On the contrary....

Ive had the 1gb shuffle since a little before they hit the
shelves and NEVER had a problem. Im perfectly happy with it!!
Even thou the nano makes me wanna give up women completly I
dont feel a need (urge) to upgrade.......yet.
Thank you Apple and mr.Jobs!
Max

In my seven years as a professional programmer, and from speaking with people with even more experience I have the clear impression that the limiting factor on program quality, project delivery on time etc. is rarely the individual programmers.
It is instead the way clients and software development organisations interacts and the way software development organisations works internally.
So trying to fix the problems with software projects by eg. certifying programmers is a sign of someone having missed the point or someone trying to divert attention away from the real problems.
Have a look at http://members.cox.net/risingl1/articles/Vasa.pdf by Linda Rising http://www.lindarising.org for a scary tale related to this topic.

Similar Messages

What is the contrary to Button.setOnMouseMoved?

Hello all,
I have a button, which contains an image, set via
imageView = new ImageView (image);
button.setGraphic (imageView);I also implemented the mouse move event handler, so that the image is exchanged when the user hovers the mouse cursor over the button:
button.setOnMouseMoved (new EventHandler <MouseEvent>() {
 @Override
 public void handle (MouseEvent event) {
 button.setGraphic (otherImagefView);
But the button keeps the exchanged image when the mouse cursor leaves the button without a mouse click. In that case, I want again to set the default image into the button.
I succeeded implementing this with a mouse move event handler on the root pane, where I can check whether the events target class is ButtonSkin, and if not, I set the default images to all the buttons. But I feel there must be a better solution, something like Button.setOnMouseLeaving. Or is this event handler missing in JavaFx?
Best regards
Gerhard

btn.setOnMouseExited(new EventHandler<MouseEvent>() {
 @Override
 public void handle(MouseEvent event) {
 btn.setGraphic(rght);
 });

TV Grab bag is...empty no TV for you despite advertising to the contrary

Today (Wednesday) I tried to purchase a product that was posted on the insert in Sunday's paper. The Samsung 46" LCD TV LN46A630 listed at 1899.99 less 500.00.I phoned in an order and was told it there was NOT ONE available on the ENTIRE EAST COAST. No where!!!? So...I thought well, I'll substitute it for a comparable Sony model the z series 4100. I checked delivery - it ALSO is not availble in my area. I'm curious and I'm sure you would be too...what IS available for delivery???! Undaunted, I decided to check on the bundle featured on the front page of the advertisement. Surely, something promoted that heavily must be available, right? After all, the ad came out on Sunday, this is only Wednesday, I can spend $2000 for the complete set. Would you believe, the complete package isn't available for delivery to my area!??? In fact, the ad reads that all the items must be on the same receipt to receive the package, I can't even buy the TV in my local store, the separate items are scattered around the stores in a fity mile radius. Now I don't want to sound like a conspiracy freak but...at this point I'm a bit curious as to what Best Buy actually wants to sell!
I wonder, when the ad comes out, does Best Buy have more than a dozen pieces to ship? It looks a bit sleazy to me. Do they want to sell product or just print up the prospect?
Anyone else run into a problem like this or is just my bad luck?

ibkatg wrote--"
the same thing happened to us, we went into a store in visalia, ca to get the $1999 tv,blueray, surround sound, free installation bundle and they told us they didn't have the tv but that they would substitute a sony xbr, we went home to research the tv, went back the next day to take the deal and then we were told they didn't have any tvs to substitute and that they never even received a single tv in their store like the one advertised and that they were on back order. we were very disappointed. isn't this called bait and switch??"
No. Don't know if you realize this, but the XBR is superior to the Z series. If they were offerering you the same screen size XBR for the same price as the Z, then you were getting an even better deal, and Best Buy would be losing more money on the deal. A bait and switch involves a switch to something profitable, not the other way around.
You should have taken the deal right off the bat.
Disclosure: Former BBY employee.

Mac mini falling alseep despite system settings to the contrary

I have an intel core-duo mac mini which I need to keep running on a continuous basis. I have set the Energy Saver settings to sleep never and have ensured that the Security setting for auto-logout is also disabled. However, after a period of inactivity, the machine seems to go into a kind of logout & sleep mode--I can wake it back up by pressing a key or moving the mouse, but I hear the system start "bong" sound, and it comes up with a login screen that starts a new user session (the session I had running seems to have been ended).
I've tried resetting the SMC according to http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1543, but that hasn't helped.
I thought this might be due to overheating, but it seems to do this when the machine is sitting idle as well.
Is there some setting I've missed? How can I stop it from doing this?

I see that I am not the first to ask this:
http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=1005729
Has anyone ever found a solution to this? I've now reset the PRAM, reset the SMC, verified the settings with pmset, and have even tried running "pmset noidle" in a terminal. Despite all this, the mini falls asleep after a while.
Any ideas?

Clicking on another app I get the video automatically returning to normal screen view

I wonder why, if I put a youtube video in full screen and I click on another app WHILE THE VIDEO IS PLAYING all remain this way. On the contrary, if I first stop the video, clicking on another app I get the video automatically returning to normal screen view... This is very annoying. Is it possible to avoid this?
Thanks

Sorry, Mozilla doesn't support the patent-encumbered and royalty-encumbered H.264 standard, they support the OGG/Theodora and WebM free open source standards.
Microsoft has a H.264 plugin for Firefox, but it is for Windows7 not WinXP or Win Vista. 
http://www.interoperabilitybridges.com/html5-extension-for-wmp-plugin
There may be other H.264 Firefox plugins out there for WinXP, so do a Google search. Or maybe contact support for that DVR security system and see if they know of or have a Firefox plugin.

I am very disappointed in the lack of concern for customer satisfaction...

