float point error

We are still seeing this error:
http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;818899
on the latest version of sqlserver2k :
select @.@.version
Microsoft SQL Server 2000 - 8.00.760 (Intel X86) Dec 17 2002 14:22:05
Copyright (c) 1988-2003 Microsoft Corporation Enterprise Edition on Windows
NT 5.0 (Build 2195: Service Pack 4)
Does anyone know when MS will release an official patch. Suposedly, the
have a dll then can give you but nothing official. This is kindof a pretty
bad bug to leave open.
> We are still seeing this error:
> http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;818899
Well, did you follow the instructions in the article, by contacting
Microsoft product support and obtaining the .807 hotfix (which is later than
the "latest version" of .760)? There is no fee for the call or the hotfix
itself if you demonstrate to them that you are affected by the issue the
hotfix fixes.
Otherwise, you can try to find later patches (e.g. see
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/sec.../ms03-031.mspx which
updates you to .818).
Barring those two actions, you will have to wait for SP4.

> This is kindof a pretty bad bug to leave open.
Well, that really depends on how many users it has affected, doesn't it?
http://www.aspfaq.com/
(Reverse address to reply.)
|||As you know, SQL Server QFEs are cumulative. The fix described in this
article is Build 2000.00.0807. The latest publicly available hot fix is
Build .0878, which would include a fix for this error.
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=838166
Also know that SP4 is currently in Beta testing and will include builds up
to .0972.
Sincerely,
Anthony Thomas

"Aaron [SQL Server MVP]" <ten.xoc@.dnartreb.noraa> wrote in message
news:OrJl5DOAFHA.824@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> We are still seeing this error:
> http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;818899
Well, did you follow the instructions in the article, by contacting
Microsoft product support and obtaining the .807 hotfix (which is later than
the "latest version" of .760)? There is no fee for the call or the hotfix
itself if you demonstrate to them that you are affected by the issue the
hotfix fixes.
Otherwise, you can try to find later patches (e.g. see
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/sec.../ms03-031.mspx which
updates you to .818).
Barring those two actions, you will have to wait for SP4.

> This is kindof a pretty bad bug to leave open.
Well, that really depends on how many users it has affected, doesn't it?
http://www.aspfaq.com/
(Reverse address to reply.)
|||> As you know, SQL Server QFEs are cumulative.
That is true until .977. For example, to install .993 on .760, you first
need to get to the .977 hotfix installer -- .993 won't install on < .977 (it
will complain about missing prerequisites).

> The fix described in this
> article is Build 2000.00.0807. The latest publicly available hot fix is
> Build .0878, which would include a fix for this error.
However, it is not always the best to just install the latest. He may
prefer to go through PSS, demonstrate that .807 is his issue, and fix that.
..878 might bring about other problems that he doesn't have time to fully
test. Sure, it might be more convenient to get a patch that is publicly
available, but I don't jump to the conclusion that it is absolutely the best
answer.

> Also know that SP4 is currently in Beta testing and will include builds up
> to .0972.
And then the numbering scheme jumps significantly (SP4 beta is .2026, yet
there are several .973+ hotfixes already available).
I'm still curious why they chose to break at .977 to use the new hotfix
installer, breaking the chain of cumulative hotfixes. It would have been a
much more logical break, IMHO, to wait for SP4 -- introduce the new hotfix
installer at a stable, fully tested service pack... <shrug>
A
|||Yes, I found this out with .0859. The biggest reason I jumped on .0878, it
seemed more stable.
I also noticed the large build increase on deploying the SP4 Beta (2026?)
However, from the fix list off of the beta description, it only includes
fixes through .0972 and I've seen KB listing all the way up to .1000 +. So,
I'm not sure how a Build including only fixes to the 972 level could be
labeled 2026. That's got me stumped. Not to mention that it bombs the
replication if you've already applied 878. I've got that thread running in
the Beta newsgroup.
Now, I wouldn't want to slam PSS, because they've been very helpful,
especially in crash circumstances; however, they have been known to push hot
fixes a little too eagerly as well. I figure once it has gone public, at
least, it has somewhat stabilized. But yes, I realize, that even SP level
code bases can introduce new bugs.
As always, thanks for your insight.
Sincerely,
Anthony Thomas

"Aaron [SQL Server MVP]" <ten.xoc@.dnartreb.noraa> wrote in message
news:%23zfCiKbAFHA.3940@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> As you know, SQL Server QFEs are cumulative.
That is true until .977. For example, to install .993 on .760, you first
need to get to the .977 hotfix installer -- .993 won't install on < .977 (it
will complain about missing prerequisites).

