Networked Office

[Cary Shultz [A.D. MVP]]

Sarah,

You think that this is very inefficient? Come on....

I have absolutely no understanding of your point of reference. What do you
want? We are not avoiding any issues. I see no issues whatsoever with
installing software via GPO at all. In fact, this ( deploying applications
via GPO ) is a God-send. Maybe you are atheist, I do not know ;-)

And you have stated in other parts of this post that you are not worried
about the network being clogged as you have a Giga Ethernet network. This
was an argument that you used to support your proposed setup. Yet, in your
response to my suggestion about installing via GPO you state that you do not
want to clog up the network. So, which one is it? You say one thing in one
part of the post and then completely contradict it in another...

It looks like you choose a bad solution when you did not yet know what the
options were. In English we say that you painted yourself into a corner.

Cary



PS. MVP stands for Microsoft Most Valuable Professional

I think this is very inefficient. Why can I install my apps on a disk in my
server and mount that disk on my workstation and execute the exe file from
there.

If I need to upgrade, all I have to do is upgrade the server and those 10(or
100 workstation) will get updated instantly without clogging up the network
for transferring files between the server and those 10(or 100) client
workstation.

I think you all know what I'm talking about but most of your MVP[Microsoft
....] are avoding the issues.

Please ....

Sarah,

I might jump in here for a second.

First of all, the idea of a Terminal Server is generally a really good idea.
I have been using Terminal Server for the last 15 months or so and it is
generally a great thing. As Kevin mentioned, you can no longer install
Terminal Server in Application Mode ( err, that is the WIN2000
terminology.... ) on the SBS2003 Server itself. There are some very good
reasons for this. You would need a second server that would be the Terminal
Server. On SBS2000 you can indeed do this - but again, not generally a good
idea to run Terminal Server in Application Mode on a Domain Controller....

However, since you have powerful workstations, you have a really good point
/ question as to why do you would want to turn them into thin clients. I
would probably not want to do that! Du hast schon das Geld ausgegeben!

Secondly, you can indeed make an Administrative Installation of Office 2003
on your Server and install that application on each workstation from that
Admin Installation. The advantages of doing this are 1) you have a common,
accessible installation point and 2) you do not have to worry about losing
the Office 2003 CD! However, the disadvantage of doing this ( compared to
my next suggestion ) is that when you want to update the clients ( sagen
wir, dass Microsoft Office 2003 SP1 liefiert ) you have the problem of
updating each client - this usually involves uninstalling Office 2003 from
each client ( you could use the utility from the Office 2003 Resource

Kit

to
do this! ) and then running the installation on each workstation. Sure, you
could probably do this via a logon script, but you still have the
administrative overhead ( you have to write the additional lines in the
logon script and make sure that it is run on each machine and then rem out
the additional lines in the logon script ). So, with this solution you have
a really nicely located Administrative Installation Point that you can
nicely keep up to date but you have the problem on the workstations.

So, I would suggest to you that you take a good long look at using Group
Policy to install Office 2003 to all of your computers ( or users ). You
simply make that one Administrative Installation Point ( via setup.exe
/a ) - which you can still update when security patches are releases or when
a Service Pack is released - and you have the ability to very quickly and
without much administrative overhead install this to your clients and - here
comes a really neat point - easily and quickly update the clients when those
security patches or Service Packs are released. Additionally, if you make
use of the Office 2003 Resource Kit you can create .mst files ( aka
Transforms files ) that will allow you to customize the installation ( say
that Heinz and Hans get Excel, Word and Outlook while Ulrike and Petra get
PowerPoint, Word and Outlook ). Furthermore, you can set a lot of the
options via a GPO that will ensure that all of your users have the settings
that they need. You will not have to go to each computer and make sure that
all of those specific settings are properly configured. Do it via the GPO
and there you have it! Also, you can control it so that your clients can
not go to the officeupdate.microsoft.com and make untested updates to the
Office 2003 installation. This is a really nice feature as well.....

Sarah, Du kannst Dich gerne an mich wenden solltest Du Fragen ueber das
Group Policy Object haben....

HTH,

Cary

an

a a
way

 

[Cary Shultz [A.D. MVP]]

Sarah,

You think that this is very inefficient? Come on....

I have absolutely no understanding of your point of reference. What do you
want? We are not avoiding any issues. I see no issues whatsoever with
installing software via GPO at all. In fact, this ( deploying applications
via GPO ) is a God-send. Maybe you are atheist, I do not know ;-)

And you have stated in other parts of this post that you are not worried
about the network being clogged as you have a Giga Ethernet network. This
was an argument that you used to support your proposed setup. Yet, in your
response to my suggestion about installing via GPO you state that you do not
want to clog up the network. So, which one is it? You say one thing in one
part of the post and then completely contradict it in another...

It looks like you choose a bad solution when you did not yet know what the
options were. In English we say that you painted yourself into a corner.

Cary



PS. MVP stands for Microsoft Most Valuable Professional

I think this is very inefficient. Why can I install my apps on a disk in my
server and mount that disk on my workstation and execute the exe file from
there.

If I need to upgrade, all I have to do is upgrade the server and those 10(or
100 workstation) will get updated instantly without clogging up the network
for transferring files between the server and those 10(or 100) client
workstation.

I think you all know what I'm talking about but most of your MVP[Microsoft
....] are avoding the issues.

Please ....

Sarah,

I might jump in here for a second.

First of all, the idea of a Terminal Server is generally a really good idea.
I have been using Terminal Server for the last 15 months or so and it is
generally a great thing. As Kevin mentioned, you can no longer install
Terminal Server in Application Mode ( err, that is the WIN2000
terminology.... ) on the SBS2003 Server itself. There are some very good
reasons for this. You would need a second server that would be the Terminal
Server. On SBS2000 you can indeed do this - but again, not generally a good
idea to run Terminal Server in Application Mode on a Domain Controller....

However, since you have powerful workstations, you have a really good point
/ question as to why do you would want to turn them into thin clients. I
would probably not want to do that! Du hast schon das Geld ausgegeben!

Secondly, you can indeed make an Administrative Installation of Office 2003
on your Server and install that application on each workstation from that
Admin Installation. The advantages of doing this are 1) you have a common,
accessible installation point and 2) you do not have to worry about losing
the Office 2003 CD! However, the disadvantage of doing this ( compared to
my next suggestion ) is that when you want to update the clients ( sagen
wir, dass Microsoft Office 2003 SP1 liefiert ) you have the problem of
updating each client - this usually involves uninstalling Office 2003 from
each client ( you could use the utility from the Office 2003 Resource

Kit

to
do this! ) and then running the installation on each workstation. Sure, you
could probably do this via a logon script, but you still have the
administrative overhead ( you have to write the additional lines in the
logon script and make sure that it is run on each machine and then rem out
the additional lines in the logon script ). So, with this solution you have
a really nicely located Administrative Installation Point that you can
nicely keep up to date but you have the problem on the workstations.

So, I would suggest to you that you take a good long look at using Group
Policy to install Office 2003 to all of your computers ( or users ). You
simply make that one Administrative Installation Point ( via setup.exe
/a ) - which you can still update when security patches are releases or when
a Service Pack is released - and you have the ability to very quickly and
without much administrative overhead install this to your clients and - here
comes a really neat point - easily and quickly update the clients when those
security patches or Service Packs are released. Additionally, if you make
use of the Office 2003 Resource Kit you can create .mst files ( aka
Transforms files ) that will allow you to customize the installation ( say
that Heinz and Hans get Excel, Word and Outlook while Ulrike and Petra get
PowerPoint, Word and Outlook ). Furthermore, you can set a lot of the
options via a GPO that will ensure that all of your users have the settings
that they need. You will not have to go to each computer and make sure that
all of those specific settings are properly configured. Do it via the GPO
and there you have it! Also, you can control it so that your clients can
not go to the officeupdate.microsoft.com and make untested updates to the
Office 2003 installation. This is a really nice feature as well.....

Sarah, Du kannst Dich gerne an mich wenden solltest Du Fragen ueber das
Group Policy Object haben....

HTH,

Cary

an

a a
way

 

[Cary Shultz [A.D. MVP]]

Sarah,

You think that this is very inefficient? Come on....

I have absolutely no understanding of your point of reference. What do you
want? We are not avoiding any issues. I see no issues whatsoever with
installing software via GPO at all. In fact, this ( deploying applications
via GPO ) is a God-send. Maybe you are atheist, I do not know ;-)

And you have stated in other parts of this post that you are not worried
about the network being clogged as you have a Giga Ethernet network. This
was an argument that you used to support your proposed setup. Yet, in your
response to my suggestion about installing via GPO you state that you do not
want to clog up the network. So, which one is it? You say one thing in one
part of the post and then completely contradict it in another...

It looks like you choose a bad solution when you did not yet know what the
options were. In English we say that you painted yourself into a corner.

Cary



PS. MVP stands for Microsoft Most Valuable Professional

I think this is very inefficient. Why can I install my apps on a disk in my
server and mount that disk on my workstation and execute the exe file from
there.

If I need to upgrade, all I have to do is upgrade the server and those 10(or
100 workstation) will get updated instantly without clogging up the network
for transferring files between the server and those 10(or 100) client
workstation.

I think you all know what I'm talking about but most of your MVP[Microsoft
....] are avoding the issues.

Please ....

Sarah,

I might jump in here for a second.

First of all, the idea of a Terminal Server is generally a really good idea.
I have been using Terminal Server for the last 15 months or so and it is
generally a great thing. As Kevin mentioned, you can no longer install
Terminal Server in Application Mode ( err, that is the WIN2000
terminology.... ) on the SBS2003 Server itself. There are some very good
reasons for this. You would need a second server that would be the Terminal
Server. On SBS2000 you can indeed do this - but again, not generally a good
idea to run Terminal Server in Application Mode on a Domain Controller....

However, since you have powerful workstations, you have a really good point
/ question as to why do you would want to turn them into thin clients. I
would probably not want to do that! Du hast schon das Geld ausgegeben!

Secondly, you can indeed make an Administrative Installation of Office 2003
on your Server and install that application on each workstation from that
Admin Installation. The advantages of doing this are 1) you have a common,
accessible installation point and 2) you do not have to worry about losing
the Office 2003 CD! However, the disadvantage of doing this ( compared to
my next suggestion ) is that when you want to update the clients ( sagen
wir, dass Microsoft Office 2003 SP1 liefiert ) you have the problem of
updating each client - this usually involves uninstalling Office 2003 from
each client ( you could use the utility from the Office 2003 Resource

Kit

to
do this! ) and then running the installation on each workstation. Sure, you
could probably do this via a logon script, but you still have the
administrative overhead ( you have to write the additional lines in the
logon script and make sure that it is run on each machine and then rem out
the additional lines in the logon script ). So, with this solution you have
a really nicely located Administrative Installation Point that you can
nicely keep up to date but you have the problem on the workstations.

So, I would suggest to you that you take a good long look at using Group
Policy to install Office 2003 to all of your computers ( or users ). You
simply make that one Administrative Installation Point ( via setup.exe
/a ) - which you can still update when security patches are releases or when
a Service Pack is released - and you have the ability to very quickly and
without much administrative overhead install this to your clients and - here
comes a really neat point - easily and quickly update the clients when those
security patches or Service Packs are released. Additionally, if you make
use of the Office 2003 Resource Kit you can create .mst files ( aka
Transforms files ) that will allow you to customize the installation ( say
that Heinz and Hans get Excel, Word and Outlook while Ulrike and Petra get
PowerPoint, Word and Outlook ). Furthermore, you can set a lot of the
options via a GPO that will ensure that all of your users have the settings
that they need. You will not have to go to each computer and make sure that
all of those specific settings are properly configured. Do it via the GPO
and there you have it! Also, you can control it so that your clients can
not go to the officeupdate.microsoft.com and make untested updates to the
Office 2003 installation. This is a really nice feature as well.....

Sarah, Du kannst Dich gerne an mich wenden solltest Du Fragen ueber das
Group Policy Object haben....

HTH,

Cary

an

a a
way

 

[Susan Bradley, CPA aka Ebitz - SBS Rocks [MVP]]

Install the Office on the workstations, save the files on the server.

If you have powerful workstations that would be the better solution anyway.

Hi Kevin, as stated on my previous email. I have a very powerful server and
workstation. For ease of administration, why would I purchase another
terminal server licenses if there are such solution(which in my mind it is
very easy to implement in a client-server environment)
where make use the power of the workstation.

By using the terminal services, we are adding another cost of terminal
services license and the server does not scale well for active users.

The solution I propose(I'm sure that you know what I'm talking about) we
are make use what we have now(powerful workstation) to run an app from a
file server. Its just as simple as that.

Sarah,

There's different solutions available to fit different needs. By your post
it appears that you bought your solution before determining your needs. If
your need and desire is to administer a single installation of Office for
all of your users, then Terminal Services is a valid solution.

Is this against MS idealogy? Not in my mind, since there are many, many
companies, both large and small, that have installed Terminal Services as
a

solution. As with all needs/solutions, you weight the benefits, the pros
and

cons, and make the best choice possible.

You say it's not economical. But compared to what? It appears that you
consider the time and cost of administrative overhead in maintaining,
upgrading, and patching standard PC's with individual copies of Windows
and

Office installed on each PC to be a high priority issue. So, if you can
reduce the overhead and hassle of administering such a network, then
you've

answered your own question: yes, it's economical.

Don't know what you mean by claiming that Microsoft is still ironing out
how

to implement such a solution. I previously managed the IT dept for a large
health care facility that has over 200 users operating on Microsoft
Windows

Terminal Server. You want to talk about economical? You want to talk about
redundancy? You want to talk about ease of administering such network? You
want to talk about implementing new security policies?

No, a TS environment is not for all ... but don't just knock it ... it is
a

valid solution for those with the need of such a solution.

--
Kevin Weilbacher [SBS-MVP]
"The days pass by so quickly now, the nights are seldom long"

Thanks Kevin. Unfortunately the terminal services are out of the

question.

We have pretty powerful workstation and server, why would I use my
workstation
as a terminal(Isn't this goes again MS ideology)?

Secondly, why would I pay an additional license for each workstation
to access the terminal server. It is just not economical.

Or perhaps Microsoft is still ironing-out on how to implement this this
type

of
technology(networked-multi-user-multi-task-apps)?

Thanks



Sarah, what you have described is called 'Windows Terminal Server'.

You

are

right about the fact that by installing Office on one system, and
letting

everyone access it reduces administrative issues. But, SBS2003 does

not

allow you to configure Terminal Server on the SBS server itself. You

can

add

a separate system to act as a terminal server alongside your SBS

server.

The

temrinal server would house your Office apps, and your SBS server

would

handle Exchange/email, Internet access, and file/print services.

--
Kevin Weilbacher [SBS-MVP]
"The days pass by so quickly now, the nights are seldom long"



I'm trying to use my server as a file server, where I will store all
the

Office executable. If MS so willing, then they can tell us what
registry

setting on the local machine has to change so each of my workstation
can

run

office apps, e.g. MS Word, Excel, and other, right from their

workstation?

Is it a technology issues that prevent this to happen? What's the

big

problem since other OSes can handle multi-user apps?

Imagine if I can do that, everytime the workstation crashed and

corrupted

the disk, all I have to do is install the os, mount the directory
where

office reside, and voile ... it's back up again. Also, when the

office

need

upgrade, all I have to do is to upgrade the one on the server and
again,

those 10(or for that matter 100K)workstation has their office
upgraded!

Any ideas?





I think you have the option upon installing if you want to install

Office

to

a server, but I am thinking if you have 10 users it is going to

slow

down

your server badly. Is there a particular reason you dont want to

install

on

the workstations? You can setup admin install of office to install

just

like

Outlook installs on SBS client upon connection.



Is it possible to run office from a server?

We just purchased 10 brand new PC with Windows XP Pro
Pre-installed,

an

a

server with ample of memory and disk space.

We also purchase a 15-user license of Microsoft Office 2003

Professional.

Instead of installing MS Office 2003 on all the workstation, is

there

a

way

to run Office from a server?

I know of the terminal services/citrix way but that is out of

the

question

as it will add cost per client.

Thanks

 

[Susan Bradley, CPA aka Ebitz - SBS Rocks [MVP]]

Install the Office on the workstations, save the files on the server.

If you have powerful workstations that would be the better solution anyway.

Hi Kevin, as stated on my previous email. I have a very powerful server and
workstation. For ease of administration, why would I purchase another
terminal server licenses if there are such solution(which in my mind it is
very easy to implement in a client-server environment)
where make use the power of the workstation.

By using the terminal services, we are adding another cost of terminal
services license and the server does not scale well for active users.

The solution I propose(I'm sure that you know what I'm talking about) we
are make use what we have now(powerful workstation) to run an app from a
file server. Its just as simple as that.

Sarah,

There's different solutions available to fit different needs. By your post
it appears that you bought your solution before determining your needs. If
your need and desire is to administer a single installation of Office for
all of your users, then Terminal Services is a valid solution.

Is this against MS idealogy? Not in my mind, since there are many, many
companies, both large and small, that have installed Terminal Services as
a

solution. As with all needs/solutions, you weight the benefits, the pros
and

cons, and make the best choice possible.

You say it's not economical. But compared to what? It appears that you
consider the time and cost of administrative overhead in maintaining,
upgrading, and patching standard PC's with individual copies of Windows
and

Office installed on each PC to be a high priority issue. So, if you can
reduce the overhead and hassle of administering such a network, then
you've

answered your own question: yes, it's economical.

Don't know what you mean by claiming that Microsoft is still ironing out
how

to implement such a solution. I previously managed the IT dept for a large
health care facility that has over 200 users operating on Microsoft
Windows

Terminal Server. You want to talk about economical? You want to talk about
redundancy? You want to talk about ease of administering such network? You
want to talk about implementing new security policies?

No, a TS environment is not for all ... but don't just knock it ... it is
a

valid solution for those with the need of such a solution.

--
Kevin Weilbacher [SBS-MVP]
"The days pass by so quickly now, the nights are seldom long"

Thanks Kevin. Unfortunately the terminal services are out of the

question.

We have pretty powerful workstation and server, why would I use my
workstation
as a terminal(Isn't this goes again MS ideology)?

Secondly, why would I pay an additional license for each workstation
to access the terminal server. It is just not economical.

Or perhaps Microsoft is still ironing-out on how to implement this this
type

of
technology(networked-multi-user-multi-task-apps)?

Thanks



Sarah, what you have described is called 'Windows Terminal Server'.

You

are

right about the fact that by installing Office on one system, and
letting

everyone access it reduces administrative issues. But, SBS2003 does

not

allow you to configure Terminal Server on the SBS server itself. You

can

add

a separate system to act as a terminal server alongside your SBS

server.

The

temrinal server would house your Office apps, and your SBS server

would

handle Exchange/email, Internet access, and file/print services.

--
Kevin Weilbacher [SBS-MVP]
"The days pass by so quickly now, the nights are seldom long"



I'm trying to use my server as a file server, where I will store all
the

Office executable. If MS so willing, then they can tell us what
registry

setting on the local machine has to change so each of my workstation
can

run

office apps, e.g. MS Word, Excel, and other, right from their

workstation?

Is it a technology issues that prevent this to happen? What's the

big

problem since other OSes can handle multi-user apps?

Imagine if I can do that, everytime the workstation crashed and

corrupted

the disk, all I have to do is install the os, mount the directory
where

office reside, and voile ... it's back up again. Also, when the

office

need

upgrade, all I have to do is to upgrade the one on the server and
again,

those 10(or for that matter 100K)workstation has their office
upgraded!

Any ideas?





I think you have the option upon installing if you want to install

Office

to

a server, but I am thinking if you have 10 users it is going to

slow

down

your server badly. Is there a particular reason you dont want to

install

on

the workstations? You can setup admin install of office to install

just

like

Outlook installs on SBS client upon connection.



Is it possible to run office from a server?

We just purchased 10 brand new PC with Windows XP Pro
Pre-installed,

an

a

server with ample of memory and disk space.

We also purchase a 15-user license of Microsoft Office 2003

Professional.

Instead of installing MS Office 2003 on all the workstation, is

there

a

way

to run Office from a server?

I know of the terminal services/citrix way but that is out of

the

question

as it will add cost per client.

Thanks

 

[Susan Bradley, CPA aka Ebitz - SBS Rocks [MVP]]

Install the Office on the workstations, save the files on the server.

If you have powerful workstations that would be the better solution anyway.

Hi Kevin, as stated on my previous email. I have a very powerful server and
workstation. For ease of administration, why would I purchase another
terminal server licenses if there are such solution(which in my mind it is
very easy to implement in a client-server environment)
where make use the power of the workstation.

By using the terminal services, we are adding another cost of terminal
services license and the server does not scale well for active users.

The solution I propose(I'm sure that you know what I'm talking about) we
are make use what we have now(powerful workstation) to run an app from a
file server. Its just as simple as that.

Sarah,

There's different solutions available to fit different needs. By your post
it appears that you bought your solution before determining your needs. If
your need and desire is to administer a single installation of Office for
all of your users, then Terminal Services is a valid solution.

Is this against MS idealogy? Not in my mind, since there are many, many
companies, both large and small, that have installed Terminal Services as
a

solution. As with all needs/solutions, you weight the benefits, the pros
and

cons, and make the best choice possible.

You say it's not economical. But compared to what? It appears that you
consider the time and cost of administrative overhead in maintaining,
upgrading, and patching standard PC's with individual copies of Windows
and

Office installed on each PC to be a high priority issue. So, if you can
reduce the overhead and hassle of administering such a network, then
you've

answered your own question: yes, it's economical.

Don't know what you mean by claiming that Microsoft is still ironing out
how

to implement such a solution. I previously managed the IT dept for a large
health care facility that has over 200 users operating on Microsoft
Windows

Terminal Server. You want to talk about economical? You want to talk about
redundancy? You want to talk about ease of administering such network? You
want to talk about implementing new security policies?

No, a TS environment is not for all ... but don't just knock it ... it is
a

valid solution for those with the need of such a solution.

--
Kevin Weilbacher [SBS-MVP]
"The days pass by so quickly now, the nights are seldom long"

Thanks Kevin. Unfortunately the terminal services are out of the

question.

We have pretty powerful workstation and server, why would I use my
workstation
as a terminal(Isn't this goes again MS ideology)?

Secondly, why would I pay an additional license for each workstation
to access the terminal server. It is just not economical.

Or perhaps Microsoft is still ironing-out on how to implement this this
type

of
technology(networked-multi-user-multi-task-apps)?

Thanks



Sarah, what you have described is called 'Windows Terminal Server'.

You

are

right about the fact that by installing Office on one system, and
letting

everyone access it reduces administrative issues. But, SBS2003 does

not

allow you to configure Terminal Server on the SBS server itself. You

can

add

a separate system to act as a terminal server alongside your SBS

server.

The

temrinal server would house your Office apps, and your SBS server

would

handle Exchange/email, Internet access, and file/print services.

--
Kevin Weilbacher [SBS-MVP]
"The days pass by so quickly now, the nights are seldom long"



I'm trying to use my server as a file server, where I will store all
the

Office executable. If MS so willing, then they can tell us what
registry

setting on the local machine has to change so each of my workstation
can

run

office apps, e.g. MS Word, Excel, and other, right from their

workstation?

Is it a technology issues that prevent this to happen? What's the

big

problem since other OSes can handle multi-user apps?

Imagine if I can do that, everytime the workstation crashed and

corrupted

the disk, all I have to do is install the os, mount the directory
where

office reside, and voile ... it's back up again. Also, when the

office

need

upgrade, all I have to do is to upgrade the one on the server and
again,

those 10(or for that matter 100K)workstation has their office
upgraded!

Any ideas?





I think you have the option upon installing if you want to install

Office

to

a server, but I am thinking if you have 10 users it is going to

slow

down

your server badly. Is there a particular reason you dont want to

install

on

the workstations? You can setup admin install of office to install

just

like

Outlook installs on SBS client upon connection.



Is it possible to run office from a server?

We just purchased 10 brand new PC with Windows XP Pro
Pre-installed,

an

a

server with ample of memory and disk space.

We also purchase a 15-user license of Microsoft Office 2003

Professional.

Instead of installing MS Office 2003 on all the workstation, is

there

a

way

to run Office from a server?

I know of the terminal services/citrix way but that is out of

the

question

as it will add cost per client.

Thanks

 

[Susan Bradley, CPA aka Ebitz - SBS Rocks [MVP]]

Install the Office on the workstations, save the files on the server.

If you have powerful workstations that would be the better solution anyway.

Hi Kevin, as stated on my previous email. I have a very powerful server and
workstation. For ease of administration, why would I purchase another
terminal server licenses if there are such solution(which in my mind it is
very easy to implement in a client-server environment)
where make use the power of the workstation.

By using the terminal services, we are adding another cost of terminal
services license and the server does not scale well for active users.

The solution I propose(I'm sure that you know what I'm talking about) we
are make use what we have now(powerful workstation) to run an app from a
file server. Its just as simple as that.

Sarah,

There's different solutions available to fit different needs. By your post
it appears that you bought your solution before determining your needs. If
your need and desire is to administer a single installation of Office for
all of your users, then Terminal Services is a valid solution.

Is this against MS idealogy? Not in my mind, since there are many, many
companies, both large and small, that have installed Terminal Services as
a

solution. As with all needs/solutions, you weight the benefits, the pros
and

cons, and make the best choice possible.

You say it's not economical. But compared to what? It appears that you
consider the time and cost of administrative overhead in maintaining,
upgrading, and patching standard PC's with individual copies of Windows
and

Office installed on each PC to be a high priority issue. So, if you can
reduce the overhead and hassle of administering such a network, then
you've

answered your own question: yes, it's economical.

Don't know what you mean by claiming that Microsoft is still ironing out
how

to implement such a solution. I previously managed the IT dept for a large
health care facility that has over 200 users operating on Microsoft
Windows

Terminal Server. You want to talk about economical? You want to talk about
redundancy? You want to talk about ease of administering such network? You
want to talk about implementing new security policies?

No, a TS environment is not for all ... but don't just knock it ... it is
a

valid solution for those with the need of such a solution.

--
Kevin Weilbacher [SBS-MVP]
"The days pass by so quickly now, the nights are seldom long"

Thanks Kevin. Unfortunately the terminal services are out of the

question.

We have pretty powerful workstation and server, why would I use my
workstation
as a terminal(Isn't this goes again MS ideology)?

Secondly, why would I pay an additional license for each workstation
to access the terminal server. It is just not economical.

Or perhaps Microsoft is still ironing-out on how to implement this this
type

of
technology(networked-multi-user-multi-task-apps)?

Thanks



Sarah, what you have described is called 'Windows Terminal Server'.

You

are

right about the fact that by installing Office on one system, and
letting

everyone access it reduces administrative issues. But, SBS2003 does

not

allow you to configure Terminal Server on the SBS server itself. You

can

add

a separate system to act as a terminal server alongside your SBS

server.

The

temrinal server would house your Office apps, and your SBS server

would

handle Exchange/email, Internet access, and file/print services.

--
Kevin Weilbacher [SBS-MVP]
"The days pass by so quickly now, the nights are seldom long"



I'm trying to use my server as a file server, where I will store all
the

Office executable. If MS so willing, then they can tell us what
registry

setting on the local machine has to change so each of my workstation
can

run

office apps, e.g. MS Word, Excel, and other, right from their

workstation?

Is it a technology issues that prevent this to happen? What's the

big

problem since other OSes can handle multi-user apps?

Imagine if I can do that, everytime the workstation crashed and

corrupted

the disk, all I have to do is install the os, mount the directory
where

office reside, and voile ... it's back up again. Also, when the

office

need

upgrade, all I have to do is to upgrade the one on the server and
again,

those 10(or for that matter 100K)workstation has their office
upgraded!

Any ideas?





I think you have the option upon installing if you want to install

Office

to

a server, but I am thinking if you have 10 users it is going to

slow

down

your server badly. Is there a particular reason you dont want to

install

on

the workstations? You can setup admin install of office to install

just

like

Outlook installs on SBS client upon connection.



Is it possible to run office from a server?

We just purchased 10 brand new PC with Windows XP Pro
Pre-installed,

an

a

server with ample of memory and disk space.

We also purchase a 15-user license of Microsoft Office 2003

Professional.

Instead of installing MS Office 2003 on all the workstation, is

there

a

way

to run Office from a server?

I know of the terminal services/citrix way but that is out of

the

question

as it will add cost per client.

Thanks

 

[Susan Bradley, CPA aka Ebitz - SBS Rocks [MVP]]

Install the Office on the workstations, save the files on the server.

If you have powerful workstations that would be the better solution anyway.

Hi Kevin, as stated on my previous email. I have a very powerful server and
workstation. For ease of administration, why would I purchase another
terminal server licenses if there are such solution(which in my mind it is
very easy to implement in a client-server environment)
where make use the power of the workstation.

By using the terminal services, we are adding another cost of terminal
services license and the server does not scale well for active users.

The solution I propose(I'm sure that you know what I'm talking about) we
are make use what we have now(powerful workstation) to run an app from a
file server. Its just as simple as that.

Sarah,

There's different solutions available to fit different needs. By your post
it appears that you bought your solution before determining your needs. If
your need and desire is to administer a single installation of Office for
all of your users, then Terminal Services is a valid solution.

Is this against MS idealogy? Not in my mind, since there are many, many
companies, both large and small, that have installed Terminal Services as
a

solution. As with all needs/solutions, you weight the benefits, the pros
and

cons, and make the best choice possible.

You say it's not economical. But compared to what? It appears that you
consider the time and cost of administrative overhead in maintaining,
upgrading, and patching standard PC's with individual copies of Windows
and

Office installed on each PC to be a high priority issue. So, if you can
reduce the overhead and hassle of administering such a network, then
you've

answered your own question: yes, it's economical.

Don't know what you mean by claiming that Microsoft is still ironing out
how

to implement such a solution. I previously managed the IT dept for a large
health care facility that has over 200 users operating on Microsoft
Windows

Terminal Server. You want to talk about economical? You want to talk about
redundancy? You want to talk about ease of administering such network? You
want to talk about implementing new security policies?

No, a TS environment is not for all ... but don't just knock it ... it is
a

valid solution for those with the need of such a solution.

--
Kevin Weilbacher [SBS-MVP]
"The days pass by so quickly now, the nights are seldom long"

Thanks Kevin. Unfortunately the terminal services are out of the

question.

We have pretty powerful workstation and server, why would I use my
workstation
as a terminal(Isn't this goes again MS ideology)?

Secondly, why would I pay an additional license for each workstation
to access the terminal server. It is just not economical.

Or perhaps Microsoft is still ironing-out on how to implement this this
type

of
technology(networked-multi-user-multi-task-apps)?

Thanks



Sarah, what you have described is called 'Windows Terminal Server'.

You

are

right about the fact that by installing Office on one system, and
letting

everyone access it reduces administrative issues. But, SBS2003 does

not

allow you to configure Terminal Server on the SBS server itself. You

can

add

a separate system to act as a terminal server alongside your SBS

server.

The

temrinal server would house your Office apps, and your SBS server

would

handle Exchange/email, Internet access, and file/print services.

--
Kevin Weilbacher [SBS-MVP]
"The days pass by so quickly now, the nights are seldom long"



I'm trying to use my server as a file server, where I will store all
the

Office executable. If MS so willing, then they can tell us what
registry

setting on the local machine has to change so each of my workstation
can

run

office apps, e.g. MS Word, Excel, and other, right from their

workstation?

Is it a technology issues that prevent this to happen? What's the

big

problem since other OSes can handle multi-user apps?

Imagine if I can do that, everytime the workstation crashed and

corrupted

the disk, all I have to do is install the os, mount the directory
where

office reside, and voile ... it's back up again. Also, when the

office

need

upgrade, all I have to do is to upgrade the one on the server and
again,

those 10(or for that matter 100K)workstation has their office
upgraded!

Any ideas?





I think you have the option upon installing if you want to install

Office

to

a server, but I am thinking if you have 10 users it is going to

slow

down

your server badly. Is there a particular reason you dont want to

install

on

the workstations? You can setup admin install of office to install

just

like

Outlook installs on SBS client upon connection.



Is it possible to run office from a server?

We just purchased 10 brand new PC with Windows XP Pro
Pre-installed,

an

a

server with ample of memory and disk space.

We also purchase a 15-user license of Microsoft Office 2003

Professional.

Instead of installing MS Office 2003 on all the workstation, is

there

a

way

to run Office from a server?

I know of the terminal services/citrix way but that is out of

the

question

as it will add cost per client.

Thanks

 

[Susan Bradley, CPA aka Ebitz - SBS Rocks [MVP]]

Install the Office on the workstations, save the files on the server.

If you have powerful workstations that would be the better solution anyway.

Hi Kevin, as stated on my previous email. I have a very powerful server and
workstation. For ease of administration, why would I purchase another
terminal server licenses if there are such solution(which in my mind it is
very easy to implement in a client-server environment)
where make use the power of the workstation.

By using the terminal services, we are adding another cost of terminal
services license and the server does not scale well for active users.

The solution I propose(I'm sure that you know what I'm talking about) we
are make use what we have now(powerful workstation) to run an app from a
file server. Its just as simple as that.

Sarah,

There's different solutions available to fit different needs. By your post
it appears that you bought your solution before determining your needs. If
your need and desire is to administer a single installation of Office for
all of your users, then Terminal Services is a valid solution.

Is this against MS idealogy? Not in my mind, since there are many, many
companies, both large and small, that have installed Terminal Services as
a

solution. As with all needs/solutions, you weight the benefits, the pros
and

cons, and make the best choice possible.

You say it's not economical. But compared to what? It appears that you
consider the time and cost of administrative overhead in maintaining,
upgrading, and patching standard PC's with individual copies of Windows
and

Office installed on each PC to be a high priority issue. So, if you can
reduce the overhead and hassle of administering such a network, then
you've

answered your own question: yes, it's economical.

Don't know what you mean by claiming that Microsoft is still ironing out
how

to implement such a solution. I previously managed the IT dept for a large
health care facility that has over 200 users operating on Microsoft
Windows

Terminal Server. You want to talk about economical? You want to talk about
redundancy? You want to talk about ease of administering such network? You
want to talk about implementing new security policies?

No, a TS environment is not for all ... but don't just knock it ... it is
a

valid solution for those with the need of such a solution.

--
Kevin Weilbacher [SBS-MVP]
"The days pass by so quickly now, the nights are seldom long"

Thanks Kevin. Unfortunately the terminal services are out of the

question.

We have pretty powerful workstation and server, why would I use my
workstation
as a terminal(Isn't this goes again MS ideology)?

Secondly, why would I pay an additional license for each workstation
to access the terminal server. It is just not economical.

Or perhaps Microsoft is still ironing-out on how to implement this this
type

of
technology(networked-multi-user-multi-task-apps)?

Thanks



Sarah, what you have described is called 'Windows Terminal Server'.

You

are

right about the fact that by installing Office on one system, and
letting

everyone access it reduces administrative issues. But, SBS2003 does

not

allow you to configure Terminal Server on the SBS server itself. You

can

add

a separate system to act as a terminal server alongside your SBS

server.

The

temrinal server would house your Office apps, and your SBS server

would

handle Exchange/email, Internet access, and file/print services.

--
Kevin Weilbacher [SBS-MVP]
"The days pass by so quickly now, the nights are seldom long"



I'm trying to use my server as a file server, where I will store all
the

Office executable. If MS so willing, then they can tell us what
registry

setting on the local machine has to change so each of my workstation
can

run

office apps, e.g. MS Word, Excel, and other, right from their

workstation?

Is it a technology issues that prevent this to happen? What's the

big

problem since other OSes can handle multi-user apps?

Imagine if I can do that, everytime the workstation crashed and

corrupted

the disk, all I have to do is install the os, mount the directory
where

office reside, and voile ... it's back up again. Also, when the

office

need

upgrade, all I have to do is to upgrade the one on the server and
again,

those 10(or for that matter 100K)workstation has their office
upgraded!

Any ideas?





I think you have the option upon installing if you want to install

Office

to

a server, but I am thinking if you have 10 users it is going to

slow

down

your server badly. Is there a particular reason you dont want to

install

on

the workstations? You can setup admin install of office to install

just

like

Outlook installs on SBS client upon connection.



Is it possible to run office from a server?

We just purchased 10 brand new PC with Windows XP Pro
Pre-installed,

an

a

server with ample of memory and disk space.

We also purchase a 15-user license of Microsoft Office 2003

Professional.

Instead of installing MS Office 2003 on all the workstation, is

there

a

way

to run Office from a server?

I know of the terminal services/citrix way but that is out of

the

question

as it will add cost per client.

Thanks

 

[Susan Bradley, CPA aka Ebitz - SBS Rocks [MVP]]

Install the Office on the workstations, save the files on the server.

If you have powerful workstations that would be the better solution anyway.

Hi Kevin, as stated on my previous email. I have a very powerful server and
workstation. For ease of administration, why would I purchase another
terminal server licenses if there are such solution(which in my mind it is
very easy to implement in a client-server environment)
where make use the power of the workstation.

By using the terminal services, we are adding another cost of terminal
services license and the server does not scale well for active users.

The solution I propose(I'm sure that you know what I'm talking about) we
are make use what we have now(powerful workstation) to run an app from a
file server. Its just as simple as that.

Sarah,

There's different solutions available to fit different needs. By your post
it appears that you bought your solution before determining your needs. If
your need and desire is to administer a single installation of Office for
all of your users, then Terminal Services is a valid solution.

Is this against MS idealogy? Not in my mind, since there are many, many
companies, both large and small, that have installed Terminal Services as
a

solution. As with all needs/solutions, you weight the benefits, the pros
and

cons, and make the best choice possible.

You say it's not economical. But compared to what? It appears that you
consider the time and cost of administrative overhead in maintaining,
upgrading, and patching standard PC's with individual copies of Windows
and

Office installed on each PC to be a high priority issue. So, if you can
reduce the overhead and hassle of administering such a network, then
you've

answered your own question: yes, it's economical.

Don't know what you mean by claiming that Microsoft is still ironing out
how

to implement such a solution. I previously managed the IT dept for a large
health care facility that has over 200 users operating on Microsoft
Windows

Terminal Server. You want to talk about economical? You want to talk about
redundancy? You want to talk about ease of administering such network? You
want to talk about implementing new security policies?

No, a TS environment is not for all ... but don't just knock it ... it is
a

valid solution for those with the need of such a solution.

--
Kevin Weilbacher [SBS-MVP]
"The days pass by so quickly now, the nights are seldom long"

Thanks Kevin. Unfortunately the terminal services are out of the

question.

We have pretty powerful workstation and server, why would I use my
workstation
as a terminal(Isn't this goes again MS ideology)?

Secondly, why would I pay an additional license for each workstation
to access the terminal server. It is just not economical.

Or perhaps Microsoft is still ironing-out on how to implement this this
type

of
technology(networked-multi-user-multi-task-apps)?

Thanks



Sarah, what you have described is called 'Windows Terminal Server'.

You

are

right about the fact that by installing Office on one system, and
letting

everyone access it reduces administrative issues. But, SBS2003 does

not

allow you to configure Terminal Server on the SBS server itself. You

can

add

a separate system to act as a terminal server alongside your SBS

server.

The

temrinal server would house your Office apps, and your SBS server

would

handle Exchange/email, Internet access, and file/print services.

--
Kevin Weilbacher [SBS-MVP]
"The days pass by so quickly now, the nights are seldom long"



I'm trying to use my server as a file server, where I will store all
the

Office executable. If MS so willing, then they can tell us what
registry

setting on the local machine has to change so each of my workstation
can

run

office apps, e.g. MS Word, Excel, and other, right from their

workstation?

Is it a technology issues that prevent this to happen? What's the

big

problem since other OSes can handle multi-user apps?

Imagine if I can do that, everytime the workstation crashed and

corrupted

the disk, all I have to do is install the os, mount the directory
where

office reside, and voile ... it's back up again. Also, when the

office

need

upgrade, all I have to do is to upgrade the one on the server and
again,

those 10(or for that matter 100K)workstation has their office
upgraded!

Any ideas?





I think you have the option upon installing if you want to install

Office

to

a server, but I am thinking if you have 10 users it is going to

slow

down

your server badly. Is there a particular reason you dont want to

install

on

the workstations? You can setup admin install of office to install

just

like

Outlook installs on SBS client upon connection.



Is it possible to run office from a server?

We just purchased 10 brand new PC with Windows XP Pro
Pre-installed,

an

a

server with ample of memory and disk space.

We also purchase a 15-user license of Microsoft Office 2003

Professional.

Instead of installing MS Office 2003 on all the workstation, is

there

a

way

to run Office from a server?

I know of the terminal services/citrix way but that is out of

the

question

as it will add cost per client.

Thanks

 

[Susan Bradley, CPA aka Ebitz - SBS Rocks [MVP]]

Install the Office on the workstations, save the files on the server.

If you have powerful workstations that would be the better solution anyway.

Hi Kevin, as stated on my previous email. I have a very powerful server and
workstation. For ease of administration, why would I purchase another
terminal server licenses if there are such solution(which in my mind it is
very easy to implement in a client-server environment)
where make use the power of the workstation.

By using the terminal services, we are adding another cost of terminal
services license and the server does not scale well for active users.

The solution I propose(I'm sure that you know what I'm talking about) we
are make use what we have now(powerful workstation) to run an app from a
file server. Its just as simple as that.

Sarah,

There's different solutions available to fit different needs. By your post
it appears that you bought your solution before determining your needs. If
your need and desire is to administer a single installation of Office for
all of your users, then Terminal Services is a valid solution.

Is this against MS idealogy? Not in my mind, since there are many, many
companies, both large and small, that have installed Terminal Services as
a

solution. As with all needs/solutions, you weight the benefits, the pros
and

cons, and make the best choice possible.

You say it's not economical. But compared to what? It appears that you
consider the time and cost of administrative overhead in maintaining,
upgrading, and patching standard PC's with individual copies of Windows
and

Office installed on each PC to be a high priority issue. So, if you can
reduce the overhead and hassle of administering such a network, then
you've

answered your own question: yes, it's economical.

Don't know what you mean by claiming that Microsoft is still ironing out
how

to implement such a solution. I previously managed the IT dept for a large
health care facility that has over 200 users operating on Microsoft
Windows

Terminal Server. You want to talk about economical? You want to talk about
redundancy? You want to talk about ease of administering such network? You
want to talk about implementing new security policies?

No, a TS environment is not for all ... but don't just knock it ... it is
a

valid solution for those with the need of such a solution.

--
Kevin Weilbacher [SBS-MVP]
"The days pass by so quickly now, the nights are seldom long"

Thanks Kevin. Unfortunately the terminal services are out of the

question.

We have pretty powerful workstation and server, why would I use my
workstation
as a terminal(Isn't this goes again MS ideology)?

Secondly, why would I pay an additional license for each workstation
to access the terminal server. It is just not economical.

Or perhaps Microsoft is still ironing-out on how to implement this this
type

of
technology(networked-multi-user-multi-task-apps)?

Thanks



Sarah, what you have described is called 'Windows Terminal Server'.

You

are

right about the fact that by installing Office on one system, and
letting

everyone access it reduces administrative issues. But, SBS2003 does

not

allow you to configure Terminal Server on the SBS server itself. You

can

add

a separate system to act as a terminal server alongside your SBS

server.

The

temrinal server would house your Office apps, and your SBS server

would

handle Exchange/email, Internet access, and file/print services.

--
Kevin Weilbacher [SBS-MVP]
"The days pass by so quickly now, the nights are seldom long"



I'm trying to use my server as a file server, where I will store all
the

Office executable. If MS so willing, then they can tell us what
registry

setting on the local machine has to change so each of my workstation
can

run

office apps, e.g. MS Word, Excel, and other, right from their

workstation?

Is it a technology issues that prevent this to happen? What's the

big

problem since other OSes can handle multi-user apps?

Imagine if I can do that, everytime the workstation crashed and

corrupted

the disk, all I have to do is install the os, mount the directory
where

office reside, and voile ... it's back up again. Also, when the

office

need

upgrade, all I have to do is to upgrade the one on the server and
again,

those 10(or for that matter 100K)workstation has their office
upgraded!

Any ideas?





I think you have the option upon installing if you want to install

Office

to

a server, but I am thinking if you have 10 users it is going to

slow

down

your server badly. Is there a particular reason you dont want to

install

on

the workstations? You can setup admin install of office to install

just

like

Outlook installs on SBS client upon connection.



Is it possible to run office from a server?

We just purchased 10 brand new PC with Windows XP Pro
Pre-installed,

an

a

server with ample of memory and disk space.

We also purchase a 15-user license of Microsoft Office 2003

Professional.

Instead of installing MS Office 2003 on all the workstation, is

there

a

way

to run Office from a server?

I know of the terminal services/citrix way but that is out of

the

question

as it will add cost per client.

Thanks

 

[Susan Bradley, CPA aka Ebitz - SBS Rocks [MVP]]

Install the Office on the workstations, save the files on the server.

If you have powerful workstations that would be the better solution anyway.

Hi Kevin, as stated on my previous email. I have a very powerful server and
workstation. For ease of administration, why would I purchase another
terminal server licenses if there are such solution(which in my mind it is
very easy to implement in a client-server environment)
where make use the power of the workstation.

By using the terminal services, we are adding another cost of terminal
services license and the server does not scale well for active users.

The solution I propose(I'm sure that you know what I'm talking about) we
are make use what we have now(powerful workstation) to run an app from a
file server. Its just as simple as that.

Sarah,

There's different solutions available to fit different needs. By your post
it appears that you bought your solution before determining your needs. If
your need and desire is to administer a single installation of Office for
all of your users, then Terminal Services is a valid solution.

Is this against MS idealogy? Not in my mind, since there are many, many
companies, both large and small, that have installed Terminal Services as
a

solution. As with all needs/solutions, you weight the benefits, the pros
and

cons, and make the best choice possible.

You say it's not economical. But compared to what? It appears that you
consider the time and cost of administrative overhead in maintaining,
upgrading, and patching standard PC's with individual copies of Windows
and

Office installed on each PC to be a high priority issue. So, if you can
reduce the overhead and hassle of administering such a network, then
you've

answered your own question: yes, it's economical.

Don't know what you mean by claiming that Microsoft is still ironing out
how

to implement such a solution. I previously managed the IT dept for a large
health care facility that has over 200 users operating on Microsoft
Windows

Terminal Server. You want to talk about economical? You want to talk about
redundancy? You want to talk about ease of administering such network? You
want to talk about implementing new security policies?

No, a TS environment is not for all ... but don't just knock it ... it is
a

valid solution for those with the need of such a solution.

--
Kevin Weilbacher [SBS-MVP]
"The days pass by so quickly now, the nights are seldom long"

Thanks Kevin. Unfortunately the terminal services are out of the

question.

We have pretty powerful workstation and server, why would I use my
workstation
as a terminal(Isn't this goes again MS ideology)?

Secondly, why would I pay an additional license for each workstation
to access the terminal server. It is just not economical.

Or perhaps Microsoft is still ironing-out on how to implement this this
type

of
technology(networked-multi-user-multi-task-apps)?

Thanks



Sarah, what you have described is called 'Windows Terminal Server'.

You

are

right about the fact that by installing Office on one system, and
letting

everyone access it reduces administrative issues. But, SBS2003 does

not

allow you to configure Terminal Server on the SBS server itself. You

can

add

a separate system to act as a terminal server alongside your SBS

server.

The

temrinal server would house your Office apps, and your SBS server

would

handle Exchange/email, Internet access, and file/print services.

--
Kevin Weilbacher [SBS-MVP]
"The days pass by so quickly now, the nights are seldom long"



I'm trying to use my server as a file server, where I will store all
the

Office executable. If MS so willing, then they can tell us what
registry

setting on the local machine has to change so each of my workstation
can

run

office apps, e.g. MS Word, Excel, and other, right from their

workstation?

Is it a technology issues that prevent this to happen? What's the

big

problem since other OSes can handle multi-user apps?

Imagine if I can do that, everytime the workstation crashed and

corrupted

the disk, all I have to do is install the os, mount the directory
where

office reside, and voile ... it's back up again. Also, when the

office

need

upgrade, all I have to do is to upgrade the one on the server and
again,

those 10(or for that matter 100K)workstation has their office
upgraded!

Any ideas?





I think you have the option upon installing if you want to install

Office

to

a server, but I am thinking if you have 10 users it is going to

slow

down

your server badly. Is there a particular reason you dont want to

install

on

the workstations? You can setup admin install of office to install

just

like

Outlook installs on SBS client upon connection.



Is it possible to run office from a server?

We just purchased 10 brand new PC with Windows XP Pro
Pre-installed,

an

a

server with ample of memory and disk space.

We also purchase a 15-user license of Microsoft Office 2003

Professional.

Instead of installing MS Office 2003 on all the workstation, is

there

a

way

to run Office from a server?

I know of the terminal services/citrix way but that is out of

the

question

as it will add cost per client.

Thanks

 

[Susan Bradley, CPA aka Ebitz - SBS Rocks [MVP]]

Yes, it's called Terminal Server.

If you bought full blown [not thin client] workstations, stick the
office on each one by using group policy push.

Normally for what you want you don't buy fast workstations.

 

[Susan Bradley, CPA aka Ebitz - SBS Rocks [MVP]]

Yes, it's called Terminal Server.

If you bought full blown [not thin client] workstations, stick the
office on each one by using group policy push.

Normally for what you want you don't buy fast workstations.

 

[Susan Bradley, CPA aka Ebitz - SBS Rocks [MVP]]

Yes, it's called Terminal Server.

If you bought full blown [not thin client] workstations, stick the
office on each one by using group policy push.

Normally for what you want you don't buy fast workstations.

 

[Susan Bradley, CPA aka Ebitz - SBS Rocks [MVP]]

Yes, it's called Terminal Server.

If you bought full blown [not thin client] workstations, stick the
office on each one by using group policy push.

Normally for what you want you don't buy fast workstations.

 

[Susan Bradley, CPA aka Ebitz - SBS Rocks [MVP]]

Yes, it's called Terminal Server.

If you bought full blown [not thin client] workstations, stick the
office on each one by using group policy push.

Normally for what you want you don't buy fast workstations.

 

[Susan Bradley, CPA aka Ebitz - SBS Rocks [MVP]]

Yes, it's called Terminal Server.

If you bought full blown [not thin client] workstations, stick the
office on each one by using group policy push.

Normally for what you want you don't buy fast workstations.

 

[Susan Bradley, CPA aka Ebitz - SBS Rocks [MVP]]

Yes, it's called Terminal Server.

If you bought full blown [not thin client] workstations, stick the
office on each one by using group policy push.

Normally for what you want you don't buy fast workstations.

 

[Susan Bradley, CPA aka Ebitz - SBS Rocks [MVP]]

Yes, it's called Terminal Server.

If you bought full blown [not thin client] workstations, stick the
office on each one by using group policy push.

Normally for what you want you don't buy fast workstations.