Need Help !- [Apply] & [OK] buttons wont work in Report Manager

After installing RS, none of the [OK] or {apply] buttons work to make any
security or config changes.
When i click on them nothing at all happens.Do you have anonymous access enabled for the website. Report Manager does
not allow any administrative type functionality as anonymous.
Bruce Loehle-Conger
MVP SQL Server Reporting Services
"David J. Cartwright" <davidcartwright@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eaBXkQ84FHA.1864@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> After installing RS, none of the [OK] or {apply] buttons work to make any
> security or config changes.
> When i click on them nothing at all happens.
>
>|||No Anonymous allowed.
As a last troubleshooting step i did a default install of IIS, enabled
ASP.Net, Installed RS. Installed RS SP
I am running RS 2000, on Windows 2003
I need to make this work, anu other ideas ?
"Bruce L-C [MVP]" <bruce_lcNOSPAM@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uUDCIr84FHA.3416@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Do you have anonymous access enabled for the website. Report Manager does
> not allow any administrative type functionality as anonymous.
>
> --
> Bruce Loehle-Conger
> MVP SQL Server Reporting Services
> "David J. Cartwright" <davidcartwright@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:eaBXkQ84FHA.1864@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>> After installing RS, none of the [OK] or {apply] buttons work to make any
>> security or config changes.
>> When i click on them nothing at all happens.
>>
>|||By default the only user that has these rights have to be part of the
administors group on the server (the local group). You can have other
local/domain groups with a role to do this but you need to do it. Have you
tried from the server logged in as administrator (or as someone in the
administrators group?)
Bruce Loehle-Conger
MVP SQL Server Reporting Services
"David J. Cartwright" <davidcartwright@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:OA4GFv84FHA.2616@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> No Anonymous allowed.
> As a last troubleshooting step i did a default install of IIS, enabled
> ASP.Net, Installed RS. Installed RS SP
> I am running RS 2000, on Windows 2003
> I need to make this work, anu other ideas ?
> "Bruce L-C [MVP]" <bruce_lcNOSPAM@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:uUDCIr84FHA.3416@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>> Do you have anonymous access enabled for the website. Report Manager does
>> not allow any administrative type functionality as anonymous.
>>
>> --
>> Bruce Loehle-Conger
>> MVP SQL Server Reporting Services
>> "David J. Cartwright" <davidcartwright@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:eaBXkQ84FHA.1864@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>> After installing RS, none of the [OK] or {apply] buttons work to make
>> any security or config changes.
>> When i click on them nothing at all happens.
>>
>>
>|||I had the same problem and here's what I did to fix it. Apparently, my
IIS was configured so that the ASP_NET's webuivalidation.js wasn't able
to load. This somehow prevented any of the buttons on the ReportServer
to work.
And I fixed it based on the same advice given to you by Bruce here. I
think what he means you should TURN ON Anonymous access.
Give this a try...see if you can point your browser to:
http://your-root/aspnet_client/system_web/1_1_4322/WebUIValidation.js
and see if you can see it. (assuming you're using the same version
ASP.NET I am).
I fixed it by going into my IIS settings -> Directory Security -> and
checking the box "Anonymous Access."
David J. Cartwright wrote:
> No Anonymous allowed.
> As a last troubleshooting step i did a default install of IIS, enabled
> ASP.Net, Installed RS. Installed RS SP
> I am running RS 2000, on Windows 2003
> I need to make this work, anu other ideas ?
> "Bruce L-C [MVP]" <bruce_lcNOSPAM@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:uUDCIr84FHA.3416@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>>Do you have anonymous access enabled for the website. Report Manager does
>>not allow any administrative type functionality as anonymous.
>>
>>--
>>Bruce Loehle-Conger
>>MVP SQL Server Reporting Services
>>"David J. Cartwright" <davidcartwright@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:eaBXkQ84FHA.1864@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>>After installing RS, none of the [OK] or {apply] buttons work to make any
>>security or config changes.
>>When i click on them nothing at all happens.
>>
>>
>

Necessity.....

