Any way to downgrade only one user's account?

My son's school has informed us that we need to downgrade Firefox to version 3.5 in order for him to be able to use PowerSpeak for his German lessons. I do not feel safe in doing this. Is there any way to just change the version of the browser on one user's account, instead of on my entire computer?

It gets a bit complicated when doing that; all users are affected when it comes to the "default browser" being the last installed version. Your best course of action is to install an older version of Firefox Portable in that one user account, as the Portable version installs in its' own folderset and doesn't write to the Windows Registry.
http://portableapps.com/apps/internet/firefox_portable/localization#legacy35

Similar Messages

Is there any way to send some one a password protected pdf that only they can access/view with a password?

Is there any way to send some one a password protected pdf that only they can access/view with a password?
Thanks!

Hi wonderingtoday,
Yes, you can! If you have Acrobat, you can assign an "Open Password" to the PDF, so that only people who have that password can open the PDF. If you don't have Acrobat, you can try it for free for 30 days. For more information, see www.adobe.com/products/acrobat.html.
Best,
Sara

Multiple users shuts down to only one user

I have multiple users on my IMac.
Recently when I go to log on the computer instead of show all users, it shows only one user (not me) and I have to log on to that user and log off to see all users again.
Any ideas how to fix this?

After migrating your whole user account from another computer you will be left with 2 user acounts on the target computer.
The best way to keep just the new user account is to log into the account you want to keep, then go into system preferences > users&groups (Accounts if using snow leopard) then delete the other account.
(Make sure you have a backup of any files you wish to keep on that user account if any)
If you wanted to just merge particular files from one computer to another instead of creating two user accounts you would be better off using the good old drag and drop method instead of migration assistant.

Only one user at a time

I'm looking for help.
I have two user accounts on my iMac. Both have their own iTunes library file but these both reference to a shared store of music files (to avoid duplicates). I would now like to move this shared music to an external HDD attached to my TC.
My problem is this. If user 1 first accesses the external HDD then when user 2 tries to do so there is a little red icon on the folder and permission is denied. If I disconnect all users from the TC and then retry with user 2 the problem is reversed. It seems to me that only one user account is allowed to access a TC external HDD at a time. Is there any way around this?
In case anybody asks, my reason for moving the files is that I am hoping to buy a Sonos music system, which can read iTunes music from the TC as though it were an NAS, even if the computer is off.

I think you're being misled a bit by the interface: the checkbox labelled "Strict locking" doesn't just allow strict locking, it requires it (and thus disallows byte-range locking). That is, with strict locking enabled, any client that tries to lock any part of the file actually locks the entire file. Access normally depends on byte-range locking to allow different clients to share the database (as long as they aren't trying to modify the same part of it at the same time), but with strict locking the first client locks all others out.

Only one user at the time can execute VE01 (due to blockage of VEIAV)

Hi,
As I understand it only one user at the time can execute VE01 (or MEIS for arrivals). If someone is already executing the VE01 transaction the error-message "Table VEIAV is blocked by user XX" appears. It does not matter if one tries to execute it for different legal entities - no parallel processing seems to be possible.
This is a huge limitation for a global concern with many entities operating in the same SAP instance. Does anyone recognize this problem and are there any ways to get around it? It does not make sense that dispatches (VE01) and arrivals (MEIS) cannot be executed for several organizational units at the same time in parallel?
Thanks in advance,
Mats Hansson

yes I know this problem.
One should not maintain much thru this transaction.
for me it is not more than an emergency transaction, as it is not really more than table maintenance thru SM30
You should investigate what entries/changes the users have to make.
Limit these manual entries by having better data in the system, so that SAP can itself create the entries for this table.
Organize more, less users , maybe just one per company who shall maintain VEFU manually.
Train them to prepare their entries before they start using VEFU.
Explain that they should leave VEFU as soon as possible as the block other users.
assign maintenance windows to the users.

Is their any way to downgrade from ios 6 back to ios 5.1.1

is their any way to downgrade from ios 6 back to 5.1.1
i am not happy with ios6 its annyoing and so buggy i cant transfure music to my ipod and it laggs like ****!
is their any way i can get it back to 5.1.1
i have a Ipod 4G (8Gb) i recently only got it after my other one stopped working so im not happy with apple at the moment

iv tryed that but its laggy i researched on youtube and aload of over people are having same trouble and people are saying the IOS6 is **** and wish they never knew upgraded and it wasnt worth the wait
their was a way to downgrade but now apple has blocked that from happen
i was going to get an ipad soon and im not going to now
i wish i never got a iProduct
their crap

Best way to have only one instance of an object in web application.

