text:
ATCE 2013 Mobile AppSearch "ATCE" in the app store to download the ATCE 2013 Mobile App! The app provides easy-to-use capabilities to enhance your event experience! more |
ATCE 2013 Preview VideoWatch the ATCE 2013 preview video for an up-close look at some of this year's offerings, what's new and how to maximize your time in New Orleans. more |
FREE Things to DoLooking for FREE and fun things to do around New Orleans? From art markets to street musicians, there's always a budget-friendly option!more |
Top 10 Things to DoGot an extra hour? Don't miss this list of ten things that you MUST experience while in New Orleans at some of the most well-known hot spots. more |
Give Your Diet a Three-Day WeekendMost people eat to live but in New Orleans, we live to eat. Enjoy more than 1,300 restaurants - more than ever before.more |
An Exhibitor's GuideThe New Orleans CVB wants to help you drive traffic to your booth. Here's everything you need to make it easy to do business in the Big Easymore |
For International TravelersTraveling to New Orleans has never been better, and easier! Find out where to go and what to bring before packing your bags.more |
7 Ways to Tour New OrleansNew Orleans is a great city to tour, whether from an architectural and historical perspective to a cocktail.more |
NOLA VideosOur local leaders would like to welcome you to New Orleans. See what makes New Orleans so unique!more |


text:
OVERSLUIZEN, M; BRAS, W; GREAVES, GN; CLARK, SM; THOMAS, JM; SANKAR, G; TILEY, B; (1995) SAXS/WAXS STUDIES OF THE DEVITRIFICATION OF CR-DOPED CORDIERITE GLASS USING SYNCHROTRON-RADIATION. In: NUCLEAR INSTRUMENTS & METHODS IN PHYSICS RESEARCH SECTION B-BEAM INTERACTIONS WITH MATERIALS AND ATOMS. (pp. 184 - 189). ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
Full text not available from this repository.
In situ simultaneous Small Angle X-ray Scattering (SAXS) and Wide Angle X-ray Scattering (WAXS) experiments have been carried out on Cr-doped cordierite (Mg2Al4Si5O18) glass. Samples were initially pre-treated at 875 degrees C close to the glass transition to promote nucleation and this was followed by further treatments at 920 degrees C and 1040 degrees C to generate dispersed crystal growth. The initial treatment revealed no changes in the SAXS or the WAXS data, but the subsequent treatments at higher temperatures revealed large changes in microcrystallinity developing with time. In particular taking the SAXS data for q < 0.05 Angstrom(-1) the average Guinier radius, R(g), was found to increase with heat treatment from initial values of similar to 10 Angstrom to final values of similar to 30 Angstrom. I(q) versus q(-n) plots (for q greater than or equal to 1/R(g)) revealed increasing values of n indicative of changes in mesostructure from rough to smooth fractal architecture. From the WAXS data that was obtained concurrently two separate crystalline phases were identified during devitrification-spinel (MgAl2O4) and a stuffed quartz (MgxAl2xSi1-xO2(1+x))-each growing at different rates. The growth of spinel correlates well with the SAXS invariant, reflecting the major contrast in electron density between this phase and that of the residual glass. For the heat treatment conditions employed, WAXS reveals that the stuffed quartz phase appears later than the spinel phase and also grows less rapidly. For prolonged annealing, a SAXS feature develops at similar to 0.022 Angstrom(-1), corresponding to an average interparticle distance of similar to 280 Angstrom. This is considerably longer than the statistical separation of Cr atoms in the glass (14 Angstrom) and suggests some clustering of Cr takes place as devitrfication progresses.
Type: | Proceedings paper |
Title: | SAXS/WAXS STUDIES OF THE DEVITRIFICATION OF CR-DOPED CORDIERITE GLASS USING SYNCHROTRON-RADIATION |
Event: | 1st European Conference on Synchrotron Radiation in Materials Science |
Location: | CHESTER, ENGLAND |
Dates: | 1994-07-03 - 1994-07-08 |
Keywords: | STRUCTURAL STATES, MG-CORDIERITE, SPECTROSCOPY |
UCL classification: | UCL > School of BEAMS > Faculty of Maths and Physical Sciences > Chemistry |
Archive Staff Only: edit this record

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Fourths LbNA # 9234
Owner | DrewFamily |
Placed Date | Apr 21 2003 |
County | Mystery |
Location | ???, CT |
Boxes | ??? |
Found By | ??? |
Last Update | Jun 28 2014 |
First Thirds, Second Fourths
(Confirmed missing June 2014)
Eric can take heart that something in man keeps us searching. Cave people and the cliff dwellers to the east could find these. Facing toward the right opening in the big wall, look for tree hugging hunters among the beech.
Then Fifths:
The Ram and the coyote climb high up the cliff and take in views from horizon to the sun's fire. Knowing that the Ram's ring of power is found thirty degrees west and twenty steps beyond, coyote can look east. Howling at the moon to call Ram, the coyote rounded the corner to the boulder.
And Sixths:
"Howling," thought Eric? "A coyote's snout in the air? These are points to help me find happiness? It must be easier to figure out!"


text:
24.11.03 - By Micah Yonkoski: I know they are trying to make me an opponent, but thats not what I came into this business to be. IBF: Okay Glenn, lets start off by hearing your view on the fight with Clinton Woods and do you think there was anyway that the fight could have been viewed as a draw? GJ: No way! I dont see any way that the fight could be a draw. I mean, if the British judge called it a draw then that should automatically tell you who won the fight. I have no idea how the American Judge came up with his score, but its happened to me here in the states as well. So, what can you do? IBF: From what I saw of the fight, you really pressed the action and most Ive talked with feel you deserved that fight. However, were you as tired as you appeared in the late rounds and in your honest opinion did you get a break with that knockdown that was ruled a slip? GJ: No, there were no knockdowns in the fight. He slipped and I slipped in the fight. I slipped twice and went to the floor and he slipped once and went to the floor and we both slipped many other times, but didnt hit the floor. They have a ridiculous canvas which is very slippery. I dont know whey in the world they use it and the huge logo in the center makes it even worse. It gave us both problems, but he (Woods) has fought on it many times and should have a better understanding of how it works and he still fell. There were no knockdowns; it was a good fight that I won. I gave him maybe three rounds at most and they were some close rounds. At best, Ill give him four rounds and how they came up with a draw only God knows, because I dont. IBF: Youve been robbed or came up just short on so many occasions, where do you feel this decision rates on your growing list of heart breaking decisions? GJ: Well Micah, obviously when you fight for a world title and you get robbed it hurts more than any other time because this is a chance to put me on a plateau and make some real money to support my family. With that said, all robberies are heart breaking and if I hadnt been robbed so many times in the past, I would have fought and won a world title a long time ago. To win the fight and actually lose a chance to be a world champion just sinks the knife in a bit deeper. IBF: Its got to be an awful feeling for you when the final bell rings in any fight your in as you have came so close with so many elite fighters such as Julio Gonzalez, Sven Ottke, Omar Sheika and I wont even mention the travesty I saw when you clearly beat Daniel Judah. How do you continue to stay motivated when things like this continue to happen? GJ: Well, the truth of the matter is that I have a family to feed, you know and I have to go out and provide. I create the family, so I have to feed em. I have my own goals and I cant let anyone decide what happens with me and that is what keeps me goin. I know they are trying to make me an opponent and thats not what I came into this business to be. If they keep robbing me then the people will see it and obviously I am a better fighter than my record shows and everybody knows that. I let the people recognize me for the kind of fighter that I am. IBF: Certainly you were pleased with the IBFs ruling that you and Clinton Woods will fight again within 90 days to determine the championship, have you any information on a date or venue for that fight? GJ: No, I dont have a date on that yet, but I know itll happen before February 7th because that is the end of the ninety day period. I have heard talk about it being the undercard for the James Toney fight and I know the people in England are now trying to get the fight over there as well. I dont know which way its going yet, but I am just waiting to hear the final word and lets get ready and deal with it. IBF: Seeing as to how youve been robbed equally on all shores, do you have a strong preference on any location? GJ: Well, Id prefer the fight to be here because I live here and Im trying to get in the American eyes and let the people see the new Glenn Johnson and how Im fighting lately. Other than this fight, I am going to probably be fighting over here and this is the people that I am trying to impress and hope they come out to see me. Fighting out in England isnt going to boost my career here in the states. Let me say though that I have no trust, no confidence at all in judges. IBF: Have you already begun preparation for the rematch? GJ: No, Im not doing anything except eating basically and working on getting fat, but after Thanksgiving I am going to go back into the gym and get ready for the rematch. I just came off of hard training and I am letting my body heal and get used to being fat. IBF: Youve challenged for the IBF world title at three different weights and have yet to wear the belt, give us a sense of the feeling you will get should you beat Woods and become a world champ? Will all the disappointments to date help to make the achievement that much better? GJ: Definitely itll make the feeling that much better because Ill know that I beat the odds and know how badly they tried to keep me down, but at the same time, I dont know what the feeling will be like because it hasnt happened to me. Let me go win this championship and then give me a call and Ill let you know. IBF: After Oscar De La Hoya lost a decision to Mosley in their rematch and then cried corruption and for an investigation to be launched for the betterment of all boxers, he hasnt done a thing and has since backed away. Would you support an investigation such as that (Being the poster-boy for bad luck decisions) or do you think Oscar was as off base as I do? GJ: (laughs) Honestly, when I heard about him launching the investigation I was happy and I wish he would have done something because he is the last guy that Id suspect to get robbed because of who he is. I figure most likely he will get the close decisions, but I felt he got robbed against Trinidad and I felt he got robbed the last time out against Shane Mosley. IBF: Considering the fact that you have been slighted so many times by questionable to disgusting judging, would you ever entertain becoming an official of some sort after its over and help see that another kid doesnt suffer from the calls that you have? GJ:IBF: Youre 34 now and appear to be fighting better than ever. Is there a fight out there besides the one directly ahead that really motivates you? Howabout Antonio Tarver or a rematch with Julio Gonzalez? GJ: Every fight motivates me and all I need is the date, place and time and Ill be there. I am motivated to fight everyone as there is no man on two foot that I wouldnt fight or that I am afraid of and it doesnt matter what weight, if they approve it then Im there. No matter if its heavyweight, cruiserweight, light heavyweight, super middleweight or what, if they approve it Im there. It dont matter who it is. Id love to fight Antonio Tarver or Roy Jones or whoever as that is my reputation. If there is a fight then Im there. IBF: Speaking of Jones-Tarver, what was your opinion on the fight and do you think a rematch would have a different outcome? GJ: I don know about a different outcome, but I think Roy Jones would win a bit more clearly as the reason it was so close last time is because Roy Jones had to lose all that weight. If he wasnt so dehydrated then he would have been much better. The guy is so good that we have never seen him in even a close fight and that is the only reason we are even talking about this. He is the best pound-4-pound fighter in the world for a reason. IBF: Okay, well I want to thank you for taking the time to grant me this interview and in closing, is there anything that youd like to say to the readers out there and those that stand behind you as you go into the Woods rematch? GJ: Yeah, yeah thanks. I would definitely like to say to the people that this is Glenn Johnson and he is new and determined and everyone who knows about boxing please come out and watch me. If you see my name in here, on the websites or in the newspaper just please come out and watch. I am working hard and trying to be a million dollar fighter, but I need and appreciate all support and itll help get me to that plateau. IBF: Well, Thanks again Glenn and best of luck in the future. GJ: Okay anytime and thanks for doing the interview. *Interview originally submitted to IBF Reporter
previous article: Guinn: Trouble in Houston
next article: HAROLD BRAZIER LAUNCHING COMEBACK
If you detect any issues with the legality of this site, problems are always unintentional and will be corrected with notification. The views and opinions of all writers expressed on Boxing247.com do not necessarily state or reflect those of the Management. Copyright © 2001- 2015 Boxing247.com - Privacy Policy l Contact


