I can definitely understand the gripe. However, I think I should have the option of installing something in an unsupported fashion, if I that's how the risk/reward equation balances out for me.
For those submitting RFEs, please consider also mentioning a "--unsupported" or "--noprereqcheck" for folks who have absolutely have no other choice. Thanks. On 9/16/2013 8:23 AM, Prather, Wanda wrote:
I agree it shouldn't be that way. Anybody ever put in an RFE for that? -----Original Message----- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU] On Behalf Of Zoltan Forray Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 9:34 AM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: [ADSM-L] Windows Clients and Non-Supported OS Levels This is mostly a gripe at IBM.......... Why do the Windows clients allow themselves to be installed on non-supported OS/levels? or at least issue warnings? My Windows folks (yes, they are being lazy and not reading all the readme/docs), are constantly installing miss-matched/not supported clients (i.e. 6.4 on W2K3 servers, which is not supported per http://www-01.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=swg21197133). Then of course, they can not be downleveled. When someone contacts me about issues with their client/backups and I say "not supported combination of OS and TSM client level", their response is, " *then why did it let me install it if it isn't supported on this OS*" -- *Zoltan Forray* TSM Software & Hardware Administrator Virginia Commonwealth University UCC/Office of Technology Services zfor...@vcu.edu - 804-828-4807 Don't be a phishing victim - VCU and other reputable organizations will never use email to request that you reply with your password, social security number or confidential personal information. For more details visit http://infosecurity.vcu.edu/phishing.html