I have previously been totally satisfied with the customer service and friendliness of the staff at Best Buy. This, however, has taken a turn of 180 degrees. Recently I purchased 2 smartphones. The salesperson was friendly and very helpful. At the end of the transaction, he asked if I would like the protection plan for $9.99 a month. I told him I carried the insurance through Verizon for my daughter's iPhone. I said I had used it once on one of my daughter's previous iPhones and was not happy that the replacement came with a $150 cost. He told me that the Best Buy plan was complete coverage with no deductible. Unfortunately I took him at his word. Caveat emptor.
Well, my daughter cracked the screen on her 5C and we took it back to the Lone Tree,CO store where it was purchased. I was obviously miffed when I was told that there was $150 charge for a replacement - in complete contradiction to what I was told when I purchased the plan. Biting my tongue, I sucked it up and paid the charge. I was told that the phone would be in the store by Saturday, Feb. 8th. I said this was fine because my daughter would be home from college that weekend and the exchange would be minimally painful. Well shockingly it did not arrive until this Monday when my daughter was back at school 80 miles away. So for the third time, I make a trip to the store to ask if I can have the phone - for which I've paid - to take it to my daughter and bring her damaged phone back. (This is exactly what would have happened had I maintained the insurance through Verizon/Asurion except that they would have had it delivered to my door and I would simply ship it back in a prepaid envelope.) Well, once more the only thing the milque toast manager, Andy {Removed per Forum Guidelines} had to offer was a half-hearted, "I'm sorry, but there's nothing I can do." I do feel bad for the Geek Squad employee, Jamal who was truly sorry for my horrible experience(s).
I am by no means the best Best Buy customer, but I have spent several thousands over the years on product and many gift cards. This will be the last dime I or my family will ever spend at one of your stores.
Chagrined,
Mark {Removed per Forum Guidelines}

Dear Mark,
I am glad you reached out to us to give us this feedback from your recent trips to the Lone Tree, CO store for your smartphones. This is not at all the kind of experience we want to provide for our customers and I am disheartened to hear that this has made you want to discontinue your future business with us.
Our Geek Squad Protection plan used to not have a deductible for repair but this changed September 1, 2013. There is no reason that you should have been offered this if your purchase date was any time after that. We ask our employees to remember and stay current with a lot of things so that they may continue to serve our customers with the experience you want to go brag to your friends about and not the contrary.
I would like to reach out to the store and give them this feedback from your multiple substandard visits. I will be sending you a private message to gather some more details so that I may reach out to the store on your behalf. To check your private messages, click on the envelope in the upper right-hand corner while you are logged into the forums.
Warmly,
JD|Social Media Specialist | Best Buy® Corporate
Private Message

Is BAdI the right tool for us?

Hello,
we are building a custom component which generates postings that are later dispatched to FI.
The component's customizing defines Posting Activities in different variants/versions that create those postings.
Every Posting-Activity-Variant is implemented by a dedicated class, all implementing a common Posting-Activity interface.
Usually I would use the BAdI-technique to register the classes for each Posting-Activity-Variant using BAdI-Filters.
However, in this case I have a certain aversion to BAdI-usage:
100s Posting-Activity-Variants, means 100s BAdI-Implementations and Filter-Definitions
*additionally* to the customizing of all these Posting-Activity-Variants
There is customizing for every Posting-Activity-Variant, it is very tempting to add a classname-column and be done with it.
The customizing would be concise & understandable, I don't have to deep-dive into SE80/SE19 to check registered BAdI-classes and their filter-values to guess which BAdI would be called. I immediately see if the Posting-Activity-Variant is bound to an implementing class.
We use OO extensively and defined interfaces irrespective of any BAdI-usage, so we don't really benefit from the BAdI's OO-approach.
Furthermore we would actually hide the BAdI-mechanism since BAdI-references are not normal pass-around OO-references.
So from a design perspective it doesn't matter if we use BAdI or customizing, it's hidden in some Factory anyways.
We lose the static-registration and where-used functionality of BAdI-classes,
but I think that would be a price I am willing to pay to get a manageable & concise customizing.
We would work-around that with a dedicated report that lists all used classes etc.
If using an old-school classname-column in the customizing, we would build a report that checks that customizing for sanity and checks the classes for the presence of certain interfaces/constructors/etc. Things which would otherwise be statically handled by the BAdI itself of course..
So what do you think, would you really *always* use the BAdI-technique to register classes?
Thanks for any advice.

Hi Kai,
First: thank you Custodio de Oliveira for noticing this high-quality question.
Kai: To be honest, I think you've answered your own question already. Not that there's something wrong in checking your reasoning with the community (on the contrary: we're all likely to learn something from it).
But I can imagine this not being a forum question but a blog post describing the case and the design decision made. That would make an excellent blog post, from which (again) many people would learn something. It's the kind of content that's IMHO underrepresented on SCN at the moment.
So, instead of answering (which really isn't necessary: as Custodio already said, whatever you go with, I'm sure you'll be fine), I'd like you to rewrite this into a blog post. Let the community chime in using the comments and see what comes out of it.
For the record, I'd go with BAdi's. I don't think it's much extra work (implementing a class might be, but defining a BAdi implementation using a filter surely isn't), and you stay in the code realm, instead of breaking out of it (I always find that using class/function module columns in customizing makes it hard to understand the big application picture).
But I'm surely interested in what other developers have to say. And that's another advantage of the blog format: more people will likely notice it.
So: please give it a go! (Only if you're comfortable with it of course)
Thanks, Fred

Satellite 1410-604 - BIOS update Incorrect BIOS update in the web?

