Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Bacula\-users\]\s+Windows\s+UEFI\s+Version\s+5\.2\.10\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Bacula\-users\]\s+Windows\s+UEFI\s+Version\s+5\.2\.10\s*$/: 3 ]

Total 3 documents matching your query.

1. [Bacula-users] Windows UEFI Version 5.2.10 (score: 1): Author: paul22 <bacula-forum AT backupcentral DOT com>; Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2015 05:58:54 -0700; Hello, I would need your help on the Windows Binaries (Version 5.2.10). Is it compatible with Windows 7, 8.1, 2012 R2 64-bit UEFI, since I can?t do my backups. Finally, to be clearer for the Windows; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/Bacula-users/2015-07/msg00114.html (11,599 bytes)
2. Re: [Bacula-users] Windows UEFI Version 5.2.10 (score: 1): Author: Gary Dale <garydale AT torfree DOT net>; Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 23:32:48 -0400; I'm not sure what you mean about UEFI compatibility. I'm running the 5.2.10 binaries on Windows 7/Pro 64bit without any problem. I'm not an expert on UEFI but I don't see how that even comes into it.; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/Bacula-users/2015-07/msg00115.html (11,993 bytes)
3. Re: [Bacula-users] Windows UEFI Version 5.2.10 (score: 1): Author: Kern Sibbald <kern AT sibbald DOT com>; Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 08:29:33 +0200; Perhaps the user is referring to EFS, which is not supported by the 5.2.10 binaries. However, the 7.0.5 version probably does support EFS, though I haven't actually tested it in production. Best rega; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/Bacula-users/2015-07/msg00118.html (12,956 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 3
Page: [1]