text:
Welcome Login | Register
Digital Edition
Inspired from KENZO Fall/Winter 2013 EYE Collection, Rebecca of Secret Chamber Nails created a fab gel manicure we've truly got our eyes on. Just in time for Halloween, hone you nail art skills and paint these tips for a client. See the tutorial. »
Key Words:
Tweets by @NailproMagazine


text:
Health Herbal
Detox Herbs
A-Z Brand
A-Z Healthy
Remedy Personal
Care Organic
Formula Baby
Kids Massager
& Vibrator
Marine Phytoplankton, 2 oz, From UMAC
Regular: $40.49You Save: 50%
Online Sale Price: $20.24Buy With Confidence
Marine Phytoplankton, 2 oz, From UMAC
Our cells require essential nutrients in order to communicate & guard against diseases and toxins. Modern diets have become increasingly processed & sparse in these essential nutrients causing an increase in chronic illness.
Harvested naturally from the ocean, Alpha-3 Concentrated Marine Phytoplankton (Alpha-3 CMP) is a nutrient dense, whole food that provides a wide spectrum of essential nutrients including vitamins, amino acids, rare trace elements and cellular materials.
Alpha-3 CMP is recognized as one of the most important nutrient sources for cellular health. Alpha-3 CMP provides a full array of marine phytonutrients needed to achieve & maintain a healthy and energetic lifestyle.
Buy Marine Phytoplankton, 2 oz, From UMAC at Wholesale Price!


text:
Table of Contents
Penfield Library is a Selective Depository Library for US Documents. For a paper or online government document first check the library catalog. To find more US documents go to the Catalog of United States Government Publications. For New York State documents try the New York State Library Online Catalog. Please ask for help at the Research Help Desk .
Federal Government
Legislative and Legal
- Congressional Record 1989 - present
- Bill Summary and Status 1973 - present
- Bill Text 1989 - present
- Public Laws by Law Number (1973 - present)
- Congress 1774 - 1875
- Supreme Court Opinions - Recent Decisions
- U.S. House of Representatives
- U.S. Senate
- Census Bureau Data
- Census Information for 2000
- Census Information for 2010
- Oswego City from the 2000 census.
- IRS Tax Forms
- Bureau of Labor Statistics
- Executive Branch Agencies Web Sites
- Book of the States
- Canivote.org
- Catalog of United States Government Publications
- Basic Collection of Federal Documents
- Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
- Federal Citizen Information Center
- Copyright Search
- Crime in the United States/ Uniform Crime Reports
- EDGAR SEC Database Company Financial Reports
- North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) replaces the Standard Industrial Classification System
- Occupational Employment Statistics
- Statistical Abstract of the U.S. (2013 - present) requires login with Laker NetID and password
Historical Documents
- The Constitution of the United States of America
- The Bill of Rights
- The Declaration of Independence
- American Memory
Federal Document Gateways
- Thomas: Legislative Information in the Internet
- Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP) Collection
New York State Government
- New York State Tax Forms
- Legislative Bills 1995 - current year
- Current State Laws (Consolidated)
- New York State Constitution
- New York State Education Department Curriculum, Instruction & Assessment Publications - including standards & resource guides
- New York State Office for Technology Telephone Directory - NYS Government Telephone Directory
- New York State Library Online Catalog, includes listings of State Documents
To retrieve online documents select "Power Search" and limit type to E-TEXT.


text:
I dont think All-stars have to do with victories as much as the MVP. I think the all star game should celebrate the best individual players in the game, which is why I'm pissed that Al Jefferson didn't make it, and that players like kevin martin aren't even considered for it..if you got mad skills, then get yo behind in the game, but MVPs make their team play on a higher level, or make them look like it anyways
Just my opinion
My opinion on the all-star game
Started by
, Feb 11 2009 05:05 AM
1 reply to this topic
#2 Guest_Chicano_*
Posted February 12, 2009 - 12:02 AM
I agree to a certain extent, however, I do also feel that maybe something like the top 2 teams at least in each conference should guaranteed for the most part have at least two of their top players make it for sure almost always.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users


