Networked Office

[Sarah Tanembaum]

Susan, the point is to ease up the administration. Why would one install an
application over and over for each workstation. The file already available
in the server.

All it needs is to just execute the program at the workstation and voila!

With this method, instant update can be done easily. Just update the file on
the server and all, I mean ALL workstation, will get update instantly.

Funny that MS has only 2 choices:
1-run all in the workstation which will be an administration headache
2-run all in the server(terminal services) which does not scale so well.
I've been thru since the citrix winframe days, terminal services, metaframe
..... it's not worth waste your money.

The solution I mentioned will be much better solution. It scales so well and
it combines the best of server, workstation, and networking technology.

I wonder when MS will get there? Unless we(user community) push it, MS won't
do it. Well, they won't listen anyway.

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

 

[Sarah Tanembaum]

Susan, the point is to ease up the administration. Why would one install an
application over and over for each workstation. The file already available
in the server.

All it needs is to just execute the program at the workstation and voila!

With this method, instant update can be done easily. Just update the file on
the server and all, I mean ALL workstation, will get update instantly.

Funny that MS has only 2 choices:
1-run all in the workstation which will be an administration headache
2-run all in the server(terminal services) which does not scale so well.
I've been thru since the citrix winframe days, terminal services, metaframe
..... it's not worth waste your money.

The solution I mentioned will be much better solution. It scales so well and
it combines the best of server, workstation, and networking technology.

I wonder when MS will get there? Unless we(user community) push it, MS won't
do it. Well, they won't listen anyway.

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

 

[Sarah Tanembaum]

Susan, the point is to ease up the administration. Why would one install an
application over and over for each workstation. The file already available
in the server.

All it needs is to just execute the program at the workstation and voila!

With this method, instant update can be done easily. Just update the file on
the server and all, I mean ALL workstation, will get update instantly.

Funny that MS has only 2 choices:
1-run all in the workstation which will be an administration headache
2-run all in the server(terminal services) which does not scale so well.
I've been thru since the citrix winframe days, terminal services, metaframe
..... it's not worth waste your money.

The solution I mentioned will be much better solution. It scales so well and
it combines the best of server, workstation, and networking technology.

I wonder when MS will get there? Unless we(user community) push it, MS won't
do it. Well, they won't listen anyway.

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

 

[Sarah Tanembaum]

Susan, the point is to ease up the administration. Why would one install an
application over and over for each workstation. The file already available
in the server.

All it needs is to just execute the program at the workstation and voila!

With this method, instant update can be done easily. Just update the file on
the server and all, I mean ALL workstation, will get update instantly.

Funny that MS has only 2 choices:
1-run all in the workstation which will be an administration headache
2-run all in the server(terminal services) which does not scale so well.
I've been thru since the citrix winframe days, terminal services, metaframe
..... it's not worth waste your money.

The solution I mentioned will be much better solution. It scales so well and
it combines the best of server, workstation, and networking technology.

I wonder when MS will get there? Unless we(user community) push it, MS won't
do it. Well, they won't listen anyway.

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

 

[Sarah Tanembaum]

Susan, the point is to ease up the administration. Why would one install an
application over and over for each workstation. The file already available
in the server.

All it needs is to just execute the program at the workstation and voila!

With this method, instant update can be done easily. Just update the file on
the server and all, I mean ALL workstation, will get update instantly.

Funny that MS has only 2 choices:
1-run all in the workstation which will be an administration headache
2-run all in the server(terminal services) which does not scale so well.
I've been thru since the citrix winframe days, terminal services, metaframe
..... it's not worth waste your money.

The solution I mentioned will be much better solution. It scales so well and
it combines the best of server, workstation, and networking technology.

I wonder when MS will get there? Unless we(user community) push it, MS won't
do it. Well, they won't listen anyway.

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

 

[Sarah Tanembaum]

Susan, the point is to ease up the administration. Why would one install an
application over and over for each workstation. The file already available
in the server.

All it needs is to just execute the program at the workstation and voila!

With this method, instant update can be done easily. Just update the file on
the server and all, I mean ALL workstation, will get update instantly.