Hello,
I defined a class that provides services to my web application: subscribes user, check if user already subscrubed etc. The objects don't need to save any session information. So it is like a Stateless Session Bean (from what I've read about Session beans).
The webapp is small and I don't want to use EJBs.
What would be the best way to have one instance of the above class in my webapp ?
Would making the class static be a good method ? Using a factory ?
Is there a way to put in web.xml something that asks the container to instantiate an object that is not a servlet and place it in Application scope, so that I cann retrieve it whenever required in my app ?
Other suggestions ?
Thank you,
Vlad.

Hi
The best way to have only one instance is use the singleton pattern. The idea is : the class has a private
contructor, a public static method that returns an instance of this object and a static member that is false if not any instance and true if there si an instance.
To obtain one instance you can do some like
MyObject ob=MyObject.getIntance();
this method inspect the static member and returns null if true. If false set to true and return the object
via the private constructor.
You can lear more at book of Gramma .... (gang of four)
Hope this helps

Concurrent program to be submitted y only one user at a time

Hi
I have an issue with one of my reports. The report is using temporary tables, those will under go insertion and deletion while the report is running. So, to make sure that two or more concurrent requests submitted for same report, will not conflict, I want to make my concurrent request to be submitted by only one user at a time.
How can I do that?
Any help is appreciated.
Thanks
BalaKrishna

The "run alone" box should not be checked. This indicates that this program can only run when no others are running. Pl see MOS Doc 1078462.6 (Custom SQL Concurrent Program Returns NO MANAGER Error). This option should typically not be used.
To be able to achieve what you need, set the incompatibility (as you have done) and then bounce the concurrent managers for the setting to take effect. Pl see these MOS Docs
436186.1 - Cannot Make Concurrent Programs Incompatible With Itself
142944.1 - How to Make a Concurrent Program Incompatible with Itself
HTH
Srini

Is there any way to work on one Catalog from two computers simultaenously?

Is there any way to work on one Catalog from two computers simultaenously?
I have a catalog with 7000 images we have to process / crop / etc. and I was trying to find a way that two of us could work on the images at the same time.
Thanks!

No, the LR catalog is not multi user capable (and cannot reside on a network share without tricks). What you could do is
export part of the catalog (a subset of all images) into a separate catalog ("Export as Catalog", without exporting the negatives)
work on different images in the two catalogs at the same time
re-import ("Import from Catalog") the exported work after adjustments on it is finished
Beat

1. Does not start automatically 2. Only ONE user at a time

When I plug the IPOD it should start iTunes automatically (I have the box checked) but it does not. Never has done that. I have the latest 7.1 version.
Another pain in the rear is that only one user at a time can run iTunes. That stinks. If another user has it open you MUST log off, stop them, log on. They ought to make this work for all users as other windows pro rams do. If it is doing NOTHING with the library then I ought to be able to use it.

That may be true but it is a real pain since when it happens the only way to recover is to terminate all of the iTunes modules with task manager and start it manually. It also leaves the IPOD in a state that says do not disconnect. You can disconnect since nothing is really happening but there is no excuse for this not to start much faster. When you have multiple users it is a real pain. It ought to be able to either end when finished or better yet allow multiple users simultaneously updating from different libraries.
I guess i will just have to get in the habit of treating it as a single user and start and stop it every time I need it and be suer not to let it run. Not nice because that means waiting for larger Podcast downloads instead of having there ready for me when I sign on my computer.

How to : only one user in a branch can do the batch process at a time ?

dear gurus,
In ADF web application, accessed by multiple branch (20), there is a
batch process to create invoices from orders. There are 3-5 users in a
branch. one user can process about 30 - 50 orders to become
invoices.
Business rule is : In one batch process, each users must produce
invoices with gapless invoice number. e.g : user_1 create 30 invoices
no.001 - 030, user_2 create 40 invoices no.031-070 ... and so on...
So we want to protect that at a time, in one branch, only one user can
do the batch process. User_2 must wait until user_1 is done to start
the process.
We use the table below to maintain the latest invoice number created :
CREATE TABLE doc_number
DOC_TYPE VARCHAR2(6 BYTE) NOT NULL,
BRANCH_CODE VARCHAR2(6 BYTE) NOT NULL,
DOC_NBR NUMBER(12) DEFAULT 0,
CONSTRAINT "DOC_NUMBER_PK" PRIMARY KEY (DOC_TYPE, BRANCH_CODE)
The question is :
I think of locking a spicific row of the doc_number table (select ...
for update wait 10) at the beginning of the batch process stored
procedure.
But what if the session/connection left orphan and the row is lockde
forever before the dba kill it ?
So is there a better approach to limit the user execution of the
process ?
Thank you very much for your help,
Krist