text:
Got a tip for us? Let us know
Jan 10, 2013, 05:16 AM | #1 |
G4 Powerbook, HDD swap / external boot?
The motherboard on my 17" G4 Powerbook (10.5.8) has died and I have been quoted £400GBP for a replacement. I am considering buying a smaller laptop (15" G4 Powerbook) and swapping the HDD from the original to the new one - is it as straightforward as this or do I need to take other things into account?
Alternatively, can I use the old HDD as an external HDD to boot from or even simply for storage? Thanks, g |
0 |
Jan 10, 2013, 05:26 AM | #2 |
Yes, you should be able to swap it and it is also possible to boot from if you put it in an external casing.
You could put in an external case and then just use Carbon Copy Cloner to copy over to the internal. Or, you may find a Logic board for the 17" on Ebay. |
0 |
Jan 10, 2013, 06:22 AM | #3 | |
Alternately, if you're up for it, you can replace the logic board yourself (and use this opportunity to redo the thermal paste on the heatsink; Apple's stock paste solution is utter garbage). It's one of the "harder" upgrades in that you have take almost everything out to replace it, but if you've done any work like this before, it's really not bad at all. In fact, the other day, I just completely rebuilt a 15" which is humming along just fine right now. A working logic board from eBay will probably run you less than a complete 15" incher or you could perhaps even find a broken screen 17" and cannibalize its board (and have spares of other parts, or just part it out). |
0 |
Jan 10, 2013, 06:51 AM | #4 |
Thanks both for your replies. Re: Intel Mac - I would dearly love to be able to afford an intel mac but unfortunately I do not have the funds to buy one. I have decided to buy a smaller powerbook on ebay, keep my hard drive and sell off the 17 inch for spares. This should limit my outlay to less than £50 (considerably less hopefully) and I have a clean install machine, an extra hard drive, a better battery and a more portable laptop out of it. Cheers, g |
0 |
Jan 10, 2013, 07:40 AM | #5 | |
My PowerBook 15" is Feb 05 vintage - still works - but very painfully slow even maxed out with RAM. The Wifi antenna is the worst in the industry. The batteries are not the best either - I purchased two extra plus the dual charger from OWC - that's supposed to restore them - I don't think that actually happened either, but it looks cool. The one thing is the Hard Drive - At about 5 years old - Drives are getting near the problem zone. Hopefully this isn't going to be an issue in the one purchased. Unless previous owner replaced it already. I had a chat with OWC to show me what SSD would work in this old guy. I haven't jumped at the deal yet - but it's way over due to happen. My main purpose is to not have to travel across town with gear - Leave the MBP at the shop - and keep old Guy at home to just surf and minor image stuff. Good Luck - Update when possible how it works out. Hopefully someone has a flawless deal for You. If I dig out my extra batteries and they test out fair - I could make a deal for Ya. I still recall the coolest feature - Lighted Keys - Years ahead of anyone.
MP3.1,8GB,4TB, MBPro13 5.5, iPad1 64G, iPhone 3gs, iTouch, PB15 1.6, ATv, Rxv3900. |
0 |
Jan 10, 2013, 07:44 AM | #6 | |
* if you intend to move the drive, ifixit has all the details * if you keep the 15" drive, you'll need to take out the 17" drive, put it in an external FireWire enclosure, boot it up from there, and then use superduper or carbon copy cloner to clone the drive. Sadly (compared to most later model pro laptops), changing drive on a PowerBook is not entirely without risk of damage to the casing, so I'd try to avoid opening the 15" if there are no weighty reasons to do so. RGDS,
MP 3,1 octo, 8GB RAM, 3 HDD's, 1 SSD, AMD 5770, 10.6 MP 5,1 octo, 12GB RAM, 2 HDD's, 1 SSD, AMD 5770, 10.6 2009 Mini, as server , and a lot of other gear. |
0 |
Jan 10, 2013, 08:03 AM | #7 | |
Edit: I meant to ask, can I not have the 17" in a USB enclosure? I may need to hook up this and my existing FireWire drive simultaneously. |
0 |
Jan 10, 2013, 08:19 AM | #8 | |
I definitely understand the need to keep costs down and I'm not sure what the used market is like in the UK, but could you not seek out a used Intel instead? I see great condition older Intel Macbooks (think of Core 2 Duo vintage) routinely in the $300 or less range, so roughly £150? It's definitely a higher outlay to replace your PowerBook but the processor for even earlier white MacBooks is on the order of 3-4x more powerful than the fastest G4 released on a PowerBook (1.67GHz). Plus you get the advantage of more recent software and faster chipsets and buses (the SATA speed will be greatly superior to PATA). I recommend that you at least take a look to see if a good deal can be had for an Intel Mac. |
0 |
Jan 10, 2013, 08:22 AM | #9 | |
MP 3,1 octo, 8GB RAM, 3 HDD's, 1 SSD, AMD 5770, 10.6 MP 5,1 octo, 12GB RAM, 2 HDD's, 1 SSD, AMD 5770, 10.6 2009 Mini, as server , and a lot of other gear. |
1 |
Jan 10, 2013, 08:40 AM | #10 | |
It's not like PATA hard drive manufacturers have ceased all production and you can not ever find a brand new PATA hard drive and thus have to resort to eBay for nothing but used HDs! Logicboards can be found on eBay for at least half of the $300 for an Intel Mac you are talking about. Using the guides at iFixit it's a simple matter to open the Mac up and at a minimum get the HD out. Logicboard replacement is a bit more involved, but you save money. It's not impossible to repair the OPs PowerBook yet. I can understand the direction the Intel guys are pushing you in OP, but you should at least be aware of your other options.
-> Erik Youngren | email@example.com PMG4 QS, 6 LCDs | 17" MBP (A1151) 2.16GHZ/500GB HD/2GB ram | iPhone 5, Black/Slate 64GB Sprint TenFourFox too slow? See my tweak/addon thread! |
0 |
Jan 10, 2013, 09:52 AM | #11 | |
Thanks everyone for taking the time to reply. Even the PB I am looking at (£100) is borderline out of my price range and going any higher is just not an option right now, but I definitely don't rule out upgrading to an Intel Mac in the not so distant future once funds permit. FYI, a quick eBay search has highlighted that a Macbook Pro (I really couldn't work on anything smaller than 15") wouldn't come in any less than £400 or so here in the UK (of course deals are probably out there). As for fixing the unit, looking at the costs of even faulty 17 inch units, I don't think this is financially practical. |
0 |
Jan 10, 2013, 10:01 AM | #12 | |
My Powerbook G4 15" 1.67 boots from USB, no problem. |
0 |
Jan 10, 2013, 10:02 AM | #13 |
0 |
Jan 10, 2013, 11:37 AM | #14 | |
It is widely said, that Powerbooks do not support boot from USB, and I've never managed to do it (tested on 17" 1 Ghz Albook and 12" 1,5 Ghz). Do you know if there's a list somewhere of the hardware versions which allow it? RGDS P.S. I just had to google this, and although there are some hacks (involving open firmware to boot a usb dongle containing the installer, I also found some pages covering Boot disk selection at startup (using Alt), but could not find any comprehensive data on the specifics...
MP 3,1 octo, 8GB RAM, 3 HDD's, 1 SSD, AMD 5770, 10.6 MP 5,1 octo, 12GB RAM, 2 HDD's, 1 SSD, AMD 5770, 10.6 2009 Mini, as server , and a lot of other gear. |
1 |
Jan 10, 2013, 11:54 AM | #15 | |
Also, booting from USB requires using Open Firmware (ala http://hints.macworld.com/article.ph...01011105729488) |
0 |
Jan 10, 2013, 02:05 PM | #16 | |
Other benefits of getting a new machine have been outlined above - I get another HDD and another boot drive (hopefully!). The cost of obtaining a new machine, taking into account selling on my 17" machine for spares is likely to be in the order of £50GBP. Could I get a replacement logic board; fit it; get a replacement battery and buy another 150GB HDD for this? That is not even taking into account the fact that I would actually prefer a 15" machine. g |
0 |
Jan 10, 2013, 06:07 PM | #17 | |
What are the specs of your current 17"? If you're after a second drive, then you're right, getting the 15" is probably the best option. I did a quick search online, by no means thorough, but I didn't see any reasonably priced PATA drives at all... I'm not sure they're in production anymore based on the outrageous prices including for WD drives in 2.5" form factor. |
0 |
Jan 10, 2013, 07:14 PM | #18 |
My 17" is (was ) 1.67, 2GB with a 110GB HDD. The 15" (which I have now bought ) is 1.67, 2GB with a 150GB HDD. It comes with 2 batteries, one of which is practically new apparently.
Thanks everyone for your input. I will let you know how I get on trying to boot from USB. If that fails I will simply put my old HDD in the machine for now anyway which I assume will just run as before, is that right? g |
0 |
Jan 13, 2013, 09:55 PM | #19 | ||
http://hints.macworld.com/article.ph...60301112336384 ---------- Quote:
0 |
Jan 14, 2013, 02:27 AM | #20 | |||
As the hint you yourself linked points out: Quote:
So in any case, it does not seem a surefire thing that any powerbook can boot from USB2. Furthermore, considering the nature of that hint, I would not have selected the word "easily". So I'd reiterate my original point, that "The PowerBook allows booting from internal drives (HDD, DVD) and FireWire drives". Further we can extend this premise by "Some Powerbooks may also manage to be booted from USB-drives, but in some case it involves hacks and may not always work." RGDS,
MP 3,1 octo, 8GB RAM, 3 HDD's, 1 SSD, AMD 5770, 10.6 MP 5,1 octo, 12GB RAM, 2 HDD's, 1 SSD, AMD 5770, 10.6 2009 Mini, as server , and a lot of other gear. |
0 |
Jan 15, 2013, 03:45 AM | #21 |
Thanks for the link. seveej: I agree, the firewire route would be the preferable route to go down. Now, onto my next question: My new Powerbook has arrived and is in great condition, really happy with it. It comes with 10.3.9 installed which is unfortunately not much use to me. I have decided to retain the internal HDD on this machine and clone my old internal HDD (which has 10.5.8 installed and all my existing applications and data) using Carbon Copy (the storage size on the new drive is bigger) and retain the old HDD as a back up in case of HDD problems in the future. I have not had a chance yet to try booting from my old drive over USB (I am waiting on some tools to arrive before I can put it in an enclosure) but assuming for now that I cannot boot using USB, my question is this: I have an existing third (FireWire) HDD I use for storeage. Is it possible to create a disk image of my old internal HDD, saving this to my FireWire drive, and then boot using this drive? I don't want to wipe the existing data on the FireWire drive, but it can be assumed there is sufficient space available to store the .DMG file. Thanks all for your input thus far. g |
0 |
Jan 15, 2013, 03:49 AM | #22 | |
0 |
Jan 15, 2013, 04:00 AM | #23 |
That's great, thanks. If USB doesn't work I will install my old drive in the laptop and carbon copy that way. Was hoping to avoid that.
0 |
Jan 15, 2013, 04:20 AM | #24 |
Get 10.4 Retail DVD image, burn it with Disk Utility, boot PB off of it with FW drive connected, restore .dmg of your old HDD from FW drive to new PB and you're done.
0 |
Jan 15, 2013, 05:43 AM | #25 | |
Edit - I have OS 9 and 10.3 install discs that work fine, so the drive seems ok, the disk is the problem (I hope). Last edited by ghostly606; Jan 15, 2013 at 05:55 AM. |
0 |
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
Similar Threads | ||||
thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
External HDD slowing down boot... How do I fix this? | Nirurin | iMac | 30 | Aug 15, 2014 02:07 AM |
Delayed boot-up with external HDD and compatibility? | Truthfulie | iMac | 1 | Mar 7, 2014 11:08 AM |
27' imac, external HDD for boot camp? | Xeleon | iMac | 6 | Nov 13, 2013 03:10 AM |
Why are my snapshots garbled after I boot from an external HDD ? | XPcentric | Mac Basics and Help | 0 | Mar 11, 2013 04:42 PM |
Boot Camp from an external HDD? | jgw1283 | Windows, Linux & Others on the Mac | 5 | Jul 4, 2012 02:25 PM |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:02 PM.


text:
About the Book
"But what does scripture say?"
That question has echoed through a thousanddebates in the life of the worldwide church. Allchurches have officially endorsed strong statementsabout the centrality of scripture and itsauthority in their mission, life, doctrine, anddiscipline. But there is no agreement on whatthis might mean or how it might work in practice.Individuals and churches struggle with howto respond to issues such as war, homosexuality,and abortion, and especially how to interpretbiblical passages that discuss these topics. Thesedisagreements often serve to undermine ourconfidence in the authority of the Bible.
Bishop and Bible scholar N. T. Wright deliversa new model for how to understand the placeof scripture and God's authority in the midstof religious confusion. Wright gives new life tothe old, tattered doctrine of the authority ofscripture, delivering a fresh, helpful, and concisestatement on how to read the Bible today,restoring scripture as a place to find God's voice.
In this revised and expanded edition of thepreviously titled book The Last Word, Wrightprovides two case studies that delve into what itmeans to keep Sabbath and how Christians candefend marital monogamy. These studies offernot only bold biblical insights but also showcaseWright's new model for how to interpretscripture and restore its role as the church'smain resource for teaching and guidance.Removing the baggage that the last 100 yearsof controversy and confusion have placed onthis doctrine, Wright renews our confidence inthe Bible and shows how it can once again serveas the living Word of God for our lives.
Critical Praise
"The best book of its kind available." — The Christian Century
"N. T. Wright opens for us a path beyond of the paralyzing polarization of "liberal" and "conservative." — Brian McLaren, author of A New Kind of Christian
"In a fashion that is both old fashioned and new fangled at the same time Bishop Wright takes us through a sane and helpful study of what it means to treat the Bible as the authoritative Word of God. Highly Recommended!" — Ben Witherington, author of The Brother of Jesus
"Written by one of the leading Christian thinkers in the world today, this book is a refreshing and accessible resource concerning the perennial question of biblical authority that moves the discussion beyond the liberal-conservative impasse of our times. Highly Recommended." — John R. Franke, Professor of Theology, Biblical Theological Seminary
"[P]robing, provocative, insightful…This is a book of uncommon wisdom for all who read and love the Bible." — Timothy George, Dean of Beeson Divinity School of Samford University and Executive Editor of Christianity Today
"This wide-ranging whirlwind-tour account of Scripture channeling God's authority, with its tweaking of distortions back into shape and its first-class approach to Bible study, is masterly throughout." — J. I Packer, Professor of Theology, Regent College
"Wright offers sensible insights on the transforming power of God, very necessary in these times of skepticism and confusion." — Publishers Weekly
"Scripture and the Authority of God is a fabulous book. With characteristic verve and occasionally pungent grace… Scripture and the Authority of God could be the beginning of a more faithful listening, as well as sustaining more fruitful conversation about the nature of biblical interpretation." — Books&Culture
"Wright appeals to the reader to take another look at the Bible, not as an isolated phenomenona veritable rule book similarly applicable at all times and in all placesbut rather as a book better placed within both the contemporary cultural context and as part of a larger tradition of interpretation." — Explorefaith.org
"Wright is a provocative theologian... there is so much here that you will wish that it were longer-- but its brevity makes for easy reading and it certainly deserves to be read." — Church of England Newspaper
"The whole book gives further cause for gratitude for God's gift of Wright to his Church." — ANVIL
Product Details
- Imprint: HarperCollins e-books
- On Sale: 03/01/2011
- Pages: 224
- List Price: 10.99 USD
- BISAC1: RELIGION / Christianity / General
- BISAC2: RELIGION / Christian Life / Spiritual Growth
- BISAC3: RELIGION / Biblical Studies / General


text:
Really cool stuff to have unhindered access would have been awesome. To live there at that time must have been something, the closest I have come tp any of that is watching Apollo 13 and The Right Stuff 5 or 6 times each, not quite the same thing! : )
If you can post some of the those images would love to see them, are they online?