Hi there again!
Now with a new and weird matter.
We all know that old say... "If it is not break, don't fix it". And if you put it into more informatic terms, "specially if it is a BIOS".
Yes, we all know that the BIOS is something quite dellitate to handle. For some reason we normally feel like if we were handling something like nitro-glycerine, or some radioactive product. And this is because we all know what is being put in risk in that moment: our (or sometimes others) computer, the full system could end as dead as some pieces of metal, plastic, and wires.
Well. I passed through all of that more than ten times in my life, and only once it went wrong. But since that old motherboard was already dead, It was not important. But I allways was EXTREMELY care. I allways cross checked everything before doing anything, allways got a backup and a way to restore that backup... and allways did this in COMPAQ systems, that were prepared that way. Updating a BIOS was just about preparing a disk, turn on the PC with the disk in the diskette drive, and wait. And if you didn't like the results, you simply click "return to previus BIOS" and that was it... very nice. And easy.
Few days ago, a friend brought me a Toshiba Satellite 1410-604 to solve some issues that were driving him crazy. After removing an expired Norton Internet Security, install avast and scan, I found more than one hundred files infected with a wide variety of virus, malware, trojans, and whatever you could imagine. Avast removed them all, but the remains of the operating system was so unstable that we decide to format and install from scratch.
I asked for the restoration disks, that obviously he don't have because they were lost in one of his movings. After we got the confirmation from Toshiba reps that there are no recovery disk available for this model, because it is too old, we decided to install from scratch like any other normal PC, and resigned to loose some of the utilities that come with that CDs and that are not available for download in the website.
I downloaded all of the software available for this model, including two BIOS updates. (Actually only one update, but in two versions: Windows and Traditional), and prepared a CD with all the drivers and programs just like if it were a brand new system install. And everything went very well, no problems at all. Until we got to the Wireless LAN card, but that is another issue that is already solved (the mini PCI card for the WLAN does not support WEP or WAP encription, and it is not possible to connect to any wireless LAN encripted).
At this point, and when I started configuring and enabling PCMCIA devices, and USB devices (this computer only supports USB 1.1 not 2.0) I discovered this text in the Toshiba Website:
"This Bios Update adds increased functionality to your system.
(BIOS is an acronym for Basic Input and Output System. This program is stored in a Read-Only Memory chip on the motherboard.
When the computer powers up, the BIOS is launched to perform various start-up functions.)
For detailed update information please refer to Toshiba BIOS-Update Information"
(you can find this here:
[http://eu.computers.toshiba-europe.com/innovation/download_drivers_bios.jsp?service=EU] you have to look for:
Archive
Satellite
Satellite 14xx
Satellite 1410-604
PS141E
Quite specific. Isn't it?)
According to the information in that same website, the BIOS available fits the following models:
"Satellite 2410-414, Satellite 1410, Satellite 1410-654S, Satellite 1410-814, Satellite 2410-303, Satellite 2410-304S, Satellite 1410-354, Satellite 2410-601, Satellite 1410-401, {color:#ff0000}*Satellite 1410-604*{color}, Satellite 2410-404, Satellite 1410-301, Satellite 1410-304, Satellite 2410-S403, Satellite Pro 2100, Satellite 1410-S203, Satellite 2410-304, Satellite 1410-554, Satellite 1410-S102, Satellite 1410-354E, Satellite 2410-703, Satellite 1410-303, Satellite 2410-S203, Satellite 1410-801, Satellite 2410-603, Satellite 1410-902, Satellite 1410-313, Satellite 1410-802, Satellite 1410-714, Satellite 2410-354, Satellite 2410-514, Satellite 1410-614, Satellite 1410-704, Satellite 2410-515, Satellite 2410-504, Satellite 2410-702, Satellite 1410-S103"
Yes... it's there!
Now, when you go to the "Toshiba BIOS-Update Information", you get:
"FAQ Ref.: TRO0000000b07
A BIOS update is a {color:#ff0000}*relatively simple operation and can be carried out by most competent computer users*{color}. All BIOS upgrades can be obtained from "BIOS Update" Download Section click here..
Note: The BIOS files are machine specific so the correct BIOS for your machine must be used."
Please note that Toshiba does not disencourage the handling of BIOS, on the contrary: they even encourage people to do so. This is not necessary bad, but at the same time they encourage people to 'play around' with such a delicate matter, at the end of that same page, in little letters they say:
"Toshiba provides this information "as is" {color:#ff0000}*without warranty of any kind*{color}, either expressed or implied, including, but not limited to, the implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. Toshiba shall not be responsible for the topicality, correctness, completeness or quality of the information provided. {color:#ff0000}*Toshiba is not liable for any damage caused by the use of any information provided, including information that is incomplete or incorrect*{color}."
This should trigger yellow alarms in our minds.
+"Human error is inherent to humans, and it is not possible to erradicate. It will allways appear, sooner or later" (Prof. James Reason).+
And finally I made the mistake. Even though I read that warning, I remembered all those successfull BIOS update with COMPAQ, and relied in Toshiba. That update was available there, and Toshiba was telling me that it was for this computer. Great!
So finally I unplugged all devices (USB), removed the PCMCIA (WLAN),plugged the battery charger to avoid any possible battery problem, restarted windows, and then from within windows I started the updater (windows version, as recommended by Toshiba). Everithing looked fine, nothing different of what I used to see on those old COMPAQs.
As warned by the updating program, the system was going to reboot. And actually it did so.
Windows closed quite normally (a bit quicker than normal, but without errors, and since there were no other programs than the essentials -even the antivirus was not running-), the computer switched of, all lights off (normal), and then it switched on again...
{color:#0000ff}*BEEEEEEEEEEEEP... BEEEP... BEEEEP...*{color}
OMG! I never espected something THAT bad. 3-1-1!
And now... What a 3-1-1 stands for here? Award BIOS would mean no video card or deffective video card, but it is not true, since it was working up to 20 seconds ago. It must be the BIOS.
It never came again to life. It is still beeping 3-1-1.
But now comes the investigation of the human-factors involved in this accident.
I found I commited the following failures:
*(1)* To rely in the manufacturer, even though they WROTE their information could be wrong or incomplete. (BAD if I were a QA&QC inspector).
*(2)* I didn't cross checked deeply enough (until it was already too late).
*(3)* I didn't looked previously for the way to make a backup of the BIOS, in order to restore should anything go wrong.
*(4)* Let Toshiba lead me to a path I didn't want to walk, just because of their offer of "increased functionality".
*(5)* Beleave in Toshiba when they said "relatively simple operation and can be carried out by most competent computer users"... they never said it is failproof.
Then I started the most interesting part of the investigation.
{color:#0000ff}*"What went wrong?"*{color}
Obviously, the BIOS update failed somehow, somewhere. And I wanted to know what and where.
First thing I discovered was that there are another search engine in Toshiba called "askiris" ([http://askiris.toshiba.com]) and I looked there in order to see if for any chance I could get the old 1.20 BIOS version that was installed originally in that machine.
And I found something... VERY interesting:
