Jump to content
[[Template core/front/profile/profileHeader is throwing an error. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]

Community Reputation

2 Neutral

1 Follower

My Information

  • Location
    Joplin, MO, USA
  • Agent Count
    1500+

Converted

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Yeah sadly the laws have not kept up in the digital age and pretty much everything you "buy" digitally these days is not owned, but licensed, and thus right of first sale doctrine not applicable. Any potential buyer would need something in writing from CW stating that they were willing to transfer the licenses and there is no precedent currently saying they have to do this.
  2. You have to import as "SQL File" not XML expansion
  3. Did you get this working? I would be surprised if this could work since screenconnect is not launched as a child of the labtech process, it is launched as a shim on the internet explorer process as far as I know since SC is ASP/web based unlike the labtech CC which is a native win32 app.
  4. Do remember that its the sales people who drive development, not so much customers. If a sales person can get a NEW customer by adding feature X, that will get more dev cycles than fixing issues A, B, and C combined because of new revenue. So if I am the only person in the thread not carrying the torches and pitchforks I'm going to have my opinions directly criticized by other members? My understanding was that this thread was about the change in the NAME of the products, not about who is steering the ship. And your statement is contradictory, in your scenario the sales person is getting a feature to please a customer, so really it is the customer driving the development is it not? I hear this fallacy spread around every time someone is upset about a bug and the company came out with a new version or a new feature before that bug was fixed, "those devs should work on fixing bugs instead of adding new features!". This is not the reality of how development is done in larger companies. The teams that are out front of the current release, the Drews, Gregs, and Scotts, that are developing new technologies to add features that the majority of current users DO WANT like much more functionality in the probe/network monitoring have nothing to do with the maintenance releases and bugfixes that come out later, this is why branched development exists. Bugs do exist in labtech, they existed before 11 or the new features and will continue to exist for as long as the product is around just as there has always been bugs in every piece of software made by any company. Any software business has to continually innovate and add new features or risk becoming blackberry. Should they hire some more people to fix bugs? maybe. Should they delay a release when the code is just not ready? probably. Should they continue modernizing the look and feel of the product and adding new features? yes. I'm not a labtech evangelist and I had plenty of critiques in my post and even some likely outside the scope of the topic of this thread, I'm just saying I'm not going to run around screaming the sky is falling because they changed the name of the product. This too, shall pass.
  5. I don't think this will have much of an effect on the quality of the products, they will be as good or as bad as they were going to be regardless of the branding. Branding is done by marketing people and coding is done by the programmers, the marketing people need something to do and other than a search and replace on the names won't slow down the programmers much. The interface redesigns to bring them all in to a similar look and feel was set into motion quite a while ago and was happening regardless of the names of the products. Sure the rename probably comes a bit from the egos of the connectwise owners but this is quite common after acquisitions and I'm surprised it took this long to happen for labtech. I think the quality and expansion of labtech capabilities could still go either way over the next couple years. This could signify a flattening of the bureaucracy of having a bunch of C level people at each subsidiary company which could allow them to be more agile, focus more on the product and less on the marketing in that division (Anyone else find it weird that it seemed CW and Labtech marketing people were competing with each other at AN?). If they do that there is also a chance that they lose key people like Greg and Drew that know the product inside and out and have been the primary innovation drivers which could really head the ship in a bad direction. Overall, I liked the direction shown at AN of coordinating the interfaces to give them all a similar look and feel and making the transition between products as seamless as possible. What I did not like was the launch of 11 when Brett stood on stage and showed they knew they had 150 bugs and didn't plan to have them fixed until October not even including bugs not qualified yet, that reeks of forcing the product out the door just to be able to make a keynote presentation. I would prefer Brett got up there and said "We know you guys want the cool new stuff and we are going to show it to you, but out of respect for you we are not going to release it until it is ready".
  6. This is caused by viewtopic.php?f=5&t=2886&p=18163#p18163