text:
Order by Phone 800-220-4242(See availability)
Sign In | My Account | My Lists | Help
Be the first to review this item
This item is no longer available
This item ships for FREE with 2-Day Shipping on orders over $50. (Details)
Want it delivered on Tue, Apr 21? Order in-stock items in the next 2 days 1 hr 52 mins and choose One-Day Shipping at checkout.
Shipping Weight:
0.1 pounds
Package Size:
7 x 3.4 x 1.3 inches
Cool and comfortable. Our cool vent headwear collection wicks away from the head while allowing cool air to filter back and encourage evaporation. Keeps you cool and comfortable. This scull cap is made of our exclusive cool vent fabric with an internal sweatband and elastic back. Available in black and white.
How can we improve our Product Description?
There are no customer reviews yet.
Be the first to review this item


text:
Super PACs are playing a huge role in the 2012 election, and some wealthy attorneys and law firms are helping to foot the bill.
Super political action committees, created in part by the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision, reported their activities for the last quarter of 2011 to the Federal Election Commission on Tuesday, The New York Times reports. The filings list the super PACs' major donors -- many of whom are attorneys and law firms.
As a reminder, individuals and corporations can donate unlimited amounts of money directly to a super PAC. But super PACs must name their direct donors.
Here's a quick look at the super PACs and some of their biggest attorney and law firm donors, according to FEC filings:
Restore Our Future (supporting Mitt Romney):
Paul Singer, manager of the Elliot Associates hedge fund, gave Restore Our Future $1 million, The Times reports. Singer is a Harvard law grad, according to Am Law Daily.
Other legal-profession donors include Stephen Zide of Bain Capital, who donated $250,000; Trott and Trott PC, a Michigan real-estate firm that also handles litigation, which gave $200,000; and Darlene Jordan of Palm Springs, Fla., who gave $100,000.
Make Us Great Again and the Restoring Prosperity Fund (supporting Rick Perry):
Personal-injury attorney Tony Buzbee of Houston gave $250,000 to Make Us Great Again; the PAC's founder, attorney Mike Toomey, gave more than $100,000.
A second Perry-linked super PAC, the Restoring Prosperity Fund, got $25,000 from Los Angeles attorney George Mihlsten. That was before Perry dropped out of the race last month.
Our Destiny (supporting Jon Huntsman):
Attorney C. Boyden Gray, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union, donated $50,000 to this super PAC supporting the former U.S. ambassador to China's campaign. Again, this was before Huntsman withdrew.
Priorities USA Action (supporting President Barack Obama):
The American Association for Justice, a trial lawyers' lobby, gave $50,000, The Times reports. But this super PAC also got more than $200,000 from a connected and similar-sounding 501(c)(4) nonprofit group, Priorities USA.
Because the nonprofit Priorities USA is not a super PAC, it does not have to disclose its donors. So if any attorneys or law firms donated to the nonprofit, there's really no way to know.
Related Resources:
- The $1 Million Super PAC Donor's Club (The Atlantic)
- Super PACs (Center for Responsive Politics)
- Colbert's Super PAC has raised over $1 million (The Associated Press)
- Should You Contribute to Political Campaigns? (FindLaw's Strategist)


text:
Fresh face flash.
Bruno and Jhone at Elian Gallardo (Sao Paulo)
Lucas Christino at Elian Gallardo. I-phone casting snap
Felipe Tozzi from Ragazzo Model Management/Brazil.
...creates ungodly beauty.
Arthur Sales at Major; PH Gregory Vaughan
Remember that outstanding bit of Brazilian male beauty that sizzled
Jean Carlos at MC Squared PH: Joseph Bleu
The kids can't stop buzzing about MC Squared's NY sole male model.


text: Welcome to Community of Faith. We believe that your experience with us will help you lead a life of purpose that will greatly benefit you, your family, and your community. Keep your community with you wherever you go – on your mobile phone! This app has many interactive features enabling you to stay connected to your community, our ministries and events. All this and more – easily, from your mobile phone. This is just the beginning!


text:
This article illustrates the use of a treeview in a directory tree user control. You can use this control to visually select files or directories from any file structure on your computer system.
The treeview has been a common way to display hierarchies of data. In C# it's fairly easy to manipulate a tree because the design of the treeview is based on a recursive Node Structure:
This design was drawn using WithClass 2000 UML Design Tool
The treeview uses these node structures for handling most of its data population. The images from the tree view come from an ImageList component. The ImageList must be constructed seperately, and the icons used in the imagelist are added to the Images Collection from pictures created in an image editor (like mspaint or something):
The ImageList is then associated to the TreeView via the ImageList property:
When nodes are constructed, they are assigned indexes that point to a particular image in the list.
Now let's take a good look at our directory tree user control. The code for populating the directory nodes takes advantage of the Directory class in the System.IO namespace. A tree is built by first constructing the node with the name, image index, and image index when a node is selected. Then the node is added to the parent node.
FolderBrowserDialog is new Directory Picker in Windows Forms
Michael Gold is President of Microgold Software Inc., makers of the WithClass UML Tool. His company is a Microsoft VBA Partner and Borland Partner. Mike is a Microsoft MVP and founding member of C# Corner. He has a BSEE ... Read more


