help with 1756 enbt ethernet card

Hello ok here is what i have im running rs logixs 5000 and have two racks connected thur two 1756 enbt/a enther net cards about a month ago i lost rack 0 1756 card that was a version 3.9 and replaced it with a version 4.007 system is running fine problem is now on the opertor interface of machine i can not get on line with the plc that is in rack 0
rs links shows a yellow ? mark but i can still see rack 1 and aux equipment that are a slc 5/05 and a panel veiw 1200 plus just fine and when i hook my lap top up i see every thing just fine and can get on line with everything thur lap top the diffence between the laptop and the opertor interfaces are laptop is running rs links classic pro. and intface has rs links classic lite and lap top is running rs logixs 5000 v 15.02 and interface has rs logix 5000 v15.01 and also when i set the parmeters for the new card i set it as ver. 4.7 instead of 4.007 i do not know if this could be issue any help would be much appeciated if im not clear enough please let me know infomation you need thanks this is second time to post and i only got one reply

If you are seeing a yellow mark in rslinx then that means that you do not have the proper eds file for that specific card. You can upload the eds file from the enbt card itself through rslinx. Just right click the module in rslinx and left click upload eds file. Hope this helps

Re: the version issues....

"4.7 instead of 4.007"

Some software packages insist on showing leading zeros, I don't know why, and we all know it can cause confusion....

.007 is the same as .7 to me as far as revision numbering goes. I would also like to see some consistency in the industry in the way Major/Minor revision numbers are displayed.

daba said:

Re: the version issues....

"4.7 instead of 4.007"

Some

Click to expand...

a/b

daba said:

software packages insist on showing leading zeros, I don't know why, and we all know it can cause confusion....

.007 is the same as .7 to me as far as revision numbering goes.

Click to expand...

This is wrong. Not you, daba, but for us to surrender to sloppiness. I have not seen this issue with anyone but Rockwell.

ab said:

I would also like to see some consistency in the industry in the way Major/Minor revision numbers are displayed.

Click to expand...

I would just like to see A/B get them all to stop changing for a year or so. I don't care how you name them but:
15.02 != 15.2
.