IT Thread

[shootermcgavin003]

id go straight linux if it was feasable

[stonehenge]

doubt i'll ever go linux on the desktop, gosta have my games

i can deal with linux replacements of most programs but games suck on linux

[shootermcgavin003]

Thats me too

[theholycow]

Gaming

[JayBo]

is W8 SOOOO much better than W7? B/c I'm quite fucking happy with W7 ultimate

[stonehenge]

rofl no, I only installed it on the craptop to try it out. So far I've heard nothing about W8 that makes it something I want to use regularly. Underneath the Metro crap I think it's essentially W7 (with a few changes I'm sure) so I don't really see any reason that you would NEED to upgrade. Especially in a business situation. I know we don't want all our users having Metro and Tiles and no start menu and shit. Just more crap for them to be confused about.

[JayBo]

I'm just now getting the last of my XP machines weeded out and replaced with W7. while XP is awesome, i've found 7 to be just as reliable. and way more user friendly to IT peeps

[stonehenge]

W9 should be awesome if Microsoft keeps up with their pattern

W95 - meh
W98 - win
WME - plz go
WXP - win
Vista - ghey
W7 - win
W8 - metroghey
W9 - win?

[theholycow]

• MS-DOS 1-3: Wha?
• MS-DOS 3.3: Supposedly good.
• MS-DOS 4: Wha?
• MS-DOS 5.0: It fucking worked. Rock solid. No bullshit. Fast as a motherfucker.
• MS-DOS 6.0:
• MS-DOS 6.2: Good stuff.
• MS-DOS 6.22: Good 'nuff.

• Windows 1.0, 2.0: Wha?
• Windows 3.0: Oh herro!
• Windows 3.1: Improvements.
• Windows for Workgroups 3.11: More improvements.
• Windows 95: Misunderstood, but the real problem is the market wasn't ready. Piece of shit by today's standards, sure...same for 98.
• Windows 98: Mild improvements to product, market was ready this time.
• Windows ME: Imperceptibly different from Windows 98 apart from some eye candy, added utilities, and slightly better hiding of its DOS chassis, yet is somehow the red-headed stepchild.
• Windows NT 3.x: In my small amount of experience, trash...yet somehow it eventually evolved into Windows XP.
• Windows 2000: Really didn't catch on, I never used it, but supposedly decent.
• Windows XP in the beginning: Trash...but nobody remembers, because:
• Windows XP service packs: Bang-up job, MS. Too bad you'll never pull it off again.
• Windows Server 2003: XP, in server form.
• Windows Vista: The hardware wasn't ready for it, the software wasn't ready for it, and Microsoft made some bad default settings. They also mangled the previously very good Windows Explorer file manager.
• Windows Server 2008: Vista, in server form. Quite good. Somehow the crap that is too user-friendlyified doesn't interfere with running a server, and the underpinning OS makes a good server.
• Windows 7: Vista service pack. "Oh shit guys, the market hates Vista. At least the hardware is ready now. Let's change the default setting for Aero, fuck up printer management, apply some lipstick, give the whole thing a new name, and not release the update for existing licenses. They want to hate Vista, fine, fuck them for badmouthing us, they can buy 7 instead of getting it as a service pack."
• Windows Server 2008R2: 7, in server form. It'd be fine except for that damnfool printer properties thing.
  
• Windows 8 and Windows Server 2012: Sounds like a piece of shit.
• Windows 9: Gonna suck.

[stonehenge]

Originally Posted by theholycow

• MS-DOS 1-3: Wha?
• MS-DOS 3.3: Supposedly good.
• MS-DOS 4: Wha?
• MS-DOS 5.0: It fucking worked. Rock solid. No bullshit. Fast as a motherfucker.
• MS-DOS 6.0:
• MS-DOS 6.2: Good stuff.
• MS-DOS 6.22: Good 'nuff.
• Windows 1.0, 2.0: Wha?
• Windows 3.0: Oh herro!
• Windows 3.1: Improvements.
• Windows for Workgroups 3.11: More improvements.

Yeah I decided to ignore those I think the earliest I used was 3.1 (Windows wise), I used DOS before that.