Forget it. See http://asktom.oracle.com/pls/asktom/f?p=100:11:0::::P11_QUESTION_ID:4343369880986.
However, if you are dead set on doing this old fashioned thing of trying to emulate paper invoices from a numbered tablet, you could always just let everyone generate all of their invoices with no invoice number whenever they want, then at some time ( say 21:00 every day), take a lock on the table and apply invoice numbers to all of the records with a null invoice number -- which will take only a few centiseconds at most. And let the users/system print only invoices that have numbers assigned. This way, you pretty much eliminate the concurrency issue of various branches generating invoices only in their time window -- yuk, what an awful way to have to do business.
And completely forget about users or branches having their own range of numbers. That is completely nuts. Your database already knows which branch owns which invoice, right??

Locking a JSP Page i.e allowing only one user to access it at a time

Hi,
I have web application where multiple users can log in at the same time.
I have a JSP where a user is presented with a list of executable items.It is quite possible that at the same time more that one user tries to execute the same item.I want to disable this. i.e at a time only one user should be able to execute the item.
Currently what i can think of is putting an extra column in the database...saying that this item is locked and you cannot access it until unlocked.But then this would involve a round trip to database.I want to avoid it, and do some coding in java code itself.
But i dont know how to proceed.
Any Help......

sorry for the misdirection :(
yes..try using the synchronizing for the run process for of the item in the action class.
I shall try to provide you with the code changes, if can you please provide the back end code doing the job u said

Download application to only one user

Is it possible to download applications that are specific to each user on the computer - i.e. they only appear in the application folder of the user that downloaded them.

The folder Applications is a directory shared by all users not just you. The specific use of any one application is customised per user, and this information is contained in the User's Preferences files within their home folder. So for example with one Safari, different users can have their own homepage, particular websites, passwords etc. but it is still all from just one copy of Safari.
If you wanted to limit the use of an application to only one user, you could change the user permissions for that application to be limited to one selected user only. This can be done in the Get Info dialogue box pertinent to the application. But this would be an unusual practice and I question why you would want to do this.

FRM-40501 - Even if there is only one user

Hi experts!
When we try to updated a value of a database item in Forms 10g runtime, it throws FRM-40501 error and the values are not getting commited. Only one user is accessing the database. Query Allowed, Insert allowed and update allowed are set to yes in the block. Is there any property to be set to make it work?
The same code works well in Forms 6i but not in 10g Forms. Plz help me out..
Thanks in Advance,
Natz...

FRM-40501: ORACLE error: unable to reserve record for update or delete.
Cause: A fatal error occurred while trying to select the record for update.
Action: Pressing [Display Error] provides more information, if it is available. You can also try to update or delete this record later. If necessary, contact your DBA.
Hard to say why this is happening because you haven't provided much information.
* Have you tried pressing the Display Error?
* What is your form doing when the error occurs?
* Does this only happen to certain records? If so, your DBA will may need to unlock them.
* Are you using lock_record built-in?
* Have you tried creating a simple form and seeing if the problem still occurs?

Mail delivery failed: returning message to sender (Only One User)

Hi,
I am facing really strange issue from last two days but fail to resolve the issue.
My hosted exchange 2010 is working absolute fine. I configured new domain (previously using SBS2003 with Postini service), all users are working fine no spam emails, NDR etc (We are using Forefornt Protection 2010 for Exchange Server, All engines are updated)
but only one user/email address continuously receiving spam emails. Please review the attach pictures of Message Tracking, Email and Header.
I really don't know what is the issue, users continuously receiving below emails after 2 or 3 minutes, i am just wondering why my exchange server allow those email address. How i can stop these emails.
Note: Old SBS server is shutdown. Postini service is already disabled.
Please help me.
Mail:
Header & Tracker:

Hi,
According to your description, it seems that the user's computer has virus.
I recommend you scan the user's computer and check if any virus caused the issue.
Thanks.
Niko Cheng
TechNet Community Support

Any way to downgrade only one user's account?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for