> The fix described in this
> article is Build 2000.00.0807. The latest publicly available hot fix is
> Build .0878, which would include a fix for this error.
However, it is not always the best to just install the latest. He may
prefer to go through PSS, demonstrate that .807 is his issue, and fix that.
..878 might bring about other problems that he doesn't have time to fully
test. Sure, it might be more convenient to get a patch that is publicly
available, but I don't jump to the conclusion that it is absolutely the best
answer.

> Also know that SP4 is currently in Beta testing and will include builds up
> to .0972.
And then the numbering scheme jumps significantly (SP4 beta is .2026, yet
there are several .973+ hotfixes already available).
I'm still curious why they chose to break at .977 to use the new hotfix
installer, breaking the chain of cumulative hotfixes. It would have been a
much more logical break, IMHO, to wait for SP4 -- introduce the new hotfix
installer at a stable, fully tested service pack... <shrug>
A
|||> Yes, I found this out with .0859. The biggest reason I jumped on .0878,
it
> seemed more stable.
I've heard many similar complaints.

> I also noticed the large build increase on deploying the SP4 Beta (2026?)
> However, from the fix list off of the beta description, it only includes
> fixes through .0972 and I've seen KB listing all the way up to .1000 +.
I'm not sure how they're going to deal with this (other than slip the other
fixes in before release). BTW, can you share any articles that are 1000+?
The highest I can find is .993 (and not using the pitiful on-again off-again
search at support.microsoft.com).
|||> I also noticed the large build increase on deploying the SP4 Beta (2026?)
> However, from the fix list off of the beta description, it only includes
> fixes through .0972 and I've seen KB listing all the way up to .1000 +.
So,
> I'm not sure how a Build including only fixes to the 972 level could be
> labeled 2026. That's got me stumped.
My guess is that the hotfixes that have been pushed since December 9th (when
2026 was forged) have been worked into both branches, and will be included
in SP4 when it goes live... what that means for the beta process, I'm not
sure... clearly we can't be testing everything right up to the point of
release, and we're already using a build that's behind on at least 6 unique
hotfixes so far.
A
|||Yea, I agree; they have to cut the beta release off at some point. I've
asked about the build number with no response though. I think it was a goof
but until I hear otherwise, we'll have to take it as they put it.
Anthony Thomas

"Aaron [SQL Server MVP]" <ten.xoc@.dnartreb.noraa> wrote in message
news:%23c8UxPcAFHA.3264@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> I also noticed the large build increase on deploying the SP4 Beta (2026?)
> However, from the fix list off of the beta description, it only includes
> fixes through .0972 and I've seen KB listing all the way up to .1000 +.
So,
> I'm not sure how a Build including only fixes to the 972 level could be
> labeled 2026. That's got me stumped.
My guess is that the hotfixes that have been pushed since December 9th (when
2026 was forged) have been worked into both branches, and will be included
in SP4 when it goes live... what that means for the beta process, I'm not
sure... clearly we can't be testing everything right up to the point of
release, and we're already using a build that's behind on at least 6 unique
hotfixes so far.
A
|||Yea, that's why I said .1000 +, I know I came across one article that listed
a .1193 or something like that and have been searching ever since but no
luck...yet.
I also came across a slip-steamed install for MSDE for the new, free MS ADS
(?) server. It's an SUS system for deploying patches to Server Systems. It
had a build of 8.00.0880 but can't find a build description or why it was
inserted into this installation. MS also slip-streamed SP3a, of course, and
MS03-031, individually, like 880 wouldn't install without it.
Anthony Thomas

"Aaron [SQL Server MVP]" <ten.xoc@.dnartreb.noraa> wrote in message
news:uCtTUMcAFHA.3088@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Yes, I found this out with .0859. The biggest reason I jumped on .0878,
it
> seemed more stable.
I've heard many similar complaints.

