD!
It’s simply amazing that a company would go out of their way to help a client get their replacement hard drive in the fastest possible manner!
From this point on you guys can already guess who I’m sticking with in regards to hard drive purchases, yes, you got it right, Seagate.
This build is stable as can be. They fixed the IntelliPoint bug that I’ve posted about many times in the past. They essentially disabled the accelerated scrolling. Get it at Beautyoftheweb.
Over at the official Netgear forum someone created a thread with pictures indicating how to tell if you’re buying a version 1 or version 2 of the Netgear WNDR3700 wireless router. I’m planning on buying this soon and flashing it with DD-WRT. Yes there is a DD-WRT image floating around. Here is a link to the DD-WRT forum thread.
You can download IE9 RC over here. Also, they appeared to have fixed the IntelliPoint bug which I’ve been blogging about for over 2 or so years or ever since IE8 came out. I do believe they have it somewhat fixed. Not entirely but it’s like 98% there. I’m ecstatic.
Check out his post regarding the Verizon iPhone 4. He’s had it since last Friday. The gist of it is that he likes it, Verizon’s network is superior, the call quality is leaps and bounds ahead of AT&T. The downsides are data is a tad bit slower but not by much and that you can’t be on a call and be using data at the same time. That’s already been beaten to death. He says that the Verizon iPhone will beat AT&T. I’m probably going to buy one for business purposes so I’ll be able to further test. If I do buy it I will post my results. I’m with AT&T with an iPhone 4 right now.
According to this article here, Verizon’s ever-so-speedy 4G LTE service is coming to Hawaii this year!
On top of that, it looks like Verizon is going to be announcing the CDMA version of the iPhone 4 this coming Tuesday in NYC.