GUI 640 Patch 4274 smaller than required(8). Continue with Alpha Screen

Hi,
the Screen painter gives following error while opening any screen in the program.
"GUI 640 Patch 4274 smaller than required(8). Continue with Alpha Screen"
Please suggest.
Regards
Vivek

Similar Messages

The speaker of my brand new mac book pro are not working and I cannot plug in the earphones, the hole looks smaller than the pin or with an obstruction. anybody can help? thanks

the speakers of my brand new mac book pro are not working and I cannot plug in the earphones, the hole looks smaller than the pin or with an obstruction. anybody can help? thanks

Hi talero,
Contact AppleCare or bring it into an Apple Store or AASP.

GUI 640 patch 16

Hi all!!
I need such patch to solve problem with screen painter.
Can't find it in SAP archives
my mail is [email protected]
Thanks!

try:
ftp://ftp.sap.com/pub/sapgui/win/640/patches/gui640_26-10001615.exe
you do not need a password to access this link. this is the latest patch (26), so, it includes fixes from path 16 you mentioned.
file is about 73MB in size. so don't expect people sending you this big file by email!

Filters are not working on resulting image smaller than 8191x2048

I have created AIR application using SDK 3.5 over the Flash Builder 4, and I am targeting AIR player 1.5.3. I have large text where user can apply outline. And to apply outline I am using Glow Filter, but somehow it is not working for texts which are too large but smaller than required size which is 8191x2048.
I am wondering why it is not working even if it is mentioned in Adobe Official site.
http://help.adobe.com/en_US/FlashPlatform/reference/actionscript/3/flash/filters/GlowFilte r.html
"A filter is not applied if the resulting image exceeds the maximum dimensions. In AIR 1.5 and Flash Player 10, the maximum is 8,191 pixels in width or height, and the total number of pixels cannot exceed 16,777,215 pixels. (So, if an image is 8,191 pixels wide, it can only be 2,048 pixels high.) In Flash Player 9 and earlier and AIR 1.1 and earlier, the limitation is 2,880 pixels in height and 2,880 pixels in width. For example, if you zoom in on a large movie clip with a filter applied, the filter is turned off if the resulting image exceeds the maximum dimensions."
If I remove the glow filter then it works.
Can any one suggest/advice, how the filter limit is not extended even if I am using proper SDK and AIR player.
Any help will be highly appriciated.
Thanks,

I have set -target-player=10.0.0 in the command line argument in the Flex compiler setting but still we are facing same issue for the not generating full text more than 4000px if we have applied Glow filters on the Text but if we removed the Glow filters from the text. Full text is displayed.
Our text dimention is : 1850x7200(with glow filters), This is below the 16,777,215 limits of Bitmap text. But still we can't generate the Full text.
Regards,

For some reason all of my forwards, and my printing come out significantly smaller than the original. Any idea how to get this back to printing the size of my screen and forwarding the size of the original mail I've received? Thanks.

Hi. I am not technically proficient. I have somehow hit something that is making my email forwards and text to the printer way smaller than what is appearing on my screen. I have looked into everything I can think of in settings and outlook express. If you have any ideas, I would greatly appreciate them. I assume that one click and I'll be back to "normal", but can't figure out which darned click that would be. Thanks.

Have you checked Outlook's font preferences? You can change to size under General Preferences>Fonts. You can also change font sizes by using ⌘shift+

CN 752: Requirement quantity & & smaller than quantity withdrawn & &

Dear Gurus,
I have found a strange behavior in SAP PM order processing.
Even after withdrawing the spare parts, system is allowing to change the required quantity.
If someone is increasing the quantity thats fine.
But if someone is decreasing the quantity, system should not allow it.
System is giving below information message:
CN 752
Requirement quantity & & smaller than quantity withdrawn & &
I want to give error in such scenario.
I have tried setting an error message for above message, but its not working.
Any help in this regard will be highly appreciated.
Please help.
Thanks & Regards,
Mihir Popat

Hello,
Thank you very much for your inputs.
I have checked that, but it is still not working for me.
I have debugged the standard code and found that it is hard coded over there as information message for message CN 752, and system is not checking any table while issuing the message.
However for message CN 750, system checks the table and decides accordingly, whether to give warning or error.
Hence, it is clear that it will be information message only.
I will be mapping my requirement with user exit CNEX0026, where i will check the withdrawn quantity and required quantity and decide on whether to give error or not.
Thanks to all for your help.
Closing the thread.
Regards,
Mihir Popat

GUI 620 Patch 66, 710 Patch 5 for ECC 6.0

We are in the process of installing support packages 4 - 12 for ECC 6.0. Obviously, we're going to do this in stages because of the amount of notes each package contains. My question to the forum is regarding issues you may have encountered by running GUI 620 patch 66 for any support pack installation for ECC 6.0.
I'm trying to convince my team that we need to upgrade the GUI to support the new enhancements. Are there any requirements, suggestions, experiences, and/or opinions you can give that would reveal issues with using GUI 620 with ECC 6.0?

Hi Rod. You need to read notes, and only you and your company should make a decision about GUI version.
You do not must use 640 or 710 , but this versions are newly and are created by newly Visual Studio from Microsoft. For example the upgrade to 640 are the disputable decision becose 14th of October 2008 end of maintenance for SAP GUI for Windows 6.40.
Read this notes, and make a decision :
Note 147519 - Maintenance strategy / deadlines 'SAP GUI'
Note 929300 - SAP GUI for Windows 6.20: Limited support
Also the latest patch for 620 is 72. Regards.

Error in ECC6.0(Windows GUI 640 Exception 0xC0000005 with ID=0x590A1113/0x)

Hi ,
In our environment , SAP is ECC6.0 installed in HP-Unix.Some time user face problem "Windows GUI 640 Exception 0xC0000005 with ID=0x590A1113/0x590A1113 occurred (PL=27)" and it spread to all computer . I have updated latest patched for GUI also , but it the problems seems occur.
Please let me know how to correct this problem and why its occuring again and again
Thanks and Regards
Brijesh Prasad

If this error is reproducible and you´re on the latest patchlevel I suggest you create an OSS call and attach the tracefile generated.
Markus

Causes of ORA-01200: actual file size of x is smaller than correct size n ?

Hello everyone
We are running Oracle 11.2.0.3 64-bit E/E on Oracle Linux 6.2 with UEK R2 on X64.
Using Grid and ASM 11.2.0.3 and OMF names.
The database files are alll on SAN, the SAN vendor name not disclosed here to protect the innocent/guilty 8^)
I have a Test database MYDB (in NOARCHIVELOG mode) and after a normal server reboot, not a crash, the following error occured on Oracle database startup.
srvctl start database -d MYDB
PRCR-1079 : Failed to start resource ora.mydb.db
CRS-5017: The resource action "ora.mydb.db start" encountered the following error:
ORA-01122: database file 1 failed verification check
ORA-01110: data file 1: '+ASMDATA/mydb/datafile/system.256.787848913' <<<<<<<<<<---------------------------------------------------- Corrupt file on ASM disk, system tablespace this time
ORA-01200: actual file size of 94720 is smaller than correct size of 98560 blocks <<<<<<<<<<---------------------------------------------------- ERROR message
The ASM disks are all up and disk groups are mounted OK. The ASM protection level is EXTERNAL.
My understanding that the only proper recovery from the above error is to use RMAN Restore Database/File/Tablespace.etc (and then RMAN Recover, when in ArchiveLog mode).
I do have RMAN disk backups, so I don't need to "patch" the database to recover.
This is not my question at this point in time.
My Question is this : what are the most likely causes of such error?
Oracle Database bug? OS bug? Disk driver error? Server hardware failure (bus, memory, etc)? Or a SAN bug?
I expect that Oracle 11g R2 will always come up with the database "clean" if the server reboots or if server crashes (i.e. due to complete power failure) provided the actual storage is not physically damaged.
Our SAN vendor (no names!) says they are of the opinion that it's most likely Oracle database or Oracle Linux 6.x/UEK software bug, or probably Oracle ASM 11.2 bug.
We have opened a support call with Oracle.....
My personal experience dealing with similar database errors on more recent releases of Oracle (9i R2, 10g R2, 11g R2) and also MS-SQL 2005 and 2008 R2 suggests this kind of a problem is most likely related to errors/bugs in storage/drivers/firmware/BIOS and SAN and not likely to be a 'database' or O/S bug.
Perhaps you, good people on this forum, can share their experiences, as unbiased as you can?
Many thanks

Ive seen Ora-1200 twice I think over the years, both times there was disk problems which led to write issues which caused file problems, youve reported no such issues on your side though so if thats actually true, Im thinking bug.

ORA-01200: actual file size of 437759 is smaller than correct size of 43776

Hi,
I am getting the following unexpected errors while going to create CONTROL files after successful completion of offline/online oracle backup RESTORE (of PRD system) on Quality system. We are following Database specific system copy method to do the same.
All the required pre & post restore activities for the same were carried out. Even the same RESTORE activities are performed with different different online/offline backups of PRD system to do such system copy. But, the thing is stuck at control file creation step with the following same error which is seen again & again after every DB restore operation.....
SQL> @/oracle/AEQ/saptrace/usertrace/CONTROL.SQL
ORACLE instance started.
Total System Global Area 4714397696 bytes
Fixed Size                  2050336 bytes
Variable Size            2365589216 bytes
Database Buffers         2332033024 bytes
Redo Buffers               14725120 bytes
CREATE CONTROLFILE REUSE SET DATABASE "AEQ" RESETLOGS ARCHIVELOG
ERROR at line 1:
ORA-01503: CREATE CONTROLFILE failed
ORA-01200: actual file size of 437759 is smaller than correct size of 437760 blocks
ORA-01110: data file 4: '/oracle/AEQ/sapdata1/sr3_1/sr3.data1'
At OS level the file size of sr3.data1 is found 3586129920 bytes (= 437760 * 8192 bytes).
host1:oraaeq 20> cd /oracle/AEQ/sapdata1/sr3_1
host1:oraaeq 21> ll
total 7004176
-rw-r--r--   1 oraaeq     dba        3586129920 May 11 02:26 sr3.data1
The above mentioned error is coming for all 294 data files. The reported file size difference is only of 1 Block in all data files. The DB block size is 8192 bytes.
Environment: (for SAP QUALITY & PRD systems)
OS: HP_UX ia64 B.11.23
SAP System : SAP ECC 6.0
Database: Oracle 10.2.0.2.0
Your help for this reported issue will be highly appreciated.
Regards,
Bhavik G. Shroff

Hi,
Thanks for your response.
We already have tried the same whatever you have mentioned as suggestions in ur last post .
We already tried to extend all 294 data-files as mentioned in that oracle forum link.
Its not the recommended way to play with data-files in such a way as it can lead to other unnecessary errors.
We have seen the following errors after successful creation of control file by manually extending all those 294 files (it was around 10hrs job).
Specify log: {<RET>=suggested | filename | AUTO | CANCEL}
auto
ORA-00332: archived log is too small - may be incompletely archived
ORA-00334: archived log: '/oracle/AEQ/oraarch/AEQarch1_268984_629943661.dbf'
have you tried also restoring init<SID>.ora file from PRD to new system.
I think its not having relationship with control file generation. Both systems are having same init files with respective SIDs.
Did you find any other points in your further investigation ?
I am thinking to perform Fresh SAP System Installation with same SID (AEQ) and then will try to do Database Restore again with last offline backup of AEQ system.
Regards,
Bhavik G. Shroff

When I try to print a photo downloaded from Facebook in iPhoto, I can't get the size I specify to print correctly. Example: 5x7 prints smaller than 5x7. What do I do to solve this problem?

When I try to print a photo downloaded from Facebook in iPhoto, I can't get the size I specify to print correctly. Example: 5x7 prints smaller than 5x7. What do I do to solve this problem?

Those pixel dimemsions have aspect ratios that are not the same as a 5 x7 print:
1360 x 1360 = 1.0
790 x 640 = 1.23
2048 x 1366 = 1.5
An 7 x 5 image = 1.4.
So you'll need to crop the images to 5 x 7 before printing. The first two images are a little light in the pixels to produce a high resolution 5 x 7 print.
Happy Holidays

Going smaller than a /64

My team works with an allotment of IPv4 and IPv6 space, which is given to us from a larger organization in our company (we treat them like and ISP, where we request and are given IP space and allocate this across our buildings and sites as we deem appropriate), and have been given several /58's and /59's to make do with, which has been fine for years. Now we are looking at how to better allocate these resources, and I am curious if anyone has decided to carve up smaller than a /64?
My thoughts are, that while we currently use RA for IPv6 autodiscovery, and a /64 is the smallest network the RFC accounts for, I could chop a single /64 into several thousand /96's and uses these for PTP IPv6 routing only. This would save us a ton of IPv6 space, which as we deploy more and more Vlan interfaces and our network grows, I can see us running out of in the coming year(s), which would require asking for more IPv6 space, that we really don't need. Doing so would only be for PTP IPv6 routed links, and not use stateless autoconfig, and would allow us to re-IP current IPv6 PTP's using these /96 network and reclaim a large portion of our /64 space which was already deployed as PTP links.
Thoughts?

Using /128 for loopbacks is fine. My personalpreference is using a /120 as the next step.
This is similar to a /24 in ipv4 (254 usable addresses) and one /64 suffices for an awful lot of them.
The way the subnets of size /120 look is easier to understand than those using smaller masks (which really serves no purpose due to the vastness of the address ranges available).
This would go like:
2001:db8:1::0100 - 2001:db8:1::01ff
2001:db8:1::0200 - 2001:db8:1::02ff
2001:db8:1::0300 - 2001:db8:1::03ff
Anyway, at least I would recommend to use masks which are a multiple of 8-bits, just for ease of administration.
If you have a requirement to use SLAAC, /64 is the smallest subnet you can use.
regards,
Leo

How can I Copy/backup photos in iphoto to external drives smaller than iPhoto library

How can I Copy/backup photos in iphoto to external drives smaller than iPhoto library? I have several 128 GB SSD's that I want to use to copy/backup all my iPhoto photographs for a permanent archive due to stability...but my iPhoto library is larger than the drives (about 234 GB) so it would require two of the SSD's...how best to get the original photos onto the SSD's? I'm running Yosemite and iPhoto 9.6...thx.

Terrence - Can you explain what you mean by data loss? In the iPhoto Library? Or on the copy?
Larry - In what way is each photo "degraded"? Quality? Isn't it simply making an an exact copy, in this case a jpeg, as would happen if I dragged and dropped a different file type? Is there another type of degradation?
I am working on trying to create a correct backup as well (per your instructions) but I wanted to use this as a "put in a fireproof safe" archive on very small SSD's that would never have a mechanical hard drive problem (we've lost a couple over time so aren't real confident in their staying power)...I also recognize that I I won't have newer photos in this archive group but at least it would have 98% of our photos in another off-site location...at least that's the thought...
Thx for your input and look forward to more in your reply...

Gui 640 compilation vrsion 5

i have gui 6.40 , and my gui version is 6405.5.18.1016 and patch level 18, i have downloaded compilatin 5 (3 of 3 files), in that there is no executables, please let me know how to install it?
Thanks in advance

1) 50078731_4
2) 50078731_5
3) 50078731_6
GUI 640
DVD_NW_2004s_SR1_Presentation
GUI 640_4
DVD_NW_2004s_SR1_Presentation
GUI 640_5
DVD_NW_2004s_SR1_Presentation
These above files i got from servicmarket place. just i need now how to install these compilation five... let me know about compilation 5
thanks in advance

About GUI's patch and compliation

Hi,Gurus. I have two questions about GUI's patch and compliation.
1. what 's the difference of compliation and patch?
2. I downloaded the patch of GUI640 which named gui640_30.exe, but there is a gui640_pdb_30.exe. How to
use this pdb file?

You do not need to apply the PDB file. This is usually something you would apply when encountering an error that requires intervention by SAP support.
The only two files you generally update with the GUI are the standard update file (the first one you mention above) and the setup update file.
Hope that helps.
J. Haynes

GUI 640 Patch 4274 smaller than required(8). Continue with Alpha Screen

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for