> I also noticed the large build increase on deploying the SP4 Beta (2026?)
> However, from the fix list off of the beta description, it only includes
> fixes through .0972 and I've seen KB listing all the way up to .1000 +.
I'm not sure how they're going to deal with this (other than slip the other
fixes in before release). BTW, can you share any articles that are 1000+?
The highest I can find is .993 (and not using the pitiful on-again off-again
search at support.microsoft.com).

float point error

We are still seeing this error:
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;818899
on the latest version of sqlserver2k :
select @.@.version
--
Microsoft SQL Server 2000 - 8.00.760 (Intel X86) Dec 17 2002 14:22:05
Copyright (c) 1988-2003 Microsoft Corporation Enterprise Edition on Windows
NT 5.0 (Build 2195: Service Pack 4)
Does anyone know when MS will release an official patch. Suposedly, the
have a dll then can give you but nothing official. This is kindof a pretty
bad bug to leave open.> We are still seeing this error:
> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;818899
Well, did you follow the instructions in the article, by contacting
Microsoft product support and obtaining the .807 hotfix (which is later than
the "latest version" of .760)? There is no fee for the call or the hotfix
itself if you demonstrate to them that you are affected by the issue the
hotfix fixes.
Otherwise, you can try to find later patches (e.g. see
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/ms03-031.mspx which
updates you to .818).
Barring those two actions, you will have to wait for SP4.
> This is kindof a pretty bad bug to leave open.
Well, that really depends on how many users it has affected, doesn't it?
--
http://www.aspfaq.com/
(Reverse address to reply.)|||As you know, SQL Server QFEs are cumulative. The fix described in this
article is Build 2000.00.0807. The latest publicly available hot fix is
Build .0878, which would include a fix for this error.
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=838166
Also know that SP4 is currently in Beta testing and will include builds up
to .0972.
Sincerely,
Anthony Thomas
"Aaron [SQL Server MVP]" <ten.xoc@.dnartreb.noraa> wrote in message
news:OrJl5DOAFHA.824@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> We are still seeing this error:
> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;818899
Well, did you follow the instructions in the article, by contacting
Microsoft product support and obtaining the .807 hotfix (which is later than
the "latest version" of .760)? There is no fee for the call or the hotfix
itself if you demonstrate to them that you are affected by the issue the
hotfix fixes.
Otherwise, you can try to find later patches (e.g. see
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/ms03-031.mspx which
updates you to .818).
Barring those two actions, you will have to wait for SP4.
> This is kindof a pretty bad bug to leave open.
Well, that really depends on how many users it has affected, doesn't it?
--
http://www.aspfaq.com/
(Reverse address to reply.)|||> As you know, SQL Server QFEs are cumulative.
That is true until .977. For example, to install .993 on .760, you first
need to get to the .977 hotfix installer -- .993 won't install on < .977 (it
will complain about missing prerequisites).
> The fix described in this
> article is Build 2000.00.0807. The latest publicly available hot fix is
> Build .0878, which would include a fix for this error.
However, it is not always the best to just install the latest. He may
prefer to go through PSS, demonstrate that .807 is his issue, and fix that.
.878 might bring about other problems that he doesn't have time to fully
test. Sure, it might be more convenient to get a patch that is publicly
available, but I don't jump to the conclusion that it is absolutely the best
answer.
> Also know that SP4 is currently in Beta testing and will include builds up
> to .0972.
And then the numbering scheme jumps significantly (SP4 beta is .2026, yet
there are several .973+ hotfixes already available).
I'm still curious why they chose to break at .977 to use the new hotfix
installer, breaking the chain of cumulative hotfixes. It would have been a
much more logical break, IMHO, to wait for SP4 -- introduce the new hotfix
installer at a stable, fully tested service pack... <shrug>
A|||Yes, I found this out with .0859. The biggest reason I jumped on .0878, it
seemed more stable.
I also noticed the large build increase on deploying the SP4 Beta (2026?)
However, from the fix list off of the beta description, it only includes
fixes through .0972 and I've seen KB listing all the way up to .1000 +. So,
I'm not sure how a Build including only fixes to the 972 level could be
labeled 2026. That's got me stumped. Not to mention that it bombs the
replication if you've already applied 878. I've got that thread running in
the Beta newsgroup.
Now, I wouldn't want to slam PSS, because they've been very helpful,
especially in crash circumstances; however, they have been known to push hot
fixes a little too eagerly as well. I figure once it has gone public, at
least, it has somewhat stabilized. But yes, I realize, that even SP level
code bases can introduce new bugs.