text:
Backup Exec 2012 Redesign
I want to thank the Connect user community for your clear feedback on the Backup Exec 2012 redesign. We were deeply impressed by your comments and we've taken action. Now that we've collected and implemented your suggestions, we've closed the comments on Bulbous' original thread but preserved them for the historical record.
You prompted the events detailed in this blog, this SearchStorage.com article and drove these changes into the next release. If you'd like to see them playing out in real life, sign up for the Beta program here.
- The new BE 2012 requires too many clicks
- Ability to bundle multiple servers in a single job
- Option for a job centric view in BE 2012
- Backing up more than one server per job with BE 2012
- How to append multiple jobs to tape with BE 2012
- Job Monitor is Back in BE 2012!
- Training and information on the new User Interface and processes in BE 2012
- Support for Oracle 11 R2 on Linux
- Continued Support for BE 2010
The Connect forums remain a primary venue for users to interact with each other and with us, where we are committed to providing answers and receiving constructive and detailed feedback. Criticism without detail doesn't move the conversation forward so please be specific when you contribute. Come with questions, leave with answers, maybe help someone else out while you are here.
Contact the team with a direct message:
Matt Stephenson
Drew Meyer
Sean Regan
You've made Backup Exec the industry standard for physical, virtual and legacy system protection. We're driven by your participation. What do you think?
Drew Meyer
Impressions of BackupExec 2012
Is it just me, or does anyone else absolutely HATE the redesign of Backup Exec? I have worked with BE since version 8, and I have become acutely familiar with the menus, where everything is, and how it works.
This redesign of the UI reminds me of the differences between Microsoft Office 2003 and Office 2007, only much worse. Menus are now hidden behind other menus, and everything has a completely counter-intuitive feel.
At first, I thought that the feeling would pass as I grew more familiar with the product, but in fact my dislike has grown as I have found more issues.
Does anyone else feel the same way?
Comments 417 Comments • Jump to latest comment
To be honest, I too have the same feelings. I have been using BE since it was owned by Veritas and having spent the past week inside this program getting it running. It really feels like I am clicking more times than I have ever clicked in my life. The transition from 2010 R3 to 2012 has been nothing short of nightmarish.
I am glad to express my complete and utter frustration with Backup Exec 2012 on this forum. Three days later, I am still fumbling through this completely idiotic interface to schedule backups. This is the most counter-intuitive product Symantec has come out with. I have worked with virtually every version of Symantec's BE and have worked through many versions of Netbackup. Netbackup which is a little cumbersome is much better than this. It's like Symantec wrote this backup software for complete morons that have no idea what they are doing. I mean, I cant even specify a specific backup to disk folder. If I select a backup to disk job, it ONLY creates a pre-defined folder on a partition...wtf is that crap? Then, I cant go back and modify that.
Why cant it be like a normal backup solution. Create a backup job and add servers to it. I find myself clicking all over the place to only find myself back at square one. I am in the transition phase of moving from 12.5 to 2012 and am contemplating going with 12.5. The only issue is I upgraded the guests to the new version of the agent...about the only nice thing I found that actually worked well. Sorry for my rants but I am so aggravated that this interface is so crappy and reminds me of the early version of backup software that virtually gave you no control over what you wanted to do.
Oh yeah, I love how I add servers using the add servers "feature" and create a backup job with them but then no job exists in the "jobs" area...Frckin beautiful!
Oh yeah, and one more thing. So I can install the agent on a Windows 2008 R2 DC, create a trust, validate my credentials and all looks good then I get some stupid error that it can't communicate with the server...even using an account in the Domain Admins group as the backup exec service...NICE!!!!!
I installed BE 2012 this past week Monday. What a disaster. From having backups that complete successfully (1.2TB) every night to my backups now not completing at all. I gave it two days, and then rolled back to BE 2010. That on its own was a mission, but fortunately my backuos are back to normal.
Symantec this is THE WORST version of BE I have ever experienced and I too have been using BE since the days of Veritas. Withdraw it from the market and re-think your strategy completely!!!
I was running 12.5 and went through an infrastructure upgrade in the last few months. Thought it would be good time to upgrade Backup software and upgrade my 12.5 version of BE. I am glad I did not purchase the licenses yet for BE 2012 as I uninstalled it and went to BE 2010. That is just an update to 12.5 so a far more simple upgrade for me. It was up and running with identical jobs as before in less than a few hours. I can't express my disgust for the BE 2012 product enough. They competely screwed up the interface in my opinion. It is so convoluted, counterintuitive and cumbersome that I will not be moving to that version in any future timeframe. Glad I am not alone here!
Absolutely more clicking than before as everything about a particular object is "conveniently" inside of it in a folder tree configuration. Changing some views to List instead of Tree can help a little bit, but not totally eliminate the issue.
I can see getting used to the change, but not loving it.
Backup products are designed by developers with little input from real-world users :*-(
There is an online portal, save yourself the long hold times. Create ticket online, then call in with ticket # in hand :-) http://mysupport.symantec.com "We backup data to restore, we don't backup data just to back it up."
Current 2010 environment is backing up about 100 servers compressed down into about 12 jobs a day. I can't do that with 2012's server centric view. Spun up a vm to test it out I have since deleted it. I can't see how in it's current form it can be anywhere as easy to manage all my backups as it is now in 2010. I want some of the new features but until I can as easily manage all my servers like being able to bundle them up into single jobs through a GUI and not rely on CLI (don't see how that is a solution considering how easy it is to re-order servers in a job through the gui now or add a new server to an existing multiserver job), I will be staying put.
Have been using Backupexec for I don't know how long just checked I still have a version 9 install in production at a remote site. Can't understand why such a drastic change in the way the product now handles backups. If you didn't have to many servers to backup I can see it not being too bad but the more you are trying to backup the worse it looks.
I feel the same... One deployment has 5 servers, all VM. Backups are a nice, clean 5-job set.
Another customer has 17 servers, all but 5 virtual. Combinations of Exchange, SQL, AD, etc. I have 24 backup jobs to handle the 12 virtual servers (VM Agent for Disaster Recovery, 12 more for daily data backup via the RAWS agent because GRT isn't processing the VMs properly, and then another 5 full/inc jobs for the physical servers. I used to rely on email logs to get all of the info I needed, but now I'm going to have to design a report, or log into the servers to see if I have the pretty green "tabs" on the logs.
Glad to see some one else here hate this new look!!!
The new BE 2012 totally destroyed my jobs and now i have been working 4 days to get everything back to normal but no luck installing BE 2010 again, now i have to clean the registry and see if it works.
Advice to others who is thinking of an update to BE2012, DON´T do it!
Here is one lost customer!!
I hate Backup Exec 2012!!!!!
We did talk to hundreds of customers in the process of building BE 2012 and did everything we could to incorporate all the feedback. We knew there would be some folks who would miss the old way, but we hope in time those folks will see the streamlined nature of the new product, especially as we continue to nurture it and learn from your continued feedback.
So, I hope I can help all of you with one thing you may have missed about the new UI:
Server grouping (allows you to modify many jobs at once): http://www.symantec.com/docs/HOWTO74389
The feedback I have heard says this is one overlooked feature that really seems to make a big difference in how you use BE 2012 in a more complex environment.
Check out this blog to get a better feel of the how and why of the BE 2012 UI: https://www-secure.symantec.com/connect/blogs/new-backup-exec-2012-user-experience
Finally, I have heard manu users report they have a much better understanding of how things work after watching a few videos about BE 2012: http://www.backupexec.com/videos
So, while sometimes it may not seem like we listen, I can tell you it is my job to listen to ALL the BE customers and we do our best to make the right decisions. When we don't, we do our best to make it right.
Thanks for the feedback, it's exciting to see the passion around BE!
Keep the feedback coming!
With all the user input and development time who could have possibly suggested that stopping a backup when it is half completed because it goes past midnight and the next day happens to be a exclude date. I have a backup that takes approx 10 hours that starts at 5:00 pm. As the next day was Easter Friday and no one is in to change the tape I added an exclude date as I did with BE2010. When my Thursday backup hit midnight the backup was stopped and it alerted me to failed status. How could anyone possibly think this was a good idea.
Today, with BE2012, I submitted a weekly backup to start at 11:57 PM and modified the the calendar to exclude tomorrow (the 19th). I advanced the server's clock to 11:55 PM and waited. The job eventually start and data began writing data to tape. The job continued to chug along past midnight and completed successfully. I successfully ran the same test in next release of the product as well.
If this is still a problem in your environment, either provide all the steps taken to create the job and detail any settings you've may have modified from the defaults...or please contact Technical Support to begin troubleshooting the problem.
Thank you
RE: Thanks for the feedback, it's exciting to see the passion around BE!
Symantec, you mistake passion for anger. Why was there not a huge flashing warning at installation to say this is a massive change unlike anything before?
This is such a time waster for me with 40 servers to backup. The installation created random backup jobs of entire servers, I can't find any way yet to delete them, only put them on start dates 10 years from now :(
Removal of the Job Monitor was the single dumbest thing you did, though no doubt you feel very clever about it. It was succinct, allowed a single glance view of both running status and history, and now this info is spread all over the place.
I have better things to do than this, and I, like so many others, am looking for alternatives.
Why wouldn't you at least put in the OPTION of having a job-centric view. I've used this product for the last seven years and finally found my way around it. There is certain key information that we need to be able to quickly see. This UI does not allow us to see that. For example, we were just running our first job under 2012 and we needed to insert a tape, but it wasn't obvious to me that we needed to insert a tape. I had to go hunting around the UI to find that we needed to insert a tape!!!
For the love of all that's holy, PLEASE put in the option of being able to see a "jobs view" like all the previous versions were based on. You can still have all this other stuff, but just add a "jobs view". I want to see what all my non-hold jobs are and when they are going to run and what the current status is w/o having to drill down into each server on which these jobs are running.
If I'm going to have to learn a different UI, why don't I just learn a different backup program? One of the impediments to switching backup solutions is that you don't want to have to go through the pain of learning a new interface and finding where everything is again. You've removed that impediment with 2012.
To See All Your Jobs & Status
- Go to Backup & Restore tab
- Double click "All Servers" which takes you to all your jobs
- Sort by status
- If you configure your column view, you can see everything from this view. Including "On Hold" which will show in the "Job Status" column
For your Tape issue, you need to enable alert options in Alert categories. You needed to do this in Backup Exec 2010 as well.
- Click Main Menu from top left
- Configurations & Settings
- Alerts and notifications
- Enable whatever alerts you want
- You'll also see this on the HOME Screen under "Active Alerts"
1) Telling me to watch videos to understand why your new product doesnt suck is pointless since your product used to be intuitive and didnt need videos...even for the new user.
2)Telling me that you knew lots of users would not like your product, yet you listened to the other users doesnt show a lot of wisdom either. Im sure there were focus groups which liked MS Vista.
3)And for the record....getting away from a job centric focus into a server centric is moronic....um...why? because most of your users LIKE the job centric focus....which is why we've all used back-up exec for so long.
this change was dumb dumb dumb and more dumb.
I wouldn't care what the interface looked like if the software would just work. I have had more problems getting successful backups with this version than any of the previous versions I have used. All you did was slap a pretty new interface on top of the same crappy software you've been pushing for years. There are issues in this version that have been around since at least version 8.5. How about stop worrying about the interface for a while and fix the software? Vmware is looking better and better every day, because I sure don't use this piece of crap to back up VM's.
If you talked to hundreds of customers and solicited their feedback then it seems abundantly clear to me that you talked to the wrong customers. It is hard to imagine a situation where IT professionals who are responsible for data protection and disaster recovery would get behind the disconbobulated, incompetently developed mess that is BE 2012. I have been working with and supporting Backup Exec since version 7.2 when Seagate Software had it, and Backup Exec 2010 will be the last version of the product that we will implement and support for our clients.
This release is a travesty, and will have a lot of loyal Backup Exec customers and consultants who implement and support it looking for the exit sign.
If Symantec wants to do the right thing then it would recall Backup Exec 2012. Continue to support Backup Exec 2010 with feature enhancements and product updates. You should then scrap this terrible re-design, go back to the drawing board, and come up with something that respects the original UI and how IT professionals want to manage and administer their backups. The original interface wasn't broke, but it sure is now.
I think understand how the server groupings work but it still doesn't help if you have 30 servers in a group and you can set a backup job for them or modify them all at once guess what they all try to start at the same time whats the point of that?? and guess what selection lists allowed me to modify the backups of multiple server all at once as well but only required 1 job and 1 start time to manage. How is it more streamlined when you need to manage 100 servers and now 100 jobs instead of say 10 or 12 jobs?? Server groupings does not mean less jobs it's just a view to show you servers that match a specific criteria and I'm pretty sure you can have servers in multiple groups?? (can't confirm vm deleted). The menu stuff i'm not concerned about but my backups and backup management is.
If you had a small environment great if you have a large environment guess what it's not easier and more streamlined. Like someone else has raised the product is so server centric even when you link jobs using cli script or whatever (insert afterthought) you have to do, it still doesn't count them as a single job as it unloads and reloads the tape head between the servers everytime. When this product was developed were they doing testing with only 5 servers or something 1 vm 1 exchnage 1 fileserver and 1 sql??
Don't get me wrong some of the new features are great but I can't justify the benafits when the managment overhead would become so great and complicated.
When you guys talked to the 100's of customers did they all say "Please change the way BE works as much as you can because it sux and has sucked for years and doesn't work and we can't use it"??
What was the driving force behind such a monumental change in the way the product does backups.
Massive rant I know but super frustrated at a product that is so engrained and a major part of our disaster recover in our business and has been (we have made massive investments in backup hardware to support what we have with some of these being done in the last few months) for quite some time with us wanting to expand and start doing SSO and Central Admin to find out that in it's current form the product is almost unusable. Bottom line we cannot replicate our backups as they are as they have been with the BE2010 product.
To address the first point about 100 servers and not 100 jobs, instead of 10-12 jobs... I will say with the direction of backing up to disk that BackupExec has taken, since it's so terrible with tape. That this is a good thing. More concurrent backups can be sent at a time.
I've always advocated more jobs with less servers in it to speed up backups as well as lock down specific GRT or VSS related settings.
It's a good thing that Symantec went this way with BackupExec. It makes it ore logical for an advanced shop that had disk in their backup routine. For folks still on tape, it sucks since there is no multi-plexing available.
I've got Netbackup environments that do thousands of jobs in a day. I've also got other competing products that I wrok with from commvault and EMC that do thousands of jobs per day. And those products have always been better at grouping servers...
The Achilles heal to Symantec NetBackup and BackupExec is the lack of innovation. The products have evolved over the years, and features bolted on. Though not integrated into the product. Yes NOT integrated. You can see this as with each version you see new options in the job menu or in the NBU server properties. That list got really long over the years. My god, why can't they merge the two products already!
There is an online portal, save yourself the long hold times. Create ticket online, then call in with ticket # in hand :-) http://mysupport.symantec.com "We backup data to restore, we don't backup data just to back it up."
I agree, At first I was ticked off, but think of it this way. If I had a job that backed up 20 servers and one of those server backups slows to a crawl or hangs, that affects the entire job. I prefer the server centric model after using it for a few weeks. There are still some things they glaringly left out that can be addressed in a service pack down the road.
Now, I take the 20 servers, back them up 5 at time, spanned over the evening, and my backup window has shrunk immensely.
For restores, I just select the server I'm wanting to restore the data from, instead of drilling through the job that had 20 servers combined into it. That IMO is much simpler. We are using a DEDUP folder to disk, so mulitiple backups concurrently is no issue.
I'd like to see the option of clicking on your tape media and restoring from the drill down there. That to me was a big oversight. You can view what's on the tape, why not make a context menu that allows you to restore from the same window?
...I was part of the usability study that was being done last year, and when the Symantec employee conducting the study with me asked me what my thoughts were, I said that they would have an issue with people who were used to the way that Backu Exec used to work. This would also then be broken into those who didn't have too much of an issue, and those that would take issue with what they were trying to do.
I didn't see many videos doing the rounds, or certainly any mention of what was coming down the line. This would have helped those people who didn't take part in the Beta, didn't research the product when released, and certainly weren't part of the usability study.
However, if Symantec were to make a significant change to the application, BE 2012 would be it.
The big thing here would be to lab the application, because it is such a significant change in the way it works, and the way you need to think differently about it.
It's going to be a case of working through the issues, and getting to grips with the product. I don't see any further significant changes coming down the line (ie. another new GUI), as I'd then say people will jump ship en-masse!
Alternative ways to access Backup Exec Technical Support:
New UI is similar DPM ;(
More jobs for each server is a good feature. You can run pre/post commands for each server if you need that. But usually you have ONE big file server, where is some local disks and mounted big volumes (LUNs) from the storage. And tape backup of these LUNs is a pain.
We mount on backup server recent snapshots of the volumes from storage for tape backup. Batch script mounts storage snapshots as pre-run command. Each volume should be unmounted after tape backup. But you can't mount/unmount volume per resource, only by server. Since volumes is big, tape backup is long. Next storage snapshot will try overwriting mounted snapshot and there will be a busy snapshot.
In BE2010 and BE2012 I can't run batch script for each resource/
Please add this feature: pre/post commands for each resource selection .
Another issue in BE2012:
Why I can't see history for ALL jobs in one window ?
Why I can't see ALL running jobs in one window ?
You have all windows, just add these features into BE2012.
ps. I've worked with BE since BE 6.0. I always loved it. But now it's not good as was...
...visit the Ideas section to add in those ideas...
Alternative ways to access Backup Exec Technical Support:
When I first looked the interface, I immediately googled 'Backup Exec 2012 interface forum' as I knew that it made lots of people unhappy like me.
I don't understand what Symantec is trying to achieve here by letting down all the IT technical guys. As you may know (or may be not) that WE (who works in the management and support of the IT), don't really care about any shiny, colourful, embossed interface as long as anything is easy to use and easy to find what we want.
With this these changes - Symantec is not going to get any good reviews. Forget about extra features, why is it so important if you can't even use it properly and takes ages to find? Forget about the videos, people don't have time there are lot in the plate already to deal with.
Symantec really let us down A BIG TIME!!!
Another unhappy technical guy :(
I too have been using Backup Exec since the late 90's and have to say, 2012 is the worst yet.
Sure, some of my opinion is due to the GUI changes but worse, there is no easy intuitive method of backing up more than one server per job even with grouping. The only ligitimate benefit I've seen so far is that it seems a little faster than 12.5.
It is vital that we have all of our servers to one tape, it is critical that certain files and folders are NOT backed up due to the nature of some server based applications. Fortunately I have this installed on a server that I am in the process of decommissioning so I have not pooched this beyond recovery but really?
Has Symantec become the new CA? A place where good software goes to die?
As for requiring the usage of videos is really IMHO, a lapse in good judgement. We (well most of us) have far less time to do everything we need to do and to have this enormous learning curve on our hands for something that should be a simple backup application is really a very poor business decision by the developers.
It will be a far less painful move for us to move to 2010 and hope that either Symantec fixes this dud or find another backup application that will perform to our needs.
WOW... BE 2012 should be an improvment of software... and that's not the case. Seriously! either we go back to BE 2010 or we will change for a real solution from another vendor. Even if NETBACKUP is great and will backup LIKE IT'S SUPPOSED TO. What garantees us that the next version of NETBACKUP will not be as bad as BE2012?
We lost flexibility like,1 job multiple servers, being able to specify the backup order, etc. I tought I was doing something wrong, but after looking at other posts, it seems I'm not alone. Going to a Centric solution should not imply loosing functionalities.
Bye bye BE 2012!
Backup Exec 2012 reminds me of the horrid mess that Acronis puts you through to manage servers. This server centric approach creates so much extra work. The job system was the best simply b/c I create of list: server 1's c: drive; server 2s sql, virtserv's 3rd guest....etc. They ran in the order I need them to and they start as soon as the previous backup finishes. Ok, so the new version has a group feature...job order is random, resource order uncontrollable. I sorta of see where this approach can take us but there needs to be MUCH more control. I only upgraded to take advantage of the differential in hyper-v backups. Seriously contemplating rolling back.
So i had created groups and created new jobs for the grouped servers.
But don´t try to edit a single server of this group, your group will fail and it will result in complete empty jobs and crashes.
