FAH-500/502 not so efficient?

2»

Comments

  • edited September 2004
    Hi

    Its the novice again.....

    Sorry to butt in but......I seem to have exactly the same problem as Spinner. I have just swapped 4 for 5.02 and it is struggling to get a workpacket (unlike last time, I have let it through my firewall). Having read talk of flags, IE settings etc I now realise that somewhere in this thread is the correct course of action. So please, in idiot proof language could someone tell me how to fix this.
  • SpinnerSpinner Birmingham, UK
    edited September 2004
    janelynch wrote:
    Hi

    Its the novice again.....

    Sorry to butt in but......I seem to have exactly the same problem as Spinner. I have just swapped 4 for 5.02 and it is struggling to get a workpacket (unlike last time, I have let it through my firewall). Having read talk of flags, IE settings etc I now realise that somewhere in this thread is the correct course of action. So please, in idiot proof language could someone tell me how to fix this.
    What I did, which seems to have helped, is I used the -configonly flag to configure the client to not use IE's default settings.

    e.g use the command prompt, navigate to your FAH folder, type FAH502-Console.exe -configonly.

    If you're using the graphical client, you can just un-check the IE option in the config interface.

    Try that mate.
  • edited September 2004
    Thank you.....

    I have done as you suggested so now need to sit back and wait for the next download.

    Fingers crossed!
  • edited September 2004
    Spinner, I ran across this thread at the community forums where Bruce states that there is some kind of bug in NIS and that it has been reported to Symantec with no response so far.

    I hope that your problems have eased up lately, getting work units transmitted and received though.
  • SpinnerSpinner Birmingham, UK
    edited September 2004
    The problems have got better, but something still just isn't right. When I get chance I'll try and find out more information and post back. Symantec are usually pretty good with stuff like this, hopefully their silence on this matter isn't as a result of ignorance.

    Thanks mate.
Sign In or Register to comment.