As always, thanks for your insight.
Sincerely,
Anthony Thomas
"Aaron [SQL Server MVP]" <ten.xoc@.dnartreb.noraa> wrote in message
news:%23zfCiKbAFHA.3940@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> As you know, SQL Server QFEs are cumulative.
That is true until .977. For example, to install .993 on .760, you first
need to get to the .977 hotfix installer -- .993 won't install on < .977 (it
will complain about missing prerequisites).
> The fix described in this
> article is Build 2000.00.0807. The latest publicly available hot fix is
> Build .0878, which would include a fix for this error.
However, it is not always the best to just install the latest. He may
prefer to go through PSS, demonstrate that .807 is his issue, and fix that.
.878 might bring about other problems that he doesn't have time to fully
test. Sure, it might be more convenient to get a patch that is publicly
available, but I don't jump to the conclusion that it is absolutely the best
answer.
> Also know that SP4 is currently in Beta testing and will include builds up
> to .0972.
And then the numbering scheme jumps significantly (SP4 beta is .2026, yet
there are several .973+ hotfixes already available).
I'm still curious why they chose to break at .977 to use the new hotfix
installer, breaking the chain of cumulative hotfixes. It would have been a
much more logical break, IMHO, to wait for SP4 -- introduce the new hotfix
installer at a stable, fully tested service pack... <shrug>
A|||> Yes, I found this out with .0859. The biggest reason I jumped on .0878,
it
> seemed more stable.
I've heard many similar complaints.
> I also noticed the large build increase on deploying the SP4 Beta (2026?)
> However, from the fix list off of the beta description, it only includes
> fixes through .0972 and I've seen KB listing all the way up to .1000 +.
I'm not sure how they're going to deal with this (other than slip the other
fixes in before release). BTW, can you share any articles that are 1000+?
The highest I can find is .993 (and not using the pitiful on-again off-again
search at support.microsoft.com).|||> I also noticed the large build increase on deploying the SP4 Beta (2026?)
> However, from the fix list off of the beta description, it only includes
> fixes through .0972 and I've seen KB listing all the way up to .1000 +.
So,
> I'm not sure how a Build including only fixes to the 972 level could be
> labeled 2026. That's got me stumped.
My guess is that the hotfixes that have been pushed since December 9th (when
2026 was forged) have been worked into both branches, and will be included
in SP4 when it goes live... what that means for the beta process, I'm not
sure... clearly we can't be testing everything right up to the point of
release, and we're already using a build that's behind on at least 6 unique
hotfixes so far.
A|||Yea, I agree; they have to cut the beta release off at some point. I've
asked about the build number with no response though. I think it was a goof
but until I hear otherwise, we'll have to take it as they put it.
Anthony Thomas
"Aaron [SQL Server MVP]" <ten.xoc@.dnartreb.noraa> wrote in message
news:%23c8UxPcAFHA.3264@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> I also noticed the large build increase on deploying the SP4 Beta (2026?)
> However, from the fix list off of the beta description, it only includes
> fixes through .0972 and I've seen KB listing all the way up to .1000 +.
So,
> I'm not sure how a Build including only fixes to the 972 level could be
> labeled 2026. That's got me stumped.
My guess is that the hotfixes that have been pushed since December 9th (when
2026 was forged) have been worked into both branches, and will be included
in SP4 when it goes live... what that means for the beta process, I'm not
sure... clearly we can't be testing everything right up to the point of
release, and we're already using a build that's behind on at least 6 unique
hotfixes so far.
A|||Yea, that's why I said .1000 +, I know I came across one article that listed
a .1193 or something like that and have been searching ever since but no
luck...yet.
I also came across a slip-steamed install for MSDE for the new, free MS ADS
(?) server. It's an SUS system for deploying patches to Server Systems. It
had a build of 8.00.0880 but can't find a build description or why it was
inserted into this installation. MS also slip-streamed SP3a, of course, and
MS03-031, individually, like 880 wouldn't install without it.
Anthony Thomas
"Aaron [SQL Server MVP]" <ten.xoc@.dnartreb.noraa> wrote in message
news:uCtTUMcAFHA.3088@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Yes, I found this out with .0859. The biggest reason I jumped on .0878,
it
> seemed more stable.
I've heard many similar complaints.
> I also noticed the large build increase on deploying the SP4 Beta (2026?)
> However, from the fix list off of the beta description, it only includes
> fixes through .0972 and I've seen KB listing all the way up to .1000 +.
I'm not sure how they're going to deal with this (other than slip the other
fixes in before release). BTW, can you share any articles that are 1000+?
The highest I can find is .993 (and not using the pitiful on-again off-again
search at support.microsoft.com).