there will be hotfix in the future, but right now it crashed my installation.
Better eval in an virtual machine.
It's a complete nightmare at my company. I spent weekends and nights trying to make it all working again and i'm still unable to have all my backup working.
The 2012 version seems to be a product management product and not a backup administrator product.
It's seems everyone is trying to make it's product simple like an iphone and everyone is failling.
Instead of focusing on what i really need:
- Support for Oracle 11 R2 on Linux
- Span backup jobs accros multiple disks
All i have is a barbie like software that it has so many bugs that hurts my eyes. You can't even order the Backup sets window by date.. or anything. I keep pressing the live update button waiting for this nightmare to end with some kind of update.
My backup needs in terms of space have doubled due to the server centric stupid idea. I will not buy more storage space... if that was Symantec idea.
I will wait 2 more weeks until the end of the month and if nothing changes wi will downgrade and start evaluating other software.
...just a quick question to the complainants: Did ANY of you check out the application in a lab to see what sort of changes it would make? It's 1 of the major reasons I have yet to upgrade my 30 backup servers as it means a major overhaul of the whole structure and process around it...
Alternative ways to access Backup Exec Technical Support:
You are right I should have done labs on this software and received a huge wake up call after upgrading. I have been using Symantec since version 9. I have kept up a subscription each year. While I don't adopt the software upgrades as soon as they are made available things were running smooth and I had sometime. I watched all the promotional videos with the two gentleman one being the development manager assuring over and over again no features were removed from the software and that all the enhancements would be well received. Then lulled into a sense of trust by Symantec's previous upgrades I said why not. Then wow I realized I had installed a totally different product that I have to relearn right from scratch. I have to come up with work around after work around. Strange history logs. Strange media set layouts. Totally useless exclude date "feature". Due diligence is correct. Before upgrading check all other vendors as this is not even close to our previous version. I am sure this is what Symantec had in mind when releasing this software.
You are right. We should have tested it in a lab. Shame on us for trusting symatec. We should have known that eventually they would ruin Backup Exec just like they did Symantec AV. So now, since you and Symantec seem to think this version is what we need, you can keep it. There are other products out there. Symantec lost a significant portion of the Anti-Virus market when they created SEP. I guess they want to do the same with Backup Exec.
...maybe take the time to read my comments...I HAVEN'T INSTALLED BE 2012 AS IT IS SUCH A CHANGE FROM PREVIOUS VERSIONS!!!!
There you have it...at no stage have I recommended upgrading (please read VERY carefully again). All I said was that if someone didn't do due diligence in investigating the product, the blame also lies with them as it was such a significant change. I'm not defending Symantec (I also don't work for them )...it's going to take a significant amount of work to change the application and gain back some ground.
Alternative ways to access Backup Exec Technical Support:
All I said was that if someone didn't do due diligence in investigating the product, the blame also lies with them as it was such a significant change.
Very true and in these days of virtualisation (e.g. Virtuabox or VMware workstation) and grace periods with most software, there is no excuse for giving it a bit of a go in a test environment.
I'm equally not defending BE too much either as I've had a nightmare and sleepless nights worrying about the state of our precious company data.
I just lament that Symantec didn't take this opportunity to re-write BE from the ground up into a world beater and have just, as far as I can tell, changed the front-end and way jobs are handled. It could be, for us, the final straw in moving to a new vendor after many years with BE.
As I said in another post, a redesign of the user interface was in order as it had, over the years, become overly complex and, worse, inconsistent. But just changing to a glossy front end won't instantly make it it more reliable and peformance faster which are two MUST have requirements of a backup system.
I always upgrade safelly from BE8 to 2010 R3 with no issue and all working smooth.
Symantec support said that support for Oracle 11R2 on Linux was bound to be launched on 2012 and i was eager to upgrade.
I read the there were changes and i read them but it never crossed my mind that this would be so much different. How can you try to reinvent the wheel on the same product... why?
Yes i should have ran everything on a Lab, i know this. But i always trusted Symantec to serve me with good software. NOT BE2012!!!
Dude...if you ran it in a lab you'd be aware of the changes...
If due diligence is done, there should be proper preparation and planning around it, and once in play, no complaints about what it looks like or does.
I admit it is a massive change; both in direction, the way it works, and looks, but it's like checking a car out on Youtube without seeing how it drives, and then going out to buy it...you're going to be disappointed when you realise it's not what you thought it was due to a lack of research.
Alternative ways to access Backup Exec Technical Support:
*sigh*...again, you're missing the point. Due dilligence is due dilligence. I am not defending Symantec at all. Like I said, I haven't rolled out BE 2012 in my environment (and believe me I am getting some push from management to do this!) simply because of the changes.
If no research was done, where does the blame lie? That's all. I was playing devil's advocate in this scenario.
BE 2012 has made MASSIVE changes (maybe Symantec didn't communicate these clearly enough from the start, who knows)...this should be the red flag to investigate properly.
However, I've said before elsewhere, if a change was to be made, now would be the time to do so. It could simply be a strategic push to direct the market into a new direction, and differentiate their product. Whether or not other vendors follow suit is another story.
Alternative ways to access Backup Exec Technical Support:
Of course there are going to be issues any time a software package changes as much as this one did. But IMHO Symantec really dropped the ball on several points. On 2 separate occasions I called support and eventually had the tech admit to me that they didn't know a lot about the new version yet either. That is completely unacceptable. And as far as "due diligence", there are those of us that did that, met all the requirements, installed the product from scratch, and it still doesn't work correctly. To use your car analogy, that's called "buying a lemon".
...it's an analogy...and that's why you investigate things properly.
Look, I am playing devil's advocate here. I took part in the Usability Study last year, and that put a halt of BE 2012 being rolled out. It will be done this year, once a better understanding of the impact it will have is gained.
Alternative ways to access Backup Exec Technical Support:
Analogies aside.
The issue is quite clear. Whether your business has the resources available to lab test every 'upgrade' or not, the new BE product lacks a vital neccessity. The ability to backup multiple servers in one job to one tape.
Sure, there is a document on how to do this via scripting but if that's the only method, what is the financial incentive to upgrade? I just can't qualify it. The IT overhead needed to manage what should be as easy as simple granular selections via GUI, has become a nightmare. Especially for us smaller businesses who tepend on RELIABLE automation. Since 2012 cannot or will not meet our requirements, we have no other choice but to downgrade to v2010 and either hope that Symantec wakes up and fixes this or spend what little R&D time we have on testing competitive products for the future replacement of BackupExec.
As one poster mentioned, I've been using BE since Veritas, and have happily buzzed along in familiar territory for years.
As for BE2012, its interface has all the charm of, oh, I don't know, a broken elbow. It's as though Symantec hired all the new, young, enthusiastic, recent graduates from a computer graphics design school, lumped them together in a big room, and told them to, "come up with something new and exciting," without actually including the terms "useable," "informative," "clear," "concise," etc.
I have entirely enough to do during my week's work without having to climb a nonsensical learning curve for a product that I've used for years, which the designers thereof have decided to "improve."
Truthfully, it seems that they're trying to impress the head-shed, and not the guys and gals that are actually in the pits working.
I'll continue to muddle through this, but I'm not remotely pleased at having to do so.
Ohh come on, the old BE interface was hardly intuitive. Sure if you've spent 10+ years using it, you are going to know your way around it. I too took part in the usability questionaire and early trials but unfortunately due to lack of time, I was unable to give it "due dilligence".
I'm not defending Symantec at all because even without this user interface re-working, I had serious misgivings about the product but that was more to do with the underlying engines than the user interface.
The mention of Acronis above is valid in that their imaging product used to be pretty good and then the user interface went horrible. Fortunately, they've stuck at it and the v13 isn't bad now. The fact that many of the glaring bugs have been ironed out helps as well.
I hoped that BE2012 was a complete re-write of the product but it's not. I've not checked, but I would imagine the underlying systems are very similar. BE2010 had all the hallmarks of a system that had evolved over time with many of the original developers having left. For example, the marked difference between the various way different back-up media was treated and the fact that errors often referred back to terms that applied to tape but were applied to disk backup jobs.
Perform of the de-duplication engine is pretty dire and it doesn't take advantage of mulit-threaded processes when hashing. And don't get me started on the mess that is "Backup of DFSR": very slow, requires huge restores (16GB RAM for us on the media server!!), causes replication to restart if you restore a file, doesn't work with the advanced disk based option etc.
The user interface is the least of our worries ;-) I've tried to like BE but next year, it's out the door.
...and I hope the Symantec guys are reading all of this because there seems to be a deafening silence around it all.
I won't be recommending my old team go to BE 2012. BE 2010 has been very stable for us. New clients with simple backup environments, maybe...
Alternative ways to access Backup Exec Technical Support:
Hi Craig,
Having battled on and off with BE 2010 over the last year, our environment is also now pretty stable and we're definitely in the "if it's not broke, don't fix it" camp. We've just renewed support for another year but "Review backup" is already on the strategy for 2013. I'll have a gander at the release version of 2012 but more out of interest and serious desire to upgrade.
Cheers, Rob.
PS. Why is Symantec too tight to license the spell checker on these forums? Those pop-up adds when you spell check are very intrusive.
Not to blow my own horn - ok, maybe a little bit. Because of issues that I had had before, I took a full bare-metal backup and a master backup of my BE server before "upgrading" to 2012. I used a Unitrends DPU for this process so that I wouldn't have to rely on BE for the restore in case things went sideways.
I use Unitrends for, among other things, my Backup Exec servers, because if I have to recover from a catastrophic failure of one of them, it's a simple recovery and I don't have to recreate all the backup jobs from scratch. I had to do that once, and it wasn't a lot of fun.
I'm going to muddle along for a week or so with this interesting new version of a reliable old product and see how much "new" I can tolerate. If it becomes too much of a PITA, then I will restore my by then a couple of weeks old 2010 installation, and chalk it up to "experience."
"Oh, no! Not another learning experience!"
You can verify that the last BEDB.BAK file from before the migration is available outside the \Data directory (Restore from tape/disk if necessary)
You should also have a copy of the \Catalogs directory from just before the migration
Uninstall 2012
Boot the media server
Install 2010
shut down BackupExec and copy the saved \Catalogs folder to the new catalogs folder
Restart BackupExec
Run BEUtil and select "Recover Configuration from a file" and point it to the saved BAK file
You should now be back to just before the upgrade
You also should now be able to restore all the log files from just before the migration if necessary
If this response answers your concern, please mark it as a "solution"
Wow i just created more work for myself, 2012 is less intuitive - have to relearn to think pretty buttons.
Hmm, I think until it's been used a bit more, it's unfair to label it as "less intuitive". Developer are in a no-win situation when it comes to user interface re-design. It is always going to annoy somebody. Just look at the fuss over Facebook replacing the profile with the timeline.
But in general, it should turn out better as long as Symantec engage in a rapid fix & release cycle. If people never took chances with user interfaces, we'd still be working at the command prompt exclusively.
Microsoft tried to maintain compatability with Windows on their mobile phones. Look where that got them. They finally made the decision to dump Windows Mobile OS which will have caused all sorts of similar responses from developers but they had to do it. I applaud them for doing it - unfortunately they probably did it too late.
whats the best alternative backup product ?
What's interesting here is that often the grass isn't greener. It's just a different shade of green. That said, we looked at Unitrends and it looks good but pricey for the amount of data we wanted to backup.
I've often said that "Backup software" would be something I'd write if I had the capital ;-) I'd ignore tape though...
Cheers, Rob.
OK had to stick with it for a week now, cause my manager wanted to stay on it.
Basically we are entitled to Symantec product upgrades cause we use alot of their products, EV, Messagelabs,SEP and we pay to keep up to date for license compliance.
I still have legacy systems that we have to support, Believe me I still have Windows NT and 2000 in production cause the application was developed for them and we havnt had the need to change the apps due to cost to migrate. We have a production SAP R3 on windows 2000 running SQL7 ( the CORE R3 SAP has not changed in yrs as suppose to the newer Netweaver suite )
Kinda dissapointed that theres not a backwards route to keep the client compatitble on legacy.
So if anyone reads this - BE 2012 agents does not support Windows 2000.
Anyways - working with the new changes for me, I had to rethink backup strategy..... Ie do things backwards..
Instead of creating one job and backing file selections from the different servers to one set of tapes ( ie daily set )
Now I have the server centric view that have all the servers listed and have to select files i want to back up and back to a daily set.
Give me a clasic button please.
I know it can be done as when i upgrade all my jobs ported across. I just want to rearrange my data back to classic mode.
What was Symantec thinking? Whomever provided their input during Beta did not run this in the real world.
So, instead of having 3 jobs run, I now have 36 to seperately manage. The grouping of servers prior to creating new jobs really doesn't help much, as you cannot fine-tune the selection lists until you back out and edit each job separately!
Job history is a nightmare!
And, you cannot exclude specific dates on individual jobs! Either all jobs run, or they do not. So, if you run like I do, a Friday weekly job, a job for end of month, and a final job for end of year, on that last friday, you have 3 jobs wanting to kick off at the same time, per server!
If I mis-configured something, please tell me, otherwise, BE 2012 gets no "Best Product of the Year" votes from me.
For all the new features it has, they are over-shadowed with all the bad features.
...get rid of simple task like running backup sequentially to tape. So my 3.8 TB of data which usually went on 6 tapes is now on 13. Why, because BE2012, for some unknown reason cannot simply backup server 1 to tape, then when it moves to server 2 check to see if the tape still has room on it to APPEND the data, soforth and so on. .. no, it moves on to a new tape, why I don't know. However, in the middle of all of this servers 4-7 do backup to the same tapes, but then the remaining server find tapes all on their own again.
Well maybe if I back them up to disk first and have it DUPLICATE it to tape.. nope. Still get some crazy random number of tapes that add up to darn near twice the amount of data BE2012 is configurated to back up.
2 weeks ago, I just would create 2 jobs to take care of this. One to back it up to disk, then another to duplicate it to tape. Done! Yay! Not now... now I have to break down that job into 238221232.2 jobs, because backup execs says it will be easier to see what backed up and failed. Not thinking about the 3234231321.4 job we now have to manage.
That is part of the problem (unless Ive missed something in my testing) there is no way to have a job start when another job finishes...you have to "guess" when the job will finish and then schedule the next job to start sometime after that "guess".....this is terrible when you have 30+ jobs to schedule....
There is a way actually .. set the jobs to start at the exact same time. One of them will start first, and the remaining will go into "Ready; No idle devices" status. Once the current job has finished, another job will start automatically, and so on. Setting the order that jobs start may be problematic .. the only way I can find is to use the priority setting. There are 5 priority settings to choose, which may be enough for most organisations.
"Setting the order that jobs start may be problematic .. the only way I can find is to use the priority setting. There are 5 priority settings to choose, which may be enough for most organisations."
In most cases, as long as your Overwrite job starts first, does it really matter what order the remainder of the job run in?
If this response answers your concern, please mark it as a "solution"
except if you are using compression on a tape, and the previous behaviour of BE remains true (from v12.5) - that if a large database overlapped the native tape capacity it would assume the tape was full. so i used to order the database backups first and let the file storage backup hit the point between native and compressed capacity.
this may no longer be an issue, but it is one more thing that has to be tested.
After watching the videos about the new product it seems their main goal was to give a server centric view to help the admins. Why not change the reporting or dashboard interface to reflect that? Leave the awesome backup methodology the way it was, but give a new view to checking on it. I have tried to be patient and post my issues on here, but almost all of them have to be fixed by using BEMCLI. Should an enterprise class product "require" that much manual footwork? The worst part, is the video boasting their awesome migration proccess. I am not saying this product is 100% garbage, but I feel like a beta tester. This big a change should have been a new product with a new name.
Changing the UI from previous versions was, I think, done to make it easier for new customers to get in to the product. I have seen my admin telling me that new UI is easy to undestand (he was working with BE 2012 for the first time). Maybe that was the reason for new UI?
Yes, it reminds me UI transition from Office 2003 to Office 2007 and then to Office 2010. And some Microsoft customers also complained that old UI was better (=familiar). Microsoft was doing a lot of focus groups study before making new UI. I suggest for all of Symantec BE customers not to hate new UI, but test it on your own focus groups. If it doesn't fit - don't hate it, just keep using BE 2010 R3 - it will still has this familiar UI and approach, and new technologies like V-Ray as well.
BTW: as result of complaints from customers Microsoft did interactive guides for Office products with step-by-step demos on how to find old menus in new UI. It was very helpful for Excel. Does anyone see such demos on BE 2012?
don't hate it, just keep using BE 2010 R3 - it will still has this familiar UI and approach,
Except that 2010R3 won't handle new applications going forward, will it??
as result of complaints from customers Microsoft did interactive guides for Office products with step-by-step demos on how to find old menus in new UI.
The main complaint that I see is not the UI change (tho there are those complaining about that) The main complaint is the complete change of the whole philosophy of the product
If this response answers your concern, please mark it as a "solution"
If IT professionals are complaining about BE2012 then surely there is something wrong with the new features/UI. Would you rather listen to your guinea pigs than IT professionals, who are there doing day to day job in the real world?
I hope BE2012 won't be like Symantec AV, which is least favourite product when it comes to AV!!!
If IT professionals are complaining about BE2012 then surely there is something wrong with the new features/UI.
There appear to be two distinct gripes here: firstly, that the user interface has drastically changed. Sorry, get over it and move on ;-) Secondly, that the new server centric as opposed to job centric view is harder to use. This is a justified gripe IMO but I didn't consider a problem as I'm only backing up four servers.
Cheers, Rob.
for a mature product that does not need to play to an audience that needs the simplicity of something like an iphone, the new UI design is an unwanted and unncessary change. yes people will get used to it but the problem is that we are having to spend hours hunting through the new UI to determine what has changed, what is missing and what is broken.
I had to come to these forums to actually discover that the job centric approach had been removed (to my horror!) because I could not easily determine if I was just missing something in this completely reworked UI.
Well, I have been watching this thread, and don't like to jump in too often as this is YOUR forum (and I don't want to be seen as just defending BE). Throughout the process of building BE 2012 we all knew there were going to be some that saw BE 2012 as "too much change." We did everything we could think of to try to minimize the impact to all of you who have been passionate about Backup Exec over the years. There is definitely room to improve, and that's why I want to thank all of you for posting your "concerns" here. We can and will incorporate this feedback into future releases.
Obviously, we can't and won't make dramatic changes to functionality prior to the next release (that would present a whole different set of complaints), but we will take this feedback and try to help all of you through the difficulties you are experiencing with the changes in BE 2012. The more specific, the better :)
Thanks to all of you!
Why not add some fuctionality back. Yes, I don't care a lot about the new interface, but like anything else, we must adapt. Just wait until Windows 8 releases! Metro?!? What Corporate User cares about Metro?
I hear the biggest issue being with the server-centric mode. Why not add a new button, and make a few modifications adding Jobs back, and let the user switch between the two. Call it Simple and Expert mode.
Within the Expert mode, allow us to arrange our Backups by Job. In Simple mode, by Server.
I do understand that there is more work than adding a button, but, you have the technology for ALL prior years of BE to add this functionality back into the product.
...head on over to the Ideas section and add your idea/thought in...you're probably going to get a good couple of votes up if you do! just post back here with the details and the link!
Alternative ways to access Backup Exec Technical Support:
+1 to what PCTeamAdmin said.
People can live with the Disney-esque new interface, but just don't make their jobs harder.
A Simple / Advanced mode selector would give the best of both worlds.
Personally, I'm sticking with BE 2012 because I find Hyper-V on Clusted Shared Volumes backups to be a bit more reliable. But to have the ability to have a jobs-centric view would be great.
This forum thread stands as a testament to the fact that the reaction to BE 2012 is overwhelmingly negative, despite the impressions that Symantec staff still seem to hold. The people who have taken the time to post comments are your core demographic, not some kind of frustrated niche group that will "get over it".
Having said that, I think that Symantec needs to take a hard look at BE 2012 and consider whether they want to continue to force these changes on their userbase. In the meantime, the best olive branch that can be extended to the community is continued support of BE 2010! Continue to sell, support, and develop this product. Update the agents so they work with current OSes - stop trying to FORCE people into 2012 because the agents they need aren't available with 2010.
IF BE 2012 is truly a quality product, people will come to appreciate it, instead of needing to be forced to use it.