Originally Posted by theholycow

• Windows 95: Misunderstood, but the real problem is the market wasn't ready. Piece of shit by today's standards, sure...same for 98.
• Windows 98: Mild improvements to product, market was ready this time.
• Windows ME: Imperceptibly different from Windows 98 apart from some eye candy, added utilities, and slightly better hiding of its DOS chassis, yet is somehow the red-headed stepchild.

W98 added USB and some other goodies, seemed like it was used longer than 95 and was more stable. Maybe it was placebo tho

Every time I ran into WinME, it was a POS. Didn't feel stable at all. Looks wise it was W95/98 but they did something behind the scenes that made it behave like shit, at least in the experiences I had.

Originally Posted by theholycow

• Windows NT 3.x: In my small amount of experience, trash...yet somehow it eventually evolved into Windows XP.
• Windows 2000: Really didn't catch on, I never used it, but supposedly decent.

meh, I dont' remember either one being very widely used by consumers, but idk, I know I went from W98 to XP and dgaf about anything in between except for POS ME that I had experience with unfortunately.

Originally Posted by theholycow

• Windows XP in the beginning: Trash...but nobody remembers, because:
• Windows XP service packs: Bang-up job, MS. Too bad you'll never pull it off again.

I know that when XP came out it was shunned because W98 stuff didn't work on it and I'm sure it was all Vista-ish until the service packs made it W7-ish but I didn't use it until after everyone started liking it I waited and wasn't in IT or anything so didn't have to mess with it before I upgraded on my own.

Originally Posted by theholycow

• Windows Vista: The hardware wasn't ready for it, the software wasn't ready for it, and Microsoft made some bad default settings. They also mangled the previously very good Windows Explorer file manager.
• Windows 7: Vista service pack. "Oh shit guys, the market hates Vista. At least the hardware is ready now. Let's change the default setting for Aero, fuck up printer management, apply some lipstick, give the whole thing a new name, and not release the update for existing licenses. They want to hate Vista, fine, fuck them for badmouthing us, they can buy 7 instead of getting it as a service pack."

I'll agree with that. W7 = Vista that works like it should have at launch, shouldn't have been a whole new release, should have been an update. Still feel bad for anyone who PAID for Vista

Originally Posted by theholycow

• Windows 8 and Windows Server 2012: Sounds like a piece of shit.
• Windows 9: Gonna suck.

W8 seems fine from a stability point (since it's probably W7 underneath) but the new shit they added that fucks with the start menu is retarded. Windows IS the start menu... "click start" = first step in all directions.

Fuck that lets replace it with a fullscreen menu w/ fgty tiles everywhere

W9: will probably suck since they won't get rid of the tile shit

Haven't used or looked into Server 2012 yet, I wonder if it has a start menu or something else instead of the stupid tiles. I see no use whatsoever for the tile interface on a server. Seems even more ratard/useless than putting it on laptops/desktops.

The only place the tile interface makes any sense at all is on a touchscreen imo.

[theholycow]

Originally Posted by Juan!

Every time I ran into WinME, it was a POS. Didn't feel stable at all. Looks wise it was W95/98 but they did something behind the scenes that made it behave like shit, at least in the experiences I had.

I used it on plenty of machines, it was exactly as functional as W98.

meh, I dont' remember either one being very widely used by consumers, but idk, I know I went from W98 to XP and dgaf about anything in between except for POS ME that I had experience with unfortunately.

NT wasn't used by home users, just for servers in IT. A place I worked in IT had one running Lotus cc:Mail...it crashed all the damn time and ran like crap.

W8 seems fine from a stability point (since it's probably W7 underneath) but the new shit they added that fucks with the start menu is retarded. Windows IS the start menu... "click start" = first step in all directions.

Fuck that lets replace it with a fullscreen menu w/ fgty tiles everywhere

That's the Microsoft Way. As long as you hitch your wagon to Microsoft they're going to occasionally destroy your anus and replace it with Folger's crystals. Sometimes it works out ok, sometimes not.

Don't you remember the same thing with Windows 95 and the Start menu replacing Program Mangler? That worked out ok. More recently, they decided that in Orifice we shouldn't be allowed to have a menu bar so they replaced it with the ribbon. Fucking thing sucks.