Funny that MS has only 2 choices:
1-run all in the workstation which will be an administration headache
2-run all in the server(terminal services) which does not scale so well.
I've been thru since the citrix winframe days, terminal services, metaframe
..... it's not worth waste your money.

The solution I mentioned will be much better solution. It scales so well and
it combines the best of server, workstation, and networking technology.

I wonder when MS will get there? Unless we(user community) push it, MS won't
do it. Well, they won't listen anyway.

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

 

[Sarah Tanembaum]

Susan, the point is to ease up the administration. Why would one install an
application over and over for each workstation. The file already available
in the server.

All it needs is to just execute the program at the workstation and voila!

With this method, instant update can be done easily. Just update the file on
the server and all, I mean ALL workstation, will get update instantly.

Funny that MS has only 2 choices:
1-run all in the workstation which will be an administration headache
2-run all in the server(terminal services) which does not scale so well.
I've been thru since the citrix winframe days, terminal services, metaframe
..... it's not worth waste your money.

The solution I mentioned will be much better solution. It scales so well and
it combines the best of server, workstation, and networking technology.

I wonder when MS will get there? Unless we(user community) push it, MS won't
do it. Well, they won't listen anyway.

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

 

[Sarah Tanembaum]

Susan, the point is to ease up the administration. Why would one install an
application over and over for each workstation. The file already available
in the server.

All it needs is to just execute the program at the workstation and voila!

With this method, instant update can be done easily. Just update the file on
the server and all, I mean ALL workstation, will get update instantly.

Funny that MS has only 2 choices:
1-run all in the workstation which will be an administration headache
2-run all in the server(terminal services) which does not scale so well.
I've been thru since the citrix winframe days, terminal services, metaframe
..... it's not worth waste your money.

The solution I mentioned will be much better solution. It scales so well and
it combines the best of server, workstation, and networking technology.

I wonder when MS will get there? Unless we(user community) push it, MS won't
do it. Well, they won't listen anyway.

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

 

[Sarah Tanembaum]

What's WUS? Thanks

What you are wanting in a TS install of Office which cannot be done on
SBS2003 without an additional server and TS cals.

You don't have the parts to do this.

So why not install office directly on the workstations? When WUS comes
out you can still centrally patch.

Office REQUIRES specific files to be installed locally in order to run. If
you want a pure server solution, it will not work.

How many specific file(s) are you talking about? Do you have a list of what
specific files are you mentioning?

Thanks


"Milly Staples [MVP - Outlook]"

wrote in message

Please do yourself a favor and look at the Office Resource Kit and the
Windows 2003 (or whatever version of Windows you have) Terminal Services
white papers.

What you are asking has been answered many times here - if it is not the
answer you like, then look for a different vendor/solution. We have all
told you what is and is not possible, the problems inherent in trying to
meet your requests, and have basically given up providing answers that you
do not want to hear.

Office REQUIRES specific files to be installed locally in order to run. If
you want a pure server solution, it will not work.


--
Milly Staples [MVP - Outlook]

Post all replies to the group to keep the discussion intact. Due to
the (insert latest virus name here) virus, all mail sent to my personal
account will be deleted without reading.

After searching google.groups.com and finding no answer, Sarah Tanembaum
asked:

| Why not possible?
|
| Thanks.
|
| "Milly Staples [MVP - Outlook]"
| || No, you can either run Office from a TS/Citrix environment or you can
|| install it locally. You can create an admin installation point on
|| the server and have the clients load office via a logon script when
|| they first start Windows. But you cannot run it from a plain server.
||
|| --
|| Milly Staples [MVP - Outlook]
||
|| Post all replies to the group to keep the discussion intact. Due to
|| the (insert latest virus name here) virus, all mail sent to my
|| personal account will be deleted without reading.
||
|| After searching google.groups.com and finding no answer, Sarah
|| Tanembaum asked:
||
||| 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

 

[Sarah Tanembaum]

What's WUS? Thanks

What you are wanting in a TS install of Office which cannot be done on
SBS2003 without an additional server and TS cals.

You don't have the parts to do this.

So why not install office directly on the workstations? When WUS comes
out you can still centrally patch.

Office REQUIRES specific files to be installed locally in order to run. If
you want a pure server solution, it will not work.