bq. {color:#800080}*From: * \\ {color}{color:#800080}* ACPI Flash BIOS version 1.10 for Satellite 1410/1415/2410* \\ {color}{color:#800080}* bios for these models. TAIS. Downloads. DL. 105481 289838 289838 ACPI Flash BIOS version 1.10 for Satellite 1410/1415/2410. 2002-10-04. 105589...* \\ {color}{color:#800080}* Published 10/4/02* \\ {color}{color:#800080}* From: * \\ {color}{color:#800080}* ACPI Flash BIOS version 1.40 for Satellite 1410/1415/2410/2415* \\ {color}{color:#800080}* FDD Version 1.30 TAIS. Downloads. DL. 105481 357972 357972 ACPI Flash BIOS version 1.40 for Satellite 1410/1415/2410/2415. 2003-01-31. 105589 PUB...* \\ {color}{color:#800080}* Published 1/31/03 | Rating:* \\ {color}{color:#800080}* From: * \\ {color}{color:#800080}* ACPI Flash BIOS version 1.20 for Satellite 1410/2410* \\ {color}{color:#800080}* error message during BIOS TAIS. Downloads. DL. 105481 305240 305240 ACPI Flash BIOS version 1.20 for Satellite 1410/2410. 2002-11-01. 105589 PUB...* \\ {color}{color:#800080}* Published 11/1/02 | Rating:* \\ {color}{color:#800080}* From: * \\ {color}{color:#800080}* ACPI Flash BIOS version 1.30 for Satellite 1410/1415/2410* \\ {color}{color:#800080}* 1) Changed the content TAIS. Downloads. DL. 105481 330963 330963 ACPI Flash BIOS version 1.30 for Satellite 1410/1415/2410. 2003-01-03. 105589...* \\ {color}{color:#800080}* Published 1/3/03 | Rating:* {color}
Those are: V110, V140, V120 and V130 for series 1410/15 and 2410.
GOOD! Or not?
Let's take a look:
First thing I did was download everything all four files.
Then I took the same version that made the crash: 1.40
Than I uncompressed the file, and I found:
06/05/2009 00:17 <DIR> .
06/05/2009 00:17 <DIR> ..
31/01/2003 08:38 1,605,632 11410v14.iso
31/01/2003 08:38 511,764 1370D14.EXE
{color:#ff0000}*08/01/2003 17:03 724,480 2410a9v140.exe*{color}
09/01/2003 09:32 250,663 biofca9t.com
08/10/2002 05:26 30,697 chgbiosa.exe
31/01/2003 08:36 1,087 instinfo.bat
13/05/2002 15:25 378,175 launcher.exe
31/01/2003 08:36 433 launcher.ini
06/05/2009 00:17 0 list.txt
31/01/2003 08:36 14,768 readme.com
*{color:#ff0000}31/01/2003 08:36 12,513 readme.txt{color}*
11 archivos 3,530,212 bytes
3 dirs 9,404,600,320 bytes libres
And I got my first surprise here: There is a {color:#ff0000}*README.TXT*{color} that was not present in the file I downloaded previously from the drivers repository.
So I went to the readme.txt and I found this:
"README.TXT 01-31-2003 CDC
Flash BIOS version 1.40 for Satellite 1410
This BIOS is applicable to the following models:
Satellite 1410-S105
Satellite 1410-S106
Satellite 1410-S173
Satellite 1410-S174
Satellite 1410-S175
Satellite 1410-S176
Satellite 1415-S105
Satellite 1415-S106
Satellite 1415-S115
Satellite 1415-S173
Satellite 1415-S174
Satellite 1415-S175
Satellite 1415-S176
Satellite 2410-S203
Satellite 2410-S204"
Please note that the model 1410-604 is *NOT* listed.
I thought "well, it must be another archive..."
But then I realized of a name that sounds familiar, it was there, in the directory where I uncompressed this 1.40 file, and the name is:
{color:#0000ff}*2410A9V140.EXE*{color}
So I took the other file, the BIOS_Win update, and I discovered that the file name is:
*{color:#0000ff}2410A9V140.EXE{color}* (Ups!)
So I uncompressed it again, to find:
El volumen de la unidad D no tiene etiqueta.
El n£mero de serie del volumen es: 8838-E175
Directorio de D:\Shared\diskette\2410A9v140
06/05/2009 00:43 <DIR> .
06/05/2009 00:43 <DIR> ..
*{color:#0000ff}09/01/2003 09:32 _250,663_ BIOFCA9T.COM{color}*
17/07/2002 03:38 35 biosupd2.ini
13/07/2001 13:22 6,277 chgbios2.vxd
*{color:#0000ff}08/10/2002 04:26 _30,697 _CHGBIOSA.EXE{color}*
09/11/2001 09:14 134 clean2.reg
17/07/2002 03:35 342,064 install2.exe
16/07/2002 06:55 241,664 nchgbios2.exe
18/08/2001 11:41 3,435 nchgbios2.sys
23/10/2001 18:55 11,476 nchgbios2NT.sys
26/08/2001 09:00 49,152 nchgbios2svc.exe
13/07/2001 17:05 49,152 tbdecode.dll
14/03/2002 06:42 49,152 TCHGBIOSInfo.dll
21/06/2002 11:25 1,796 tosclean2.bat
09/11/2001 12:01 967 tosclean2.pif
21/06/2002 11:34 1,841 toscleanAUTO2.bat
21/06/2002 11:44 1,796 toscleanSMS2.bat
21/06/2002 08:51 2,038 tosntclean2.bat
21/06/2002 08:51 2,084 tosntcleanAUTO2.bat
21/06/2002 08:52 2,038 tosntcleanSMS2.bat
20 archivos 1,046,461 bytes
2 dirs 9,402,793,984 bytes libres
No readme file...
Then another question arised in my mind: What about the other 1.40 file? What does the other 2410A9V140.EXE have inside?
This:
El volumen de la unidad D no tiene etiqueta.
El n£mero de serie del volumen es: 8838-E175
Directorio de D:\Shared\diskette\comparacion_toshiba\askiris\241 0a9v140
06/05/2009 00:46 <DIR> .
06/05/2009 00:46 <DIR> ..
*{color:#0000ff}09/01/2003 09:32 _250,663 _BIOFCA9T.COM{color}*
17/07/2002 03:38 35 biosupd2.ini
13/07/2001 13:22 6,277 chgbios2.vxd
*{color:#0000ff}08/10/2002 04:26 _30,697 _CHGBIOSA.EXE{color}*
09/11/2001 09:14 134 clean2.reg
17/07/2002 03:35 342,064 install2.exe
16/07/2002 06:55 241,664 nchgbios2.exe
18/08/2001 11:41 3,435 nchgbios2.sys
23/10/2001 18:55 11,476 nchgbios2NT.sys
26/08/2001 09:00 49,152 nchgbios2svc.exe
13/07/2001 17:05 49,152 tbdecode.dll
14/03/2002 06:42 49,152 TCHGBIOSInfo.dll
21/06/2002 11:25 1,796 tosclean2.bat
09/11/2001 12:01 967 tosclean2.pif
21/06/2002 11:34 1,841 toscleanAUTO2.bat
21/06/2002 11:44 1,796 toscleanSMS2.bat
21/06/2002 08:51 2,038 tosntclean2.bat
21/06/2002 08:51 2,084 tosntcleanAUTO2.bat
21/06/2002 08:52 2,038 tosntcleanSMS2.bat
20 archivos 1,046,461 bytes
2 dirs 9,402,781,696 bytes libres
*{color:#ff0000}They both have 20 files, and 1,046,461 bytes. I asumed they are both the SAME file{color}*.
And the readme file does not list the model 1410-604 in its readme file, therefore I cannot explain this except as a mistake from Toshiba. *{color:#ff0000}They put an incorrect BIOS in their website, and suggested the update, and somehow leaded to this kind of errors.{color}*
(Except in the case that one of those models is a different name of the 1410-604 model, and if it is the case... now I don't know why this BIOS do not work with this computer).
The worst part is that neither of those other files (V1.10, 1.20 and 1.30) lists the 1410-604, therefore there seems no possible workaround for this problem. I need an original v1.20 for this CMOS, and Toshiba seems not to have it. They offered me to solve the problem, by leaving the notebook at an ASP, and paying only 95€ for the work and about 280€ for a motherboard replacement, I will get it solved. But they offer no warranty of their possibilities because is a model 'too old' and 'discontinued' and with 'no support'...
In other words, they said "don't bother with this, just go out there and buy a new one" (something absolutely out of my scope in this crisis-time) :P
Thank you for reading soooo far.
Now what I need is to get any ideas of a workaround for this, my ideas are:
(1) This CMOS has a boot-part that still works (it allows a roll-back if you have the appropriate file). So I need a good BIOS to burn into the CMOS, from the VERY SAME model (a BIOS backup) but the backup must be adequate for the burning program (CHGBIOSA.COM).
(2) It is still possible that the BIOS could be OK but the data on the CMOS got somehow corrupted. If so, clearing the CMOS could solve de problem. But I was not able to find a clear cmos button from outside, and after disasembling I took of the battery, with no good results. I have to try leaving the MOBO without battery for longer period (I left it about 20 seconds) just in case 20 seconds don't allow all the capacitors to fully go to zero values. I have not much hope in this point.
(3) Try to get a REAL good update from Toshiba. I contacted several times technical support, and I was able to verify they are only phone-operators, with a script in front of them, and when the problem goes-out-of-scope they fall always in the same answer: "you have to go to an ASP". I still have a low hope to find someone who really knows a bit, and could enlighten with a good BIOS to put in this disks.
(4) As far as I could find, this BIOS is not from any known BIOS-maker. It seems it has been developed by Toshiba (own brand), therefore the Crisis Recovery Disk from Phoenix will not be of any help here. As well as any other BIOS recovery tool not designed for Toshiba's BIOS. But I'm open to any ideas, that could be tested more or less safely. (Remember that the 'BIOS-BOOT-PART' feature is still working, I don't want to loose this only possibility of redemption).
Wwwaaaaoooowww... what a long-post falks! Sorry for that!
Forgive me, but I wanted to be really clear.
Should anyone give some hints or advice, will be greatly appreciated.
Please don't say what I shouldn't do... I already know that. I already researched and already found my mistakes, in order not to repeat them. Now I need to move on, to advance, and to try to solve this, or at least learn how to solve similar things. As much as possible.
Thank you again, in advance, and sorry again.
FenixDigital
Message was edited by: Fenix_D
Changed subject to beter reflect what is the matter about (apparently erroneous BIOS file in Toshiba download center).