text:
Our Members Say
- Trekki
- Reviews: 2483
Homey homestay – ah so good !
Finding a bed in Khorog turned out to be not that easy as I thought. LP (of 2004) and the Hauser Map had listed ACTED (Agency for Technical Cooperation and Development) and MSDSP (Mountain Societies Development Support Programme) as organisations with base in Khorog, which would help travellers along the Pamir Highway. It was said that MSDSP has a guesthouse and that they also have a network throughout the Pamirs for homestays. I found out that ACTED is no longer based in Khorog, and MSDSP was short on people that day, as it was Saturday. Plus, well, yes, the language …. They didn't understand English very well, but got the idea that I was looking for a place to sleep. They made some phone calls and suddenly Manija appeared, a beautiful young girl of around 13 or 14 and 10 minutes later (haha, maybe 20 minutes, as I must have tumbled quite slowly behind her) I had my bed. Manjia's aunt rents 3 rooms in their house, in a kind of separate part, with bathroom, toilet, kitchen and living room and a very comfortable bed (= I prefer hard beds and this one was hard). Meals were offered as well, depending on what was wanted: breakfast, lunch and dinner. I had breakfast every morning and 2 times dinner, it came to 60 USD for 5 nights.
The rooms were very clean, bathroom and toilet as well, and the best was a little balcony upstairs, shaded with a marvellous view of the mountains north. This homestay is located on the southern banks of Gunt river, east of the bridge. In photo 3 it is hidden in the trees just next to the house directly at the river.
Manija and her aunt are very much caring for their guests, and whatever was needed, they brought. Breakfast was very good, choice of either tea or coffee. Manija got a bit less shy during my stay and we talked quite often about this and that, we enjoyed it both.
It was hard to leave, and I really really regret that my language abilities were not existing and that I could not talk with Manija's aunt without her nieces' help.
Sort by: Most recent | Most helpful
- 1
Sponsored Listings