Installing multiple instances of SQL Server is really good.
Some one can tell me when exactly those situations arises.
SQL 2K.
Thanks,
Smith
I have 6 production environments. I have two test boxes, each with 3
instances of SQL. Same with staging. Just too costly for each test/ stage
environment to have its own box.
"Branden Smith" <BradSmith@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:OLToO%23LiFHA.3656@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Installing multiple instances of SQL Server is really good.
> Some one can tell me when exactly those situations arises.
> SQL 2K.
> Thanks,
> Smith
>
|||What is the necessity of having three instances of SQL Server on one box?
You create all the USER databases in one instance only. What we are gaining
by doing that approach? What is that we are missing by not going to multiple
instances?
Thanks,
Smith
"ChrisR" <noemail@.bla.com> wrote in message
news:eqxS2AMiFHA.1444@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> I have 6 production environments. I have two test boxes, each with 3
> instances of SQL. Same with staging. Just too costly for each test/ stage
> environment to have its own box.
>
> "Branden Smith" <BradSmith@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:OLToO%23LiFHA.3656@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>
|||For example, staging is supposed to be a mirror(or as close as possible) of
production. Not even close if only on 1 instance.
"Branden Smith" <BradSmith@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23xthHdMiFHA.2644@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> What is the necessity of having three instances of SQL Server on one box?
> You create all the USER databases in one instance only. What we are
> gaining
> by doing that approach? What is that we are missing by not going to
> multiple
> instances?
> Thanks,
> Smith
>
> "ChrisR" <noemail@.bla.com> wrote in message
> news:eqxS2AMiFHA.1444@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>

Necessity.....

Installing multiple instances of SQL Server is really good.
Some one can tell me when exactly those situations arises.
SQL 2K.
Thanks,
SmithI have 6 production environments. I have two test boxes, each with 3
instances of SQL. Same with staging. Just too costly for each test/ stage
environment to have its own box.
"Branden Smith" <BradSmith@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:OLToO%23LiFHA.3656@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Installing multiple instances of SQL Server is really good.
> Some one can tell me when exactly those situations arises.
> SQL 2K.
> Thanks,
> Smith
>|||What is the necessity of having three instances of SQL Server on one box?
You create all the USER databases in one instance only. What we are gaining
by doing that approach? What is that we are missing by not going to multiple
instances?
Thanks,
Smith
"ChrisR" <noemail@.bla.com> wrote in message
news:eqxS2AMiFHA.1444@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> I have 6 production environments. I have two test boxes, each with 3
> instances of SQL. Same with staging. Just too costly for each test/ stage
> environment to have its own box.
>
> "Branden Smith" <BradSmith@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:OLToO%23LiFHA.3656@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > Installing multiple instances of SQL Server is really good.
> > Some one can tell me when exactly those situations arises.
> > SQL 2K.
> > Thanks,
> > Smith
> >
> >
>|||For example, staging is supposed to be a mirror(or as close as possible) of
production. Not even close if only on 1 instance.
"Branden Smith" <BradSmith@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23xthHdMiFHA.2644@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> What is the necessity of having three instances of SQL Server on one box?
> You create all the USER databases in one instance only. What we are
> gaining
> by doing that approach? What is that we are missing by not going to
> multiple
> instances?
> Thanks,
> Smith
>
> "ChrisR" <noemail@.bla.com> wrote in message
> news:eqxS2AMiFHA.1444@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>> I have 6 production environments. I have two test boxes, each with 3
>> instances of SQL. Same with staging. Just too costly for each test/ stage
>> environment to have its own box.
>>
>> "Branden Smith" <BradSmith@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:OLToO%23LiFHA.3656@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>> > Installing multiple instances of SQL Server is really good.
>> > Some one can tell me when exactly those situations arises.
>> > SQL 2K.
>> > Thanks,
>> > Smith
>> >
>> >
>>
>

Necessity.....

Installing multiple instances of SQL Server is really good.
Some one can tell me when exactly those situations arises.
SQL 2K.
Thanks,
SmithI have 6 production environments. I have two test boxes, each with 3
instances of SQL. Same with staging. Just too costly for each test/ stage
environment to have its own box.
"Branden Smith" <BradSmith@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:OLToO%23LiFHA.3656@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Installing multiple instances of SQL Server is really good.
> Some one can tell me when exactly those situations arises.
> SQL 2K.
> Thanks,
> Smith
>|||What is the necessity of having three instances of SQL Server on one box?
You create all the USER databases in one instance only. What we are gaining
by doing that approach? What is that we are missing by not going to multiple
instances?
Thanks,
Smith
"ChrisR" <noemail@.bla.com> wrote in message
news:eqxS2AMiFHA.1444@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> I have 6 production environments. I have two test boxes, each with 3
> instances of SQL. Same with staging. Just too costly for each test/ stage
> environment to have its own box.
>
> "Branden Smith" <BradSmith@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:OLToO%23LiFHA.3656@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>|||For example, staging is supposed to be a mirror(or as close as possible) of
production. Not even close if only on 1 instance.
"Branden Smith" <BradSmith@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23xthHdMiFHA.2644@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> What is the necessity of having three instances of SQL Server on one box?
> You create all the USER databases in one instance only. What we are
> gaining
> by doing that approach? What is that we are missing by not going to
> multiple
> instances?
> Thanks,
> Smith
>
> "ChrisR" <noemail@.bla.com> wrote in message
> news:eqxS2AMiFHA.1444@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>