Haven't used or looked into Server 2012 yet, I wonder if it has a start menu or something else instead of the stupid tiles. I see no use whatsoever for the tile interface on a server. Seems even more ratard/useless than putting it on laptops/desktops.

I imagine it's W8 server edition...just like 2008 is Vista server edition.

[stonehenge]

Originally Posted by theholycow

I used it on plenty of machines, it was exactly as functional as W98.

I must have been unlucky then

Originally Posted by theholycow

NT wasn't used by home users, just for servers in IT. A place I worked in IT had one running Lotus cc:Mail...it crashed all the damn time and ran like crap.

Yeah, the first department I worked in had an NT4 DC. Was a POS.

Originally Posted by theholycow

That's the Microsoft Way. As long as you hitch your wagon to Microsoft they're going to occasionally destroy your anus and replace it with Folger's crystals. Sometimes it works out ok, sometimes not.

Don't you remember the same thing with Windows 95 and the Start menu replacing Program Mangler? That worked out ok. More recently, they decided that in Orifice we shouldn't be allowed to have a menu bar so they replaced it with the ribbon. Fucking thing sucks.

We'z all doomed

Originally Posted by theholycow

I imagine it's W8 server edition...just like 2008 is Vista server edition.

That's what I'm afraid of... and expect.

[shootermcgavin003]

nt was solid as hell for its time cao

[theholycow]

Compared to what?

The AIX database server at the same place was solid as hell.

[shootermcgavin003]

compared to win 95 and 98 it was much more solid

[theholycow]

Ok so I've asked this before but I'm asking it again. What are you doing for backup?

I've really had enough of Symantec BackupExec. It's simply a turd. It never works for long and it never provides useful error messages. It provides the same error almost every time, which could mean any of thousands of problems (literally!) and has certainly meant plenty of different totally unrelated problems for me.

[stonehenge]

on windows boxes were just doing robocopy with scripts/scheduled tasks and on linux boxes were using rsync.

also using shadowcopy on the windows fileserver data drives to make recovering deleted/changed files easier, although the shadow copies aren't backed up by robocopy, just the live data.

---------- Post added at 09:47 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:46 AM ----------

a program like backup exec makes things "easier" since you have it all in one place and no scripts to mess with or logs to keep track of in several places, but yeah we've used it in the past and hated it

[theholycow]

A program like BackupExec makes it easier..."like".

Yeah, we really need a modern professional style system with support and a good interface. I would actually prefer just using a scheme like that most of the time.

[stonehenge]

Main sysadmin takes care of all the rsync shenanigans (although I watch the logs for our main DC) and I take care of all the robocopy stuff.

Trying to figure out why backing up one share is giving me errors that make no sense even though the script is exactly like all the others that are working

[JayBo]

AC unit in my main server room is toast today. Walked by and heard all the fans screaming...

[stonehenge]

turn off everything and go home

[race2c]

Hey IT folks I would to ask for some VBA/excel help.

Here is the background.

2 spreadsheets

• 1 containing a list of 100+ish lines (each facility has one line)
  1 containing 7000+ish lines (some locations have multiple lines)

The 100+ lines containing a facility ID number such as "208976"
The 7000+ lines spreadsheets contains columns such as "Facility 208976", "Waste profile" etc

I need to compare the 100+ lines (numbers) to the 7000+lines (facility column). Thus, filtering the 7000+ lines of data for only the facility numbers of the 100+ facility numbers.

Any help?

[Cez★]

sort/filter?

i think thers a dedup command or something that goes trhough and finds duplicates

---------- Post added at 11:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:22 PM ----------

or ctrl find for the number that you need

[race2c]

i tried sort/filter, but there has to be a better way to compare the numbers.

if i use sort/filter, i still ahve to type in 100+ 6-7 digit numbers. just trying to find a better way.

[lowerc]

you'll have to do a little clean up of data so you are comparing apples to apples

With the 7000 are the facility numbers all 6 digits long?
In new column type =right(oldcolumnnumber,6)

that will pair it down to just the number.

In 100 line spreadsheet do VLOOKUP. check help for proper syntax