When software attacks! - All Comments

re: SharePoint 2007 on x64 - don't try to run 32-bit web apps!

Rik — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 19:16:38 GMT

Bob, I suspect that the information you need is in the logs or the error message - you simply can't get at it. Assuming you haven't got 32-bit only webparts (like the VSTS ones!) your content should be fine. However, depending on what you restored the configuration may not match what was there previously.

Assuming Central Admin works, turn up the logging level and see what you're gettting. Also, see my later post about turning on sensible error messages rather than the standard sharepoint error page.

If Central Admin doesn't work you have a more fundamental problem, and I would look to the PSConfig logs, and perhaps try running the Config Wizard again.

Questions to ask:

Have the servers in the farm changed (ie, their names and roles, not whether they are x64 or x86)

Has the server running central admin changed?

Did you have any web.config settings that you added by hand and haven't migrated?

Have you made sure that any Alternate Access Mappings are transferred, and that the IIS web sites are correctly configured

Hope this helps somewhat.

re: SharePoint 2007 on x64 - don't try to run 32-bit web apps!

Bob Cummings — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 15:10:01 GMT

I have a 32bit sharepoint 2007 installation on a 32 bit box and I've carried out a backup using stsadm.exe. I have been trying to restore this to a new server with a new 64 bit installation. When the restore is applied and I go to the web app I get the usual not terribly helpful sharepoint error message.

Have you experience the same?

http://blogs.blackmarble.co.uk/blogs/rhepworth/archive/2007/07/26/web-development-helpers-redux.aspx

Sat, 22 Mar 2008 06:56:10 GMT

Pingback from blogs.blackmarble.co.uk/.../web-development-helpers-redux.aspx

re: Balancing customer needs against forward motion: IE8

michael — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 21:51:18 GMT

It's not about purism and there was no vitriol in my post. Yes, as even "I" stated, IE7 fixed some bugs, but not all. And that was the problem. The *html hack (and other parsing bug hacks) failed in those instances where IE7 STILL didn't follow the standard and didn't display properly. If it did, there wouldn't have been a problem with IE7 ignoring all the parsing bugs used as hacks. Firefox, Opera, Safari all ignore these same parsing bugs and follow the correctly coded CSS and display as expected.

IE7 was a better browser than IE6 - agreed. Was it completely free of the rendering bugs that plagued IE6? No it was not.

Hence the problem.

Yes, there were some developers ONLY developing for IE, and perhaps they didn't have appropriate fallback CSS for compliant browsers, but I would hesitate and ask, then why would they be using the *html hack? If all I'm developing for is IE why do I need parsing bug hacks?

The parsing bug hacks were mainly used by knowledgeable developers to overcome the failings of IE5/6, while still supplying correct CSS to all other browsers. So when IE7 still couldn't follow the proper CSS, and was no longer able to be hacked by using parsing bugs, it failed to render properly. In effect, IE7 broke websites.

A standards compliant IE7 would have been a boon to developers everywhere, and would likely have broken very few websites. And of those sites that might have been rendered incorrectly, all could have been blamed on the developer. But the IE Team seem to want to blame the developers for the mess that they are in now, AND they want the developers to help clean it up. I grant you that the problems caused by IE6 may not be the current IE Team's fault (and I understand that they are working towards compliance), but they have been charged with cleaning it up, not me. They should NOT release IE8 until it is at least as compliant as its peers (if not more so). And this stupid META tag is only being forced upon us out of the IE Team's fear of getting blasted again.

A fully compliant (or as good as its peers) IE8 wouldn't break a thing, it would be a help and a breath of fresh air. Anything less is a waste of time.

re: Balancing customer needs against forward motion: IE8

Rik — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 18:51:02 GMT

That's a contentious point of view, Michael. Whe IE7 was released a great many rednering bugs were fixed and the rendering behaviour of IE7 was brought into line with other browsers, which is why hacks (for that is what they were) such as * html ceased to function.

The problem is not that IE7 is buggy, at least in terms of the reistance to deployment in the corporate environment. Rather it is the fact that it fixes the extremely errant behaviour of IE6 without giving any way to get that behaviour back. Many web applications have the correct doctype to trigger standards mode but actually rely on the odd way IE6 renders and therefore fail in anythng else.

Now, this situation is not the fault of IE7, but rather IE6. The IE team now is a very different beast to the one that developed IE6. They really do want to build the best browser. IE7 was feature capped because of time and the complexity of doing some of the things they wanted to because of the way the rendering engine worked. IE8 has resulted in a great many changes under the hood and is better for it.

Be careful not to confuse anti-Microsoftism with genuine criticism. You make some valid points but tey are mostly lost in the vitriol. Big corporations that invest millions in systems don't care about purism - they want to be able to upgrade systems with the least amount of investment and effort, and they are the people that have made Microsoft the organisation it is today.

re: Balancing customer needs against forward motion: IE8

michael — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 17:55:26 GMT

Your new tempered thoughtful view is skewed by only thinking about WHAT happened, not WHY it happened.

IE7 broke websites because it was still a browser with a host of rendering bugs. The IE team fixed SOME, but not ALL of the bugs, while at the same time removing the parsing bugs, that developers used to get around the rendering issues of IE6. Some of these rendering issues remained in IE7, and there was no clear way, early on, to fix them. Since IE7 was not as compliant as other browsers some bugs remained, with no way to fix them.

If Ie7 had been released and was as standards compliant as the other available browsers (or better!), nothing would have broke. IE7 could have followed the standards compliant code that all the other browsers followed. But alas, that didn't happen. The IE team released ANOTHER buggy browser into the wild, and when sites broke, they asked developers to change the way they code (conditional comments). They didn't say they'd fix they're browser...they asked the DEVELOPERS to change their code!

Now they are doing it again. Instead of ensuring that IE8 is the most standards compliant browser on the market, and ensuring that all rendering bugs have been fixed, they are going to release another browser (potentially still buggy but better), and instead of dealing with the backlash of releasing ANOTHER buggy browser, they are AGAIN asking developers to change the way they code.

This is a frightened IE Team. They've been burned. They may be under a mandate to get another version out the door, or they may have other reasons for doing this, but by NOT developing the most standards compliant browser available, MS and the IE team are only showing that they cannot compete in the browser market. And their marketshare downslide will continue.

re: Analysing Active Directory

Alastair Wills — Wed, 26 Sep 2007 16:43:24 GMT

Shhh... say it quietly... NDS

Say it loud and say it proud old boy!

WebLite » More browser extensions for web developers

WebLite » More browser extensions for web developers — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 10:41:22 GMT

PingBack from http://www.nicksmith.co.uk/blog/?p=42

WebLite » More browser extensions for web developers

WebLite » More browser extensions for web developers — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 10:41:18 GMT

PingBack from http://www.nicksmith.co.uk/blog/?p=42

re: Windows Home Server - something for my father

Muckle_Eck — Thu, 12 Jul 2007 08:57:41 GMT

I am wondering if the SC101 will work with the home server...have you ttried it yet Rik....I am loading the beta up now...seems ideal for the family that needs a black box solution