|
BaseballPCHiker posted:It's not phones that I care about. I could care less what users do with their phones. Its iPads that get sent out to all of sales. I've been trying again and again to make the switch to surfaces or Yoga Pro's. Instead we have to try and find a way to make everything work on iOS, including office, sharepoint, etc. It's a giant pain in the rear end. I'd say this is more a training issue. If you want to view or present office stuff, maybe that's ok. Is the Sharepoint app garbage? But it sounds like maybe people are expecting iPads to be laptop or Surface-level capable.
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 00:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 14:53 |
|
|
No they aren't expecting that. They want Apple because Apple is "cool" and loving make it work IT man.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 00:11
|
|
|
I've been quite happy with Meraki and iOS from a pure MDM standpoint.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 00:50
|
|
|
AlternateAccount posted:I'd say this is more a training issue. If you want to view or present office stuff, maybe that's ok. Is the Sharepoint app garbage? If all they wanted to was view or present it would probably be OK, but they try to create complicated excel sheets and powerpoints and they also dont want to pay for the iOS Office licenses so I'm tasked with finding crappy 3rd party apps to try and make it work. Also no one else in the company seems to realize the limitations of them despite repeated explanations of how they're limited. Which leads to marketing and other departments sending out links to training sites that require flash or using expense account sites that dont support safari.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 00:54
|
|
|
Surfaces would be a much better choice if you've got Office Volume Licenses and have 2012 R2 server for Work Folders. But Apple isn't the issue here, people who make purchasing decisions without any facts are.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 00:55
|
|
|
I see where the problem is and it sure isn't Apple.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 00:56
|
|
|
BaseballPCHiker posted:If all they wanted to was view or present it would probably be OK, but they try to create complicated excel sheets and powerpoints and they also dont want to pay for the iOS Office licenses so I'm tasked with finding crappy 3rd party apps to try and make it work. Also no one else in the company seems to realize the limitations of them despite repeated explanations of how they're limited. Which leads to marketing and other departments sending out links to training sites that require flash or using expense account sites that dont support safari. "I have this spreadsheet I want it to do x,y and z and also print properly, oh I want it to work well in Numbers I don't want to use excel but I want it only to be in excel format" gave me some nightmares.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 01:06
|
|
|
Hey, without a Lync server, can I still have Lync auto-populate with O365 Exchange groups when I log an employee into it? Also I found I can just search a group and manually add it, but Lync said it can only display groups under 100 users, which I'm not too thrilled with.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 01:40
|
|
|
For those talking about Sharepoint, I want to share this:  Office 365, Sharepoint is in a constant state of "Recovering Services" or "Restoring Service". That's with Microsoft managing it. Even Microsoft and the team that actively develops it can't make it work correctly.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 05:05
|
|
|
Gerdalti posted:For those talking about Sharepoint, I want to share this: To be fair, the number of days that all services are green are pretty small, but Sharepoint is the daily occurrence. The most annoying for me is when the portal is broken. Hasn't happen much, but it was during the last stages of our migration before cut-over, so it was pretty impactful for me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 05:15
|
|
|
All of Microsoft's products were designed to work on-premise and never intended for the cloud. Unfortunately, the cloud came to Microsoft by surprise and they quickly rigged their solutions to work as a "cloud" product. Not everything works that well, just yet.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 06:04
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:All of Microsoft's products were designed to work on-premise and never intended to deployed as large as they are now. As usual, perpetual buzzword chasing came to Microsoft's sales team and they quickly jury-rigged their solutions to work as real, rather than the implied, scalable products. Fixed. The only good thing microsoft has ever built that scaled was IIS and exchange. incoherent fucked around with this message at 06:33 on Jan 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 06:30
|
|
|
incoherent posted:Fixed. The only good thing microsoft has ever built that scaled was IIS and exchange. I think that is only because there was a push to use their own software so it had to be modified to cope with microsoft.com traffic. I remember the story as the op guys hid Exchange behind a Unix SMTP relay for many years.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 14:06
|
|
|
incoherent posted:Fixed. The only good thing microsoft has ever built that scaled was IIS and exchange. Haha, That's about accurate, granted if you want good support you'll have a dedicated TAM and much better support.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 15:27
|
|
|
Exchange, IIS, and SQL (2008 +) all scale pretty well in my experience. Everything else does not, including DFSR!