text: No recent wiki edits to this page. Imaginary dogs roam its walkways at night. All the air conditioners are broken. The empty swimming pool is covered with flies. What does this all mean? Don't ask Maggie, the manager of the notorious Capri Apartments deep in the heart of the San Fernando Valley. She has no answers. She just wants it to stop being so damn hot. Izzy knows but she sure ain't telling. Over on Beto's side of the comic, in "Julio's Day," Julio watches as his little brother Benjamin becomes the scourge of the neighborhood, and in "26,280 Hours To Kill" our man Roy is wrongly imprisoned and the mother of all prison riots erupts. Plus the latest chapter of Beto + Mario's "Me for the Unknown"! Four stories from three Bros. add up to great entertainment!Story Titles"Me For The Unknown" by Mario and Beto"Maggie" by Jaime"Traditional Uses For a Corpse's Hand" starring Roy by Beto"The Soft High Lisp" featuring Fritzi by Beto"Maggie" by Jaime"Julio's Day" by Beto"The Frogmouth" featuring Ray D. and Vivian by Jaime


text:
Academic Affiliates' Follow-Up
2000 October Members' Meeting Membership, Trustee and Committee Elections
- Back to the Members' Follow-Up page -
Today's Date is:
Membership Election
At the 2000 Annual Meeting the Members voted to approve membership for Arizona State University, Howard University, and Rutgers University-- bringing UCAR membership to 66 institutions.
University of Alabama at Hunstville
Rice University
Drexel University
Stanford University
Iowa State University
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology
University of Wyoming
Ohio State University
Yale University
Trustees' and Members' Committee Election
Elections were held for Trustees, Nominating and Membership Committee, University Relations Committee, and the Scientific Programs Evaluation Committee.
Eugenia Kalnay (University of Maryland) and Soroosh Sorooshian (University of Arizona) were elected new Trustees. Patricia Woodworth (University of Chicago) was elected Trustee at Large and Leo Donner (Princeton) and Gabor Vali (University of Wyoming) were relected for another three term.
Membership Committee : Anthony Brazel (Arizona State University), Art Few (Rice University), and Robert Talbot (University of New Hampshire) were elected to the Membership Committee.
Nominating Committee. Otis Brown (University of Miami) Fred Carr (University of Oklahoma), Paola Malanotte-Rizzoli, Chairwoman (Massachusetts Institute of Technology), John Merrill (University of Rhode Island), and Mary Jo Richardson (The Texas A&M University) were elected to the Nominating Committee.
URC. Eric Betterton (University of Arizona) was relected for another three term. Efi Foufoula-Georgiou (University of Minnesota), Everette Joseph (Howard University), and Pat Reiff (Rice University) were elected as new members of the URC.
SPEC. Susan Avery (University of Colorado), Eric Barron (Penn State), Robert Duce (Texas A&M), Franco Einaudi (NASA), Chris Fairall (NOAA), Daniel Jacob (Harvard), Bert Semtner (Naval Postgraduate School), and Lisa Sloan (UC-Santa Cruz) were elected to the SPEC.


text:
>Runner's World - My Event Ratings>
In short: Obviously problems with the later races but the 10k (well 11k) was challenging and friendly, loved it. Would do again.Date of review: March 12, 2012
In short: Marshalls great, thanks to them and locals for support.2 major hills horrible, baggage queue long at end.Date of review: September 29, 2011
In short: Well organised, lovely route, weather great. Date of review: May 17, 2011