How many specific file(s) are you talking about? Do you have a list of what
specific files are you mentioning?

Thanks


"Milly Staples [MVP - Outlook]"

wrote in message

Please do yourself a favor and look at the Office Resource Kit and the
Windows 2003 (or whatever version of Windows you have) Terminal Services
white papers.

What you are asking has been answered many times here - if it is not the
answer you like, then look for a different vendor/solution. We have all
told you what is and is not possible, the problems inherent in trying to
meet your requests, and have basically given up providing answers that you
do not want to hear.

Office REQUIRES specific files to be installed locally in order to run. If
you want a pure server solution, it will not work.


--
Milly Staples [MVP - Outlook]

Post all replies to the group to keep the discussion intact. Due to
the (insert latest virus name here) virus, all mail sent to my personal
account will be deleted without reading.

After searching google.groups.com and finding no answer, Sarah Tanembaum
asked:

| Why not possible?
|
| Thanks.
|
| "Milly Staples [MVP - Outlook]"
| || No, you can either run Office from a TS/Citrix environment or you can
|| install it locally. You can create an admin installation point on
|| the server and have the clients load office via a logon script when
|| they first start Windows. But you cannot run it from a plain server.
||
|| --
|| Milly Staples [MVP - Outlook]
||
|| Post all replies to the group to keep the discussion intact. Due to
|| the (insert latest virus name here) virus, all mail sent to my
|| personal account will be deleted without reading.
||
|| After searching google.groups.com and finding no answer, Sarah
|| Tanembaum asked:
||
||| 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

 

[Sarah Tanembaum]

What's WUS? Thanks

What you are wanting in a TS install of Office which cannot be done on
SBS2003 without an additional server and TS cals.

You don't have the parts to do this.

So why not install office directly on the workstations? When WUS comes
out you can still centrally patch.

Office REQUIRES specific files to be installed locally in order to run. If
you want a pure server solution, it will not work.

How many specific file(s) are you talking about? Do you have a list of what
specific files are you mentioning?

Thanks


"Milly Staples [MVP - Outlook]"

wrote in message

Please do yourself a favor and look at the Office Resource Kit and the
Windows 2003 (or whatever version of Windows you have) Terminal Services
white papers.

What you are asking has been answered many times here - if it is not the
answer you like, then look for a different vendor/solution. We have all
told you what is and is not possible, the problems inherent in trying to
meet your requests, and have basically given up providing answers that you
do not want to hear.

Office REQUIRES specific files to be installed locally in order to run. If
you want a pure server solution, it will not work.


--
Milly Staples [MVP - Outlook]

Post all replies to the group to keep the discussion intact. Due to
the (insert latest virus name here) virus, all mail sent to my personal
account will be deleted without reading.

After searching google.groups.com and finding no answer, Sarah Tanembaum
asked:

| Why not possible?
|
| Thanks.
|
| "Milly Staples [MVP - Outlook]"
| || No, you can either run Office from a TS/Citrix environment or you can
|| install it locally. You can create an admin installation point on
|| the server and have the clients load office via a logon script when
|| they first start Windows. But you cannot run it from a plain server.
||
|| --
|| Milly Staples [MVP - Outlook]
||
|| Post all replies to the group to keep the discussion intact. Due to
|| the (insert latest virus name here) virus, all mail sent to my
|| personal account will be deleted without reading.
||
|| After searching google.groups.com and finding no answer, Sarah
|| Tanembaum asked:
||
||| 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

 

[Sarah Tanembaum]

What's WUS? Thanks

What you are wanting in a TS install of Office which cannot be done on
SBS2003 without an additional server and TS cals.

You don't have the parts to do this.

So why not install office directly on the workstations? When WUS comes
out you can still centrally patch.

Office REQUIRES specific files to be installed locally in order to run. If
you want a pure server solution, it will not work.

How many specific file(s) are you talking about? Do you have a list of what
specific files are you mentioning?

Thanks


"Milly Staples [MVP - Outlook]"

wrote in message

Please do yourself a favor and look at the Office Resource Kit and the
Windows 2003 (or whatever version of Windows you have) Terminal Services
white papers.