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 15:48
|
|
|
The early days of Office365 (BPOS) when it was still Exchange 2007 and 2010 was a little rougher than it is now. Supposedly Microsoft's big hosting/cloud push has resulted in a lot of the changes in their most recent software versions. Many of the improvements of SCCM 2012 were internally driven by needs of their data centers, Exchange 2013, Sharepoint, moving to more scale out on less expensive hardware.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 16:04
|
|
|
Gerdalti posted:For those talking about Sharepoint, I want to share this: For what it's worth, we host many complex SharePoint installs for our clients in our cloud and our SaaS team has no problem keeping them up and running. However, troubleshooting certain issues can be loving painful. We had an issue where a client's site collection was going into Read-Only mode at random. No backups were running (it's all done through SQL), and nothing else should have caused it. I combed the logs and found absolutely nothing indicating what caused it. I ended up going into my test system and turning all logging levels up to verbose and turned on read-only for the site collection. Guess what? Nothing gets put in the ULS logs. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 16:09
|
|
|
Is it feasible to audit folders/files with Local Security Policy Object Access and Event Viewer? I'm trying to test this out with only a few files/folders but dissecting Event Logs is a huge pain. The more research I do the more I come across products that view the event logs and makes them human readable.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 17:45
|
|
|
Gyshall posted:Exchange, IIS, and SQL (2008 +) all scale pretty well in my experience. What are you having trouble with, I used DFS/DFSR quite extensively.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 18:02
|
|
|
Cross-posting this question to hit a wider array of people: I know this has come up before, perhaps in another thread, but I can't find the info now and I was foolish and never saved URLs of the recommended sites. What sites do you guys frequent to stay up-to-date on technology or general websites you use in your IT life? I mostly use spiceworks forums and SA and then follow links to learn things/find out about stuff, but I'm looking to expand my list of sites to visit a couple times a week to look at discussions/news. Any recommended blogs, news sites, communities or whatever are very welcomed
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 00:12
|
|
|
Speaking of DFSR, we've run into kind of a stupid situation. We have two servers in a DFSR set up, and both are running close to their disk size limit for VMWare. Is there a good way to move files off of the servers to another location and mount them as a drive without having DFSR freak out?
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2015 19:21
|
|
|
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dn495044.aspx You'll need to preseed the volume using robocopy, then turn DFSR on.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2015 19:31
|
|
|
Question about OneDrive 2013 (0365 For Business) and the Windows 8.1 metro OneDrive. So I have O365 setup at work, with DirSync. All client machines are Windows 8.1 and they do not have local admin access. It appears the users cannot login to metro apps with their o365 business account. Two main apps would be OneDrive and OneNote. Is this how it is by design to force users on OneDrive 2013/OneNote 2013 or is there an option I need to enable somewhere?
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2015 22:09
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:All of Microsoft's products were designed to work on-premise and never intended for the cloud. Unfortunately, the cloud came to Microsoft by surprise and they quickly rigged their solutions to work as a "cloud" product. Just like the internet, and mobile, and
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2015 22:20
|
|
|
lol internet. posted:Question about OneDrive 2013 (0365 For Business) and the Windows 8.1 metro OneDrive. If you have Office 365 for Business, they are supposed to be signing into OneDrive for Business, not the Win8 built in OneDrive (which is the consumer version). The Office 2013 installation package should include OneNote and their O365 email login should activate it, along with the rest of the suite. I have the same setup but people aren't locked out of running normal OneDrive so I'm not sure what's going on there, but maybe it's a non-Metro version since I have ClassicShell running by default and everyone is working from the Desktop.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2015 22:26
|
|
|
Zero VGS posted:If you have Office 365 for Business, they are supposed to be signing into OneDrive for Business, not the Win8 built in OneDrive (which is the consumer version). The Office 2013 installation package should include OneNote and their O365 email login should activate it, along with the rest of the suite. Just wanted to confirm, but it's kinda crappy that's all. Thanks.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2015 22:40
|
|
|
MF_James posted:I mostly use spiceworks forums gently caress no. Only go to spiceworks for obscure issues and or to hear some rear end in a top hat lecture you about how you don't really need to buy a SAN with a support contract you only need to string some random shitbox up with open filer and look at how much money you save! If I'm getting some obscure error message I'll check spiceworks. But when I'm looking through the greatest and most up to date tech doodads to buy I'd probably get more mileage from consulting a local witch doctor, because some dumb rear end in a top hat on there is going to suggest a "Roll your own!" solution built out of a 10 year old dell poweredge and broken dreams. I've never met a more out of date group of assholes in my life.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2015 22:43
|
|
|
Spiceworks is where all the guys who got fired from their Sysadmin jobs and/or are happy working 80 hours a week for 40k a year to support a poo poo network go to post, hope that helps.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2015 22:57
|
|
|
Yeah, I can't deal with the Spiceworks forum, too many MSP guys there. Nothing against MSP guys but our environments are too different which makes their suggestions crap. Reddit /r/sysadmin is better than the spiceworks forum...
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2015 22:59
|
|
|
I've tried reading the Spiceworks forum when tracking down obscure errors and the threads always gets derailed with people preaching about why their personal favourite vendor for x is much better than what you are currently trying to fix, and how you can totally roll something yourself. And then a bunch of vendor reps pile in and it descends into a clown show.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2015 23:18
|
|
|
Rhymenoserous posted:gently caress no. Only go to spiceworks for obscure issues and or to hear some rear end in a top hat lecture you about how you don't really need to buy a SAN with a support contract you only need to string some random shitbox up with open filer and look at how much money you save! This is a terrible loving way to run an IT department and I disagree with the mentality at it's most basic level, but just trying to explain why the users are what they are.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2015 23:18
|
|
|
I think this user tagline sums the people on the Spiceworks forums up really well.quote:26 years in ITA+, MCP (XP), MCSE, Network+, Security+, Server+
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2015 23:22
|
|
|
skipdogg posted:Yeah, I can't deal with the Spiceworks forum, too many MSP guys there. Nothing against MSP guys but our environments are too different which makes their suggestions crap. I actually rather enjoy reading /r/sysadmin. It's been a good mix of helpful advice, interesting questions, and an on-the-ball familiar IT misery vibe I can associate with there.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 01:08
|
|
|
PUBLIC TOILET posted:I actually rather enjoy reading /r/sysadmin. It's been a good mix of helpful advice, interesting questions, and an on-the-ball familiar IT misery vibe I can associate with there. Yeah, I couldn't agree more. It's one of the few redeeming places on reddit.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 01:23
|
|
|
Gyshall posted:Spiceworks is where all the guys who got fired from their Sysadmin jobs and/or are happy working 80 hours a week for 40k a year to support a poo poo network go to post, hope that helps. Early front runner for most accurate post of 2015!
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 04:58
|
|
|
Possibly dumb question; Is it better to share a single parent directory then map a drive to each of the sub-folders - or is it better to make each sub-folder its own share? Option 1: Share D:\Stuff Map drive O: to \\Server\Stuff\Otters Map drive N: to \\Server\Stuff\Ninjas Map drive P: to \\Server\Stuff\Pandas Option 2: Share D:\Stuff\Otters Share D:\Stuff\Ninjas Share D:\Stuff\Pandas Map drive O: to \\Server\Otters Map drive N: to \\Server\Ninjas Map drive P: to \\Server\Pandas Share permissions are set to allow "authenticated users", so each directory's access is controlled exclusively via the file-system & NTFS permissions. So with either option, only the approved people can get to their things. In some ways Option 2 looks like it could be better for the end-user; it has shorter paths to remember if they need to manually map a drive (although none of the users may actually ever have to manually map a drive). We may have 10 directories that various users have access to, so we would be creating a lot of shares. This is also being done with Samba, so adding or removing a share would require us to restart the service! That makes Option 1 look like a better idea.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 18:24
|
|
|
Option 3, Share D:\Stuff, Map drive O: to \\Server\Stuff, make people navigate folders. I played the drive for each share game, and I hated it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 20:26
|
|
|
I try and keep the number of shares down to a minimum because folders exist - have separate shares for user profiles, a backup target, scan to folder, general files etc. but don't go more granular than that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 20:30
|
|
|
FISHMANPET posted:Option 3, Share D:\Stuff, Map drive O: to \\Server\Stuff, make people navigate folders. People here would flip out if I dared change their drive letters! We could have only one folder, total, and I'd still have to make the same five drive letters point to it. If something has been on a specific drive letter for the past 10 years, by golly that is the only place they will look. All of the users are 50+ years of age. I need to make it easy for them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 20:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 14:53 |
|
|
FISHMANPET posted:Option 3, Share D:\Stuff, Map drive O: to \\Server\Stuff, make people navigate folders. This. We have users in the legacy Novell environment with NO letters of the alphabet left because they have mappings for folders at the same hierarchical level because they are literally to stupid to navigate a file system. Going forward into the new Windows environment they will have a home and group drive mapping and the rest will be UNC paths. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 20:39
|
|