Well. 
 
It's not dead, certainly. 
 
The steps that I put in my procedure were: 
 
--> There are two memory sims, that I am going to identify as M1 and M2 
--> There are two memory banks, that I am going to identify as A and B 
 
Next step in order to identify if there are some module or bank that is not working properly are: 
 
The modules were installed as: 
 
M1 --> A 
M2 --> B 
 
1--> Boot without any memory chip. 
 
<blockquote>
A--> X 
B--> X 
</blockquote>
 
2--> Boot with ONE module 
 
<blockquote>
A-->M1 
B-->X 
</blockquote>
 
3--> Boot with the OTHER module 
 
<blockquote>
A--> X 
B--> M2 
</blockquote>
 
4--> Boot with BOTH modules swapped: 
 
<blockquote>
A--> M2 
B--> M1 
</blockquote>
 
5--> Boot with ONE module swapped: 
 
<blockquote>
A--> M2 
B--> X 
</blockquote>
 
6--> Boot with the OTHER module swapped: 
 
<blockquote>
A--> X 
B--> M1 
</blockquote>
 
At this point I got a great difference. It booted, finally. But in order to make a diagnostic, I have to complete the full test, and the results were: 
 
1--> Boot without any memory chip. 
 
A--> X 
B--> X 
 
NOT BOOTING Actually the computer not even tries to read the disk. Only the power led turns on, but even prior to press the 'on/off' button. I think this indicates 'no memory installed'. I would have expected a post failure beeps, but there were no beeps at all. 
 
2--> Boot with ONE module 
 
A-->M1 
B-->X 
 
BOOTED NORMALLY Well. This obviously means that the 3-1-1 beep code means memory error, or one bank failing of two installed. Now I didn't know if the problem was the module, or the bank B. 
 
3--> Boot with the OTHER module 
 
A--> X 
B--> M2 
 
NOT BOOTING Just like the condition in 1. Like no memory installed, therefore there are two possibilities: The bank B is not working, or the memory module M2 is not working. 
 
4--> Boot with BOTH modules swapped: 
 
A--> M2 
B--> M1 
 
NOT BOOTING Just like previous to test condition. Beep code 3-1-1, no boot at all. 
 
5--> Boot with ONE module swapped: 
 
A--> M2 
B--> X 
 
NOT BOOTING This was the important test, because it finally let me determine that the problem is at the module 2 (M2) not at the bank B. But still there could be a failure IN THE BANK B and IN THE MEMORY MODULE 2. Have to do the other test. 
 
6--> Boot with the OTHER module swapped: 
 
A--> X 
B--> M1 
 
BOOTING NORMALLY This really confirmed there is nothing wrong with ANY bank, but one of the modules is not working, actually is not being even detected. This is quite weird, because this computer was working perfectly with those two modules, and in the moment of the BIOS upgrade it seems to fail... How come? 
 
Something weird happened here. I don't know what, but something ruined one memory module (fortunately only one), what I would like to know now is what happened. But at least I have the machine running, with very low memory, but running. 
 
What I am thinking now is what about this BIOS upgrade makes the motherboard not to recognize one of the modules for some reason? 
 
<img class="jive-emoticon" src="images/emoticons/happy.gif" border="0" alt=":)" /> 
 
I will continue my research, but certainly the memory made the difference. 
 