What you are asking has been answered many times here - if it is not the
answer you like, then look for a different vendor/solution. We have all
told you what is and is not possible, the problems inherent in trying to
meet your requests, and have basically given up providing answers that you
do not want to hear.

Office REQUIRES specific files to be installed locally in order to run. If
you want a pure server solution, it will not work.


--
Milly Staples [MVP - Outlook]

Post all replies to the group to keep the discussion intact. Due to
the (insert latest virus name here) virus, all mail sent to my personal
account will be deleted without reading.

After searching google.groups.com and finding no answer, Sarah Tanembaum
asked:

| Why not possible?
|
| Thanks.
|
| "Milly Staples [MVP - Outlook]"
| || No, you can either run Office from a TS/Citrix environment or you can
|| install it locally. You can create an admin installation point on
|| the server and have the clients load office via a logon script when
|| they first start Windows. But you cannot run it from a plain server.
||
|| --
|| Milly Staples [MVP - Outlook]
||
|| Post all replies to the group to keep the discussion intact. Due to
|| the (insert latest virus name here) virus, all mail sent to my
|| personal account will be deleted without reading.
||
|| After searching google.groups.com and finding no answer, Sarah
|| Tanembaum asked:
||
||| 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

 

[Sarah Tanembaum]

What's WUS? Thanks

What you are wanting in a TS install of Office which cannot be done on
SBS2003 without an additional server and TS cals.

You don't have the parts to do this.

So why not install office directly on the workstations? When WUS comes
out you can still centrally patch.

Office REQUIRES specific files to be installed locally in order to run. If
you want a pure server solution, it will not work.

How many specific file(s) are you talking about? Do you have a list of what
specific files are you mentioning?

Thanks


"Milly Staples [MVP - Outlook]"

wrote in message

Please do yourself a favor and look at the Office Resource Kit and the
Windows 2003 (or whatever version of Windows you have) Terminal Services
white papers.

What you are asking has been answered many times here - if it is not the
answer you like, then look for a different vendor/solution. We have all
told you what is and is not possible, the problems inherent in trying to
meet your requests, and have basically given up providing answers that you
do not want to hear.

Office REQUIRES specific files to be installed locally in order to run. If
you want a pure server solution, it will not work.


--
Milly Staples [MVP - Outlook]

Post all replies to the group to keep the discussion intact. Due to
the (insert latest virus name here) virus, all mail sent to my personal
account will be deleted without reading.

After searching google.groups.com and finding no answer, Sarah Tanembaum
asked:

| Why not possible?
|
| Thanks.
|
| "Milly Staples [MVP - Outlook]"
| || No, you can either run Office from a TS/Citrix environment or you can
|| install it locally. You can create an admin installation point on
|| the server and have the clients load office via a logon script when
|| they first start Windows. But you cannot run it from a plain server.
||
|| --
|| Milly Staples [MVP - Outlook]
||
|| Post all replies to the group to keep the discussion intact. Due to
|| the (insert latest virus name here) virus, all mail sent to my
|| personal account will be deleted without reading.
||
|| After searching google.groups.com and finding no answer, Sarah
|| Tanembaum asked:
||
||| 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

 

[Sarah Tanembaum]

What's WUS? Thanks

What you are wanting in a TS install of Office which cannot be done on
SBS2003 without an additional server and TS cals.

You don't have the parts to do this.

So why not install office directly on the workstations? When WUS comes
out you can still centrally patch.

Office REQUIRES specific files to be installed locally in order to run. If
you want a pure server solution, it will not work.

How many specific file(s) are you talking about? Do you have a list of what
specific files are you mentioning?

Thanks


"Milly Staples [MVP - Outlook]"

wrote in message

Please do yourself a favor and look at the Office Resource Kit and the
Windows 2003 (or whatever version of Windows you have) Terminal Services
white papers.

What you are asking has been answered many times here - if it is not the
answer you like, then look for a different vendor/solution. We have all
told you what is and is not possible, the problems inherent in trying to
meet your requests, and have basically given up providing answers that you
do not want to hear.

Office REQUIRES specific files to be installed locally in order to run. If
you want a pure server solution, it will not work.