FK Constraint question

I have two tables
GroupUsers and Alias

GroupUsers
-GroupId
-AliasId
-UserId

Alias
-AliasId
-UserId

When a user joins a Group he selects a default Alias for his group, so I have put a foreign key constraint from the groupusers table to the alias table.

Now, if an alias is delete, is there any way through a foreign key constraint to set the value to null because all I've seen is Cascade and No Action

A better solution I'm looking for would be a way to run a script that would use the value in the UserId column from the GroupUsers table to select the top alias from the Alias table with a corresponding UserId (if exists) and set it to that. I'm unsure as to if this solution is even possible.
SQL Server doesn't support the SQL standard to set a FK to NULL, you would need to implement this, or your other solution, using a DELETE trigger on the Alias table.|||We support the SET DEFAULT and SET NULL options in SQL Server 2005. So for now, you will have to implement the logic using SPs or trigger code.

fitting a report into a single page

hello guys,

i am making a report which views atleast 20 columns..and on the default font size it is being rendered which is in 11 it is impossible to print it in a single page..

i am just wondering if it is possible if during the exporting to pdf, is it possible to fit it in a single page by shrinking its contents into a size that will fit the page..

any help will be highly appreciated..

thanks in advance!

Yes. Simply define your page large enough to contain all of the columns. Then export to PDF and print using 'fit to page' option. Warning, the print may be VERY small, but it will scale and be readable on a high quality printer. Remember to increase the length of your page in ratio with the width.|||

ok ill try that one..so that means there is no way you can do it in the reporting services..it is manually done in the acrobat during printing phase isn't it?

anyway thanks for the reply..it really helps!

fitting a report into a single page

hello guys,

i am making a report which views atleast 20 columns..and on the default font size it is being rendered which is in 11 it is impossible to print it in a single page..

i am just wondering if it is possible if during the exporting to pdf, is it possible to fit it in a single page by shrinking its contents into a size that will fit the page..

any help will be highly appreciated..

thanks in advance!

Yes. Simply define your page large enough to contain all of the columns. Then export to PDF and print using 'fit to page' option. Warning, the print may be VERY small, but it will scale and be readable on a high quality printer. Remember to increase the length of your page in ratio with the width.|||

ok ill try that one..so that means there is no way you can do it in the reporting services..it is manually done in the acrobat during printing phase isn't it?

anyway thanks for the reply..it really helps!

first day of previous month date parameter

Hi,
Hope somebody can help.
I am looking for the code to place in the default value of a parameter wich
will give me the previous months first days date (i.e. last month would be
01/03/2005).
I already have code for the last day: =DateSerial(Year(Now), Month(Now), 0)
so something similar to this would be great.
Thanks in advance.
Paul=DateSerial(Year(DateAdd(DateInterval.Month, -1, Now)),
Month(DateAdd(DateInterval.Month, -1, Now)), 1)
Charles Kangai, MCDBA, MCT
"pcalv" wrote:
> Hi,
> Hope somebody can help.
> I am looking for the code to place in the default value of a parameter wich
> will give me the previous months first days date (i.e. last month would be
> 01/03/2005).
> I already have code for the last day: =DateSerial(Year(Now), Month(Now), 0)
> so something similar to this would be great.
> Thanks in advance.
> Paul|||That worked great, thanks for your help.
Paul
"Charles Kangai" wrote:
> =DateSerial(Year(DateAdd(DateInterval.Month, -1, Now)),
> Month(DateAdd(DateInterval.Month, -1, Now)), 1)
> Charles Kangai, MCDBA, MCT
> "pcalv" wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Hope somebody can help.
> >
> > I am looking for the code to place in the default value of a parameter wich
> > will give me the previous months first days date (i.e. last month would be
> > 01/03/2005).
> >
> > I already have code for the last day: =DateSerial(Year(Now), Month(Now), 0)
> > so something similar to this would be great.
> >
> > Thanks in advance.
> >
> > Paul

firewall ports open for tcp/ip connection on server

I would like to know what ports need to be open to access MS SQL via
TCP/IP, using W2k3 and SQL2005.
The default port is 1433. Any UDP openings. I want to use SqlManager on a
remote machine also.
Thanks
Harry
Hi Harry
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/287932 describes how to configure the
firewall.
John
"Harry" wrote:

> I would like to know what ports need to be open to access MS SQL via
> TCP/IP, using W2k3 and SQL2005.
> The default port is 1433. Any UDP openings. I want to use SqlManager on a
> remote machine also.
> Thanks
> Harry
>
>

firewall ports open for tcp/ip connection on server

I would like to know what ports need to be open to access MS SQL via
TCP/IP, using W2k3 and SQL2005.
The default port is 1433. Any UDP openings. I want to use SqlManager on a
remote machine also.
Thanks
HarryHi Harry
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/287932 describes how to configure the
firewall.
John
"Harry" wrote:

> I would like to know what ports need to be open to access MS SQL via
> TCP/IP, using W2k3 and SQL2005.
> The default port is 1433. Any UDP openings. I want to use SqlManager on a
> remote machine also.
> Thanks
> Harry
>
>

firewall ports open for tcp/ip connection on server

I would like to know what ports need to be open to access MS SQL via
TCP/IP, using W2k3 and SQL2005.
The default port is 1433. Any UDP openings. I want to use SqlManager on a
remote machine also.
Thanks
HarryHi Harry
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/287932 describes how to configure the
firewall.
John
"Harry" wrote:
> I would like to know what ports need to be open to access MS SQL via
> TCP/IP, using W2k3 and SQL2005.
> The default port is 1433. Any UDP openings. I want to use SqlManager on a
> remote machine also.
> Thanks
> Harry
>
>

Firefox vs IE, make RS always open in IE?

I use Firefox as my default browser on my development machine for
RS2005 with SS2005.
I solved the authentication problem by setting IE to Tools, Security,
Intranet to User Authentication, Logon, all the way down at the bottom
of the list to Automatic logon with current user name and password.
BUT I still get the rendering errors...reports don't look right, etc.,
I have not seen any fixes in this list.
Is it possible for me to make the Reports and ReportServer sites on my
dev box to always open in IE and not in Firefox'
Thank you, TomI also use Firefox, I use the IE View extension to always view in IE.
Unfortunatelly for me our web app will also support Firefox and the reports
go along with that. Microsoft RS does not support Firefox and I haven't
seen any thing that states that they plan to. I think there are two main
issues, the Chart height and table column widths. We don't have the chart
height issue because we use Dundas and they don't appear to have the same
problem...which is kind of interesting since they also write the native
chart in RS. They are forced into using the custom control set of
interfaces which means they have image quality issues due to the limitations
in RS, but for this matter they are better. The other problem we have been
able to fix with the empty wide textbox scattered above tables. This idea
comes from the notes from Jon Galloway in the link below.
Thanks,
Steve MunLeeuw
Here are my notes:
Hi Max,
Thank you for using MSDN Managed Newsgroup Support.
I understand that your report does not show the right format in Firefox
browser.
Unfortunately, Microsoft does not support any browsers other than Internet
Explorer. All the Render Extension in Reporting Services are developed
against IE. So there is no way to guarantee that Reporting Services will
perform well with other browsers.
Please understand that we don't have an environment to reproduce and
troubleshoot your issue, but please feel free to involve me during the
process of contacting third-party support, I am glad to provide any
information.
Sincerely,
Wei Lu
Microsoft Online Community Support
/* Fix report IFRAME height for Firefox */
.DocMapAndReportFrame
{
min-height: 860px;
}
--removed .css fix from dev
machinehttp://weblogs.asp.net/jgalloway/archive/2006/09/01/SQL-Reporting-Services-_2D00_-CSS-fix-for-Firefox.aspx
"tlyczko" <tlyczko@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1161702061.967677.79830@.e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>I use Firefox as my default browser on my development machine for
> RS2005 with SS2005.
> I solved the authentication problem by setting IE to Tools, Security,
> Intranet to User Authentication, Logon, all the way down at the bottom
> of the list to Automatic logon with current user name and password.
> BUT I still get the rendering errors...reports don't look right, etc.,
> I have not seen any fixes in this list.
> Is it possible for me to make the Reports and ReportServer sites on my
> dev box to always open in IE and not in Firefox'
> Thank you, Tom
>