I am not sure why I didn't discover this before, I think I didn't perform this test before, for two reasons: 
 
(1) I tried to boot with no memory, and this was impossible, so I assumed that the problem was not at the memory. 
 
(2) When I heard the beep code (3-1-1), somewhere I read it was a video problem, and I asume most probably it was a video problem (since no video at all was being displayed) but I should have take into consideration that Phoenix BIOS also means with the same 3-1-1 a DMA problem (memory problem). 
 
Okis... It's a pitty having to wait so much between a post and it's approval. I posted my answer two days ago, and since it didn't appear, I believe It didn't upload, so I replied again, and also didn't appeared... until now. It is obvious that a moderator approval is required. That's why I have to wait 24 hours or more to read my post. This slows this forum effectiveness. 
 
Thank you very much for your help. I'll keep you informed. Until we get to a final diagnosis and solution.

Why are Bounce in Arrange and Environment not 1 & the same?

Just wondering why (like in 8) Bouncing in the Arrange window and in the Environment are different? I noticed this again in 9, when doing stems, bouncing in the Environment (so I can solo different tracks more quickly) I was wondering why on earth LP9 was adding tracks to the Audio Bin despite the box not being ticked. I clicked on Bounce in the Arrange, and sure enough, the Add to Audio Bin button was checked.
Does anyone know why it seems these Bounce buttons are independent of each other? The other issue is if you have a solo output (if I'm bouncing Mono) - and click on bounce in the Arrange window - it makes the file stereo (The Interleaved/Split menu is selectable) where as doing the same thing in the Environment (albeit clicking bounce on the mono output channel) Greys out that field on Split (as it should be)
B

Ben Collier wrote:
Hi Erik - sorry to take so long to reply - I didn't get an email reminder - odd...
I think they reset something on the forums, because my subscription to the forum was gone a few days ago as well, I had to subscribe again (which is not really a chore, luckily... )
The Bnce button at the bottom of the Out 1-2 in the Environment (I don't use the mixer)
Mixer & env mixer are the same thing, really.
and the Bounce button at the top of the Arrange window
Now I have to start Logic, a bounce button at the top of the Arrange window...?
Ah, now I get it, the toolbar! (I never use that and click it away in all my projects & templates.)( That is the same command as choosing bounce from the File menu, or hitting ctrl-B (my KC for Bounce
are not going to the same bounce window (odd I know!). I've noticed that if the Arrange-Bounce window has "Add to Audio Bin" selected and the you bounce (or press Bnce) from the Environment window, and switch "Add to Audio Bin" off in the Environment's Bouonce window - it will still add them to the audio bin because that setting is on in the Arrange Bounce window - it's driven me bonkers on many occaisions! Try it - you'll see what I mean. It's been there in 8 and it's still there in 9.
Actually, I do not see it behave like this. Here it appears that both bounce windows are in fact identical, and that wherever the last setting was made, that becomes the setting the next time you get a bounce window, either from the Env mixer or from the Bounce command in the File menu or indeed the bounce button in the toolbar or in the 'regular' mixer. They all pop up the same window, with the last set settings still set. whether it be *Add to Audio Bin* or *Add to iTunes Library* plus all combinations of both and neither.
I've also noticed level differences on our main rig when importing them, despite both being bounced at 96 and in realtime.
I find it quite difficult to say this, but I think those differences have nothing to do with the method of bouncing. And it being at 96 kHz does not mean it has audibly different levels, on the contrary, a bounce at 96 is probably not discernable from one at 48, in a blind listening test.
I'm convinced that in whatever way you give the command to bounce, it is the same process. There must be another overlooked factor responsible for those level differences. I trust you have the Normalise function Off when you bounce? And you have not changed the pan law settings between bounces? And no plugins that use some Random settings?

Gregory Johnson, Director of the Consumer Defense Resource Group, responds to the recent iPhone price drop.

Gregory Johnson, Director of the Consumer Defense Resource Group, responds to the recent iPhone price drop.
In a strange turn of events this week, some consumers are upset now because as of Wednesday (Sept. 5) Apple lowered the retail price of their iPhone by $200. The 8GB iPhone is now $400 rather than $600. Customers raised such an outcry that Steve Jobs has published an open letter in response.
Apple and other companies are continually coming out with new products that usually offer more speed, more storage, more features, and cost less than previous models. Nobody has ever complained -- until now. Why haven't people complained in the past when Apple has had significant price drops and major upgrades on their other products? There wasn't a revolt then. There were no mobs of angry customers demanding rebates.
My first CD drive was a 2X speed external drive that required a special interface card in the computer. It cost $1,200 and today better drives are available for about $30. My first scanner was a very slow and big unit costing over $1,000. Today, better scanners are available for under $100. My first computer cost more than $2,000 and had a 20MB hard drive. With 8GB of storage, the iPhone should cost about $800,000. So, $600 didn’t seem too expensive.
I bought my iPhone for $600 knowing that by next year they would probably drop to about $300 or $400. I didn't think there would be a mid-year drop, but so what. I knew the trajectory of technology progress would mean that a better phone will be available in 6 to 9 months at probably a lower price -- more apps, faster, more features, more memory. It's a given. You buy something this month. Next month it will be obsolete. That's just the way it is. Perhaps Apple should put a disclaimer on their website stating: "Warning: Our products will increasingly become faster, cooler, more innovative, and offer greater value for the dollar as time goes on. Get used to it."
Apple is progressing so quickly now, beyond any other technology innovation company, that this kind of thing is likely to happen again in the future with some other product of theirs. Are people going to complain each time? Must the company give out rebates each time? This all seems so silly. It’s no longer possible to compare Apple to other companies with regard to their ability to implement product improvements. It’s like dog years versus human years. Two months in Apple’s world of product development is equal to about 6 to 9 months for most manufacturers. I know it is difficult, but people need to get used to that.
To the complainers out there, I have a few questions. Would you like Apple to be less innovative? Would you like Apple to not give you more value and voluntarily drop their prices by hundreds of dollars? Is that what you want? Don't get upset at Apple just because they are pushing the envelope of technical innovation and value from one month to the next. What if Apple released an 8-core computer this summer and then by fall they announced their new 16-core computer? This is the kind of development and progress pace we need to start expecting from Apple. The migration to Intel processors went much faster than anticipated.
Some research suggests that the iPhone cost of materials are about $300. So, there had been some complaints that Apple is price gouging by selling the iPhone for twice that amount. What people don’t understand is that there are other costs in building a piece of technology and running a business beyond the electronic components that go into them. The actual cost per 8GB iPhone is probably about $550. When Apple sells them for $400 each, I calculate they are taking a loss on the phone of about $150 per phone. Why would a company do this? There is something called a “lost leader” in retail sales. It’s a product you sell below your cost in an effort to rapidly expand your customer base. I’m guessing this is what Apple is doing by offering the iPhone at such an amazingly low price.
I'm planning to purchase an Apple notebook sometime soon. I'm not in a hurry, so I'm waiting until they announce the next major upgrade to their notebook line. I'm guessing it will be this fall. If I really was in a rush to get a notebook, I'd get one now, and then be a little disappointed when the new ones are announced -- but I wouldn’t be surprised. Instead, I'm waiting. I'd like to see built-in broadband cards (cellular data access) and LED back lighting in the 17-inch notebook. Perhaps larger hard drives and faster processors would be nice. It would be wonderful if it had an optical glass touch screen like the iPhone.
This latest uproar reminds me of the consumer complaints about iPods scratching. For decades, portable handheld computing devices have been available. They get scratched, and nobody says anything. Anyone concerned about their device scratching can purchase a protective cover. Then Apple comes along and offers their product. Suddenly consumers are in an uproar about it scratching and there is a class action lawsuit. It doesn’t seem fair that the most progressive and innovative company out there is the one that gets beaten up by consumers the most.
My comprehensive review of the iPhone can be found here:
http://web.mac.com/resourcesforlife/journal/writings/Entries/2007/8/18iPhoneReview.html
The Consumer Defense Resource Group is online here:
http://www.resourcesforlife.com/groups/cdrg/
The above article can be found here:
http://web.mac.com/resourcesforlife/journal/writings/Entries/2007/9/7iPhone_Price_Drops_-_ConsumersUpset.html

Junk Mail Designer wrote:
I'm not biting.
I've read too many reports in the media from people more highly credentialed than Mr. Johnson to the contrary.
The analogies and comparisons are still way off. Production didn't get cheaper, the phone didn't get upgraded, no carrier's are subsidizing, retailer's are not discounting. Never has the MSRP of CD-ROMs, nor cellphones, nor HDTV's dropped this quickly in history.
I'm tired and going to bed. But here's your assignment. Apple's price decrease rate is 33.3% in 67 days. What would a $10,000 item cost at that rate in one year?
Actually product advancement and innovation are very much the central issue here. Apple has effectively "upgraded" the 4GB unit to 8GB and reduced the price by $100. It's all in how you look at it.
The real issue of innovation and development has yet to be seen, but the recent price drop is an indicator that Apple already has something "in the shoot" to be released soon.
I was thinking it might take a year for a new version of the iPhone to be announced. Yet, with the recent price drop, it seems they may be lowering the price on the original unit to make room for a new one. Which is my point exactly. Apple is so fast at innovating that they already have something new to release (that's my prediction).
They can't release something new and sell the old units if the "something new" and the "something old" are at the same price. It makes sense that the 8GB unit would drop to $400 and the new one will be $600.

Logic 8/Leop - Performance question in the interface...SLOW???

Dears,
just installed Logic Studio.
I'm running it on the latest G5 Imac, Leopard, 2.5 GB of RAM.
To note, i installed some of the audio content (actually the ~22GB pack that you can choose where to install) on a fast external HD, connected via FireWire (FW 400 on the old imacs ).
Audio card is M-Audio Firewire 410.
Quite simply, in the 20 minutes i could play with it, i noticed the overall interface is really slow.
For example, i click on the right side on "explore", half-a-second-delay than the tab is highlighted. All like this...it's like when you have the CPU overloaded with something in Windows and every single click get response with a bit of delay.
Also, when exploring "all" apple loops, i really have to wait some 5-10 secs minimum of "thinking" (this maybe is normal, as they're 1,000s and stored externally). When choosing a sample/instrument and loading it, on the contrary, everything goes fast.
But it's the overall feeling of browsing, clicking, selecting instruments, choosing effects....wherever i click, there is some sort of delay.
Obviously on the system i shut down every single other application when i run Logic.
Audio wise, i only had the chance to gig a bit with a piano, and all was fine (no lag, loads of voices, all regular).
1- Anyone has noticed the same? Suggestions?
2- Plus, would you think it's better to keep ALL of the audio samples from Logic in the internal HD, and maybe use the external one for other libraries (i also have Colossus, which streams from HD)?
3- I final note...i had installed a plethora of demos, VSTs, old AUs, etc. that i want to get rid of. I want to start with a clean setup of Logic (with all of his instruments/effects), and then start adding only the real few that i need. If i cancel the AU placed in library/audio/etc. will i also take out logic instrments/effects, or are they stored in a different place?
Thanks for your patience and help
Ciao,
Vanni

Hit up a studio earlier this week running L8 and Leopard, just did the Leopard install the day it came out. Guy running the studio definitely noticed a difference; after placing a call to a couple 3-party manufacturers of interfaces and two other computer-recording-expert colleagues (invaluable resources, lemme tell ya), it turns out that there's a lot of little things about the OS update that are contributing to not-so-super performance using Leopard. I've decided to wait at least one, maybe two major updates to 10.5 before I upgrade.
In the meantime, try verifying and repairing your disk permissions. And actually, there's a little freeware tool out there called Maintenance 3.7 that might help you, it's essentially an Automator Action/Applescript tool that automatically runs a whole bunch of little tasks that help keep the Mac system running smooth and error-free. Check it out here: http://www.apple.com/downloads/macosx/automator/maintenance.html. I don't know if it has any conflicts with Leopard, shouldn't hurt to try it. Hope this helps.

When trying to use Java to scan checks in my financial software I get an error message, "The publisher cannot be verified by a trusted source. Code will be treated as unsigned."

I am trying to scan checks in the USAA.com website and Java is giving me an error message: "The publisher cannot be verified by a trusted source. Code will be treated as unsigned."

Serac wrote:
Hi,
I am occasionally running into an issue where I get the following error:
"The publisher cannot be verified by a trusted source.Code will be treated as unsigned."
I am not sure how to stop getting this error or what the root cause of the issue is.
Any idea what could be causing this? and how I can get rid of it? is this a bug in the JRE?
Thanks,
DeeOn the contrary. It shows that Java takes your security very seriously and it will not allow
hackers to format your hard-disk, get personal data etc.
Google for signed applets.

How to finetune the force control of an AC Motor Linear Actuator?

Hello,
I
am hoping to find some help here with the following problem, which I am trying
to solve for several days now....
I
am using the UMI-7774 and an AC servo-motor-driven linear actuator to do
force control. Basically, I need the actuator to apply a constant force and
react quickly to force changes. My system setup is as follows: I am using
a PCI-7344 Motion Control Card to provide the analogue command signal
(0-10V). This signal is supplied to the actuator controller (through a
UMI-7774), which transforms the command signal to an amperage command signal
(0-2.17Arms). This is the signal controlling the actuator’s torque. The actuator controller is working in torque mode. I use
a Kistler PZT force sensor (ring type) and a Kistler amplifier as my feedback
source. The signal from the sensor amplifier is directly connected to the ADC of the
UMI. I am using MAX to tune my system and define a PID controller that gives
me a good step response.
(1)
The results so far show that it works in principle, but I believe my system is
not yet tuned optimally. However, the best step response results I have
obtained and the PID parameters I used are shown in the attached files. As I am
relatively new to this area, could you please advise me on how I could further
improve the step response of the system? The current rise time and
overshoot values are very good (a 3% overshoot would also be acceptable),
but the observed undershoot is causing delayed settling. Also, the oscillation
observed during undershoot is something I would like to remove.
(2)
I have tried increasing Kp and Kd values. Increased Kd does not seem to correct
the oscillation problem. On the contrary, it destabilises the system. Increasing
Kp causes an unwanted overshoot. I have also tried to reduce the
Derivative Sampling Period but that gave even worse results (System Inertia: J
= 1.8629*10^-5 Kgm^2).
At
Td=2 the actuator was retracting on its own to its home position when I set Ki>=8.
I got the most stable behaviour using Td=4. Is there any other way I could
improve the actuator’s response?
(3)
I have seen that in some cases people have used a “double PID loop” one
for the encoder feedback and one for the force feedback. Do you believe that
this would improve system behaviour? If so, how could
I implement two PID loops? I mean, MAX only allows me to enter
one set of PIDs....or is there a possibility to set up a second PID-loop
somewhere?....I have seen that the "Force Control Using Monitoring
Force" example essentially works with two Closed-loops, but one of them is
implemented in the application software and this would result in a
non-deterministic and comparatively slow response of the system, right??
Sorry for the long post and thanks
a lot in advance for help and advice.
Attachments:
Force Conrtol Loop Settings Actuator-BEST.JPG ‏41 KB
Step Responce Actuator-Force Feedback-BEST.JPG ‏58 KB

Hello Jochen and thank you for your very nice reply.
The past few days I have been trying to implement your advice, but unfortunately I did not have much success. Let me start by saying that explanations to my problem, the 2nd one looked more probable, as I always make sure that there is contact between my actuator and the workpiece I am pushing against. So, I unmapped my DAC by setting up the axis as a stepper axis with no feedback and I used the Load DAC to apply voltage and see when my actuator starts moving. That gave me the upper and lower limits for the Static Friction Compensation filter (please refer to attached image). I then implemented this filter and tried to retune the PID parameters, but the results I got were poor.
I can now adjust the parameters so that there is no initial spike and undershoot, but now the force ramps up fast to a specific value and then keeps rising slowly. Vibration is observed at the point of transition from fast to slow ramp-up (ref. Step Responce Actuator-Force Feedback-WITH FILTER_v2).
I could not eliminate the steady state error. When I tried to eliminate the steady state error by increasing Ki, or tried to create an initial overshoot by increasing Kp, I always ended up with an unstable system or a system with a response similar to the one shown in attached figure “Step Responce Actuator-Force Feedback-WITH FILTER_v1”.
Do you perhaps have an explanation or comments for this behaviour? As for your other questions:
Sensor Bandwidth: N/A, Charge Amplifier Bandwidth: 200 kHz, Low pass filter: No (Amplifier has the capability though)
PID Update Period: 250 microseconds (fastest available)
NI Motion Version 2.3
Labview Version 8.5.1
Thank you,
Thomas
Attachments:
Step Responce Actuator-Force Feedback-Filter Settings.JPG ‏28 KB
Step Responce Actuator-Force Feedback-WITH FILTER_v2.JPG ‏69 KB
Step Responce Actuator-Force Feedback-Filter Settings.JPG ‏28 KB

Changing the Reconciliation Account

Dear All
I have made a customer account and assigned Reconciliation Account 101 to it. Then some entries were made. It is also having some open items. Later on it was realized that wrong reconciliation was assigned. In the Customer Master Record, when I tried to change the Reconciliation to 102, I got a yellow warning mesasge which is as follows:
Account has been posted to; hold balance sheet adjustment
Message no. F2067
Diagnosis
The open item account in which you want to change the reconciliation account has been posted to.
By changing the reconciliation account in the open item master record the proportionate values from the items open at the time of change are not posted to the new reconciliation account.
Procedure
On the balance sheet key date the open items from the old reconciliation account are allocated to the new reconciliation account using adjustment accounts. This allocation is carried out automatically when you create a sorted list of receivables and payables using report SAPF101.
The postings necessary are only carried out for G/L accounts and are cancelled on the first day of the subsequent month (balance sheet adjustment posting).
But on the contrary, when see the Customer Reports, and give the New Reconcilaition 102, I am getting all the transaction as theyb were with the Old Reco Account 101. I also made some dummy entries for sales and payments.
Please advice.
Thanks & Regards
Kanwaljit

Hi,
Sub ledger level you'll see all items.
But GL level, you can't see all items.
As you have posted few entries with old reconciliation account and remaining entries in new reconciliation account.
Also you can use program "SAPF101" to transfer the old gl balance to new gl. Please check the documentation in this transaction for functionality.
Rgds
Murali. N

Unable to change requested delivery date in the sales order at item level.

The issue is when I create order with one material (linked to network and project is created automatically in the background), I am able to change (in change mode) req delivery date for an item, but when I create order with 2 materials (linked to network and project is created automatically in the background), I can not change (in change mode) the req delivery date of any item. Req delivery date is then copied from the header req delivery date.
Is this a standard SAP functionality or a defect?

Req del date is the date requested by customer and can be changed at item level. Probably the confirmed date in the schedule line is derived from the network scheduling after ATP check. (ATP check is not activated in this case)
I am able to change the req del date at item level if there is only one item (Linked to network) and not when there are two line items (Both are linked to 2 diff networks belonging to same project)
I tried to change the date in the network, scheduled and saved but that didnt change the date in the sales order. On the contrary, if I run ATP check, netowrk dates get back to original dates derived from sales order.

On the contrary....

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for