--
Milly Staples [MVP - Outlook]

Post all replies to the group to keep the discussion intact. Due to
the (insert latest virus name here) virus, all mail sent to my personal
account will be deleted without reading.

After searching google.groups.com and finding no answer, Sarah Tanembaum
asked:

| Why not possible?
|
| Thanks.
|
| "Milly Staples [MVP - Outlook]"
| || No, you can either run Office from a TS/Citrix environment or you can
|| install it locally. You can create an admin installation point on
|| the server and have the clients load office via a logon script when
|| they first start Windows. But you cannot run it from a plain server.
||
|| --
|| Milly Staples [MVP - Outlook]
||
|| Post all replies to the group to keep the discussion intact. Due to
|| the (insert latest virus name here) virus, all mail sent to my
|| personal account will be deleted without reading.
||
|| After searching google.groups.com and finding no answer, Sarah
|| Tanembaum asked:
||
||| 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

 

[Sarah Tanembaum]

What's WUS? Thanks

What you are wanting in a TS install of Office which cannot be done on
SBS2003 without an additional server and TS cals.

You don't have the parts to do this.

So why not install office directly on the workstations? When WUS comes
out you can still centrally patch.

Office REQUIRES specific files to be installed locally in order to run. If
you want a pure server solution, it will not work.

How many specific file(s) are you talking about? Do you have a list of what
specific files are you mentioning?

Thanks


"Milly Staples [MVP - Outlook]"

wrote in message

Please do yourself a favor and look at the Office Resource Kit and the
Windows 2003 (or whatever version of Windows you have) Terminal Services
white papers.

What you are asking has been answered many times here - if it is not the
answer you like, then look for a different vendor/solution. We have all
told you what is and is not possible, the problems inherent in trying to
meet your requests, and have basically given up providing answers that you
do not want to hear.

Office REQUIRES specific files to be installed locally in order to run. If
you want a pure server solution, it will not work.


--
Milly Staples [MVP - Outlook]

Post all replies to the group to keep the discussion intact. Due to
the (insert latest virus name here) virus, all mail sent to my personal
account will be deleted without reading.

After searching google.groups.com and finding no answer, Sarah Tanembaum
asked:

| Why not possible?
|
| Thanks.
|
| "Milly Staples [MVP - Outlook]"
| || No, you can either run Office from a TS/Citrix environment or you can
|| install it locally. You can create an admin installation point on
|| the server and have the clients load office via a logon script when
|| they first start Windows. But you cannot run it from a plain server.
||
|| --
|| Milly Staples [MVP - Outlook]
||
|| Post all replies to the group to keep the discussion intact. Due to
|| the (insert latest virus name here) virus, all mail sent to my
|| personal account will be deleted without reading.
||
|| After searching google.groups.com and finding no answer, Sarah
|| Tanembaum asked:
||
||| 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

 

[Sarah Tanembaum]

What's WUS? Thanks

What you are wanting in a TS install of Office which cannot be done on
SBS2003 without an additional server and TS cals.

You don't have the parts to do this.

So why not install office directly on the workstations? When WUS comes
out you can still centrally patch.

Office REQUIRES specific files to be installed locally in order to run. If
you want a pure server solution, it will not work.

How many specific file(s) are you talking about? Do you have a list of what
specific files are you mentioning?

Thanks


"Milly Staples [MVP - Outlook]"

wrote in message

Please do yourself a favor and look at the Office Resource Kit and the
Windows 2003 (or whatever version of Windows you have) Terminal Services
white papers.

What you are asking has been answered many times here - if it is not the
answer you like, then look for a different vendor/solution. We have all
told you what is and is not possible, the problems inherent in trying to
meet your requests, and have basically given up providing answers that you
do not want to hear.

Office REQUIRES specific files to be installed locally in order to run. If
you want a pure server solution, it will not work.


--
Milly Staples [MVP - Outlook]

Post all replies to the group to keep the discussion intact. Due to
the (insert latest virus name here) virus, all mail sent to my personal
account will be deleted without reading.

After searching google.groups.com and finding no answer, Sarah Tanembaum
asked:

| Why not possible?
|
| Thanks.
|
| "Milly Staