>The "Macintosh centric" feel of the product has begun to concern me. While I
>certainly have no bias against Apple (we were once an Apple shop before
>moving to NT), I hope Dantz is not struggling with a lack of depth of
>experience with NT/Win2K as compared to other vendors with a more well
>def
Hi,
As one of the senior QA people here at Dantz, I've been asked to reply to
this post. Hopefully I can cover most of the issues involved.
First, I have to thank Gowan for that last post. I appreciate its pragmatic
approach. My intention with this post is to address Gowan's questions, and
to pr
BINGO!
Matt had the answer - change the binding order of the NICs and *poof* the
misbehaving client is now visible to the backup server! I overlooked
checking that setting simply because Microsoft moved the binding tab to such
a screwy place in Win2K (you really have to root for it, unlik
In the spirit of avoiding misconceptions or (horrors) platform flame wars,
perhaps I should back up a little and introduce myself.
I am a principal and primary IS resource in a Web development company that
hosts over 100 domains for B2B clients primarily in service industries.
While I do not hold
i, 28 Jul 2000 11:15:15 -0400
> To: "retro-talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: RE: Stubbornly Invisible Client!
>
> Actually, this is the latest route suggested by Matt. I am reluctant to take
> such extreme measures as blowing away an entire subnet so far. That sort of
&g
Gowan Fenley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The "Macintosh centric" feel of the product has begun to concern me. While I
> certainly have no bias against Apple (we were once an Apple shop before
> moving to NT), I hope Dantz is not struggling with a lack of depth of
> experience with NT/Win2K as co
on 7/28/00 8:15 AM, Gowan Fenley at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Actually, this is the latest route suggested by Matt. I am reluctant to take
> such extreme measures as blowing away an entire subnet so far. That sort of
> work would have to be after hours, and this, after all an evaluation of
> Ret
> Actually, this is the latest route suggested by Matt. I am
> reluctant to take
> such extreme measures as blowing away an entire subnet so far.
> That sort of
> work would have to be after hours, and this, after all an evaluation of
> Retrospect to see if it warrants purchase.
Did you try to
Actually, this is the latest route suggested by Matt. I am reluctant to take
such extreme measures as blowing away an entire subnet so far. That sort of
work would have to be after hours, and this, after all an evaluation of
Retrospect to see if it warrants purchase.
The "Macintosh centric" feel
At 10:49 AM -0400 7/28/00, Gowan Fenley wrote:
>Nope. TCP/IP is the only protocol on the LAN. (NetBEUI=slow painful death)
>8)
>
>Any other ideas?
>
>-Gowan
>
>Chris said:
>
>Just curious...can you ping the client from the backup server? If NetBEUI
>or another protocol is installed on both machin
Nope. TCP/IP is the only protocol on the LAN. (NetBEUI=slow painful death)
8)
Any other ideas?
-Gowan
Chris said:
Just curious...can you ping the client from the backup server? If NetBEUI
or another protocol is installed on both machines, it is possible to
communicate via the Network Neighbor
corrupted or not configured properly on one/both of the machines.
Chris
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf
Of PVI mailbox on Wopper
Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2000 1:40 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Stubbornly Invisible Client!
This is driving me
This is driving me crazy!
In a nutshell, I have a Retrospect 5.1 Client that refuses to be seen by the
backup server. Here are the details of the setup:
Server is Win2K Server running Retrospect Server 5.1. 256Mb RAM, VXA-1 tape.
Works fine with 5 other NT and 98 Clients.
Bad Client is also Win
13 matches
Mail list logo