  7. Sorry didn't know we were wanting technical details in here but I can tell you exactly why you get the error etc and that they have no intention of "fixing" it because they designed it to be this was. The old way used to use the ltcache credentials that you set at the client level to map the drive only when it was needed and then unmapped after. Because this account was not likely to be an account used by a real user there was no drive letter conflict either. Though I never really had any issues with the old system apparently many did and labtech felt it was unreliable and so rewrote it. The new system maps the drive with the SYSTEM account and this is why the drive is seen as mapped but disconnected because the user's account cannot actually query its connection state. This is also what causes the error in powershell, and the drive is always mapped instead of only when needed like before. As I said earlier I complained a lot about this 6 months ago and was told this is just the way it is and to like it. Hopefully your tickets will get more traction
  8. Staging is not done on groups, you have to go to the devices tab in PM, drill down from the client list to the individual machines and click on the patching stage name with the line under it. Then you just need to make sure that those machines get the default approval group applied to them because only the default group gets staging. I'd prefer it were done on groups as well since this way is very tedious, but its the only way right now.
  9. Software companies have every right to change any aspect of anything they make if they want to, features change with each release and when you opt in to cloud services you are always at their mercy. It is the same with Office 365, Dropbox, AWS, Google Apps for Work, etc etc. I'm not saying you don't have a perfectly good reason to need a specific function a certain way but if you want to guarantee a static solution I would suggest buying full packaged product software and run it on our own equipment. We run LT in house and SC in house on a separate server, both are at my mercy to upgrade when and if we want and if we want to stay on the same version for 10 years we can. I would assume that this was changed because people complained about getting bugged too often for permission to connect and because there is a notification banner across the top of the screen for every session you connect to that notifies the user. I don't think it is unreasonable to ask that they add the ability to choose between prompt for consent once vs every time tough. Screenconnect has their own user voice site here which would be the perfect place for that request http://product.screenconnect.com/
  10. Those of you getting uac prompts regardless of local admin, do you happen to have the vpro plugin installed?
  11. Michael your query is malformed/incomplete for your additional condition, you need to do a subselect query as the drives table is not automatically joined just because you use it. Here is the stock additional condition, I suggest going back to it and only slightly tweaking it as needed. (Select SmartStatus from Drives Where Drives.DriveID=v_defragmentation.DriveID and Missing != 1 Limit 1) not Like 'USB%' and (Select Model from Drives Where Drives.DriveID=v_defragmentation.DriveID and Missing != 1 Limit 1) not like '%IEEE%' and DriveID in (SELECT drives.driveid FROM drives WHERE drives.ssd=0 AND drives.computerid=computers.computerid) and Computers.LastContact > DATE_ADD(NOW(),INTERVAL -1400 MINUTE) The only thing that should need to be added to replicate what you have is the addition of the exclusions by letter, I would suggest the following query then. (Select SmartStatus from Drives Where Drives.DriveID=v_defragmentation.DriveID and Missing != 1 Limit 1) not Like 'USB%' and (Select Model from Drives Where Drives.DriveID=v_defragmentation.DriveID and Missing != 1 Limit 1) not like '%IEEE%' and DriveID in (SELECT drives.driveid FROM drives WHERE drives.ssd=0 AND drives.computerid=computers.computerid) and Computers.LastContact > DATE_ADD(NOW(),INTERVAL -1400 MINUTE) AND v_defragmentation.driveID NOT IN (Select drives.driveID from drives where drives.letter REGEXP 'Q|B') You can add as many drive letters to that as you wish just by separating them with a pipe.
  12. This happened to us when switching to 11 and caused a great deal headache and confusion with our clients (one really fun one had no drive letters available due to being a large enterprise). Support also told me then that this was the way it has been for several versions now and I was crazy for thinking it just now happened and I just haven't noticed it before. I have since seen several other reports of this just now popping up on IRC as well so we are not alone. I still don't like the solution and get a complaint/question once per week from either customers or vendors who dislike the X drive issue or the warning in powershell it causes which actually broke several of our customers software routines. I thought the old way worked fine and I wish I could have it back.
  13. Yes this can be done, I documented how to do this in powershell in the last post here http://forum.screenconnect.com/yaf_postst4201_Script-commands-to-agents.aspx#post16735
  14. Ray left RMF Technologies back in Nov 2014 and I can't find any references to that company past that so they may be defunct as well. I would stick a fork in this one folks.
×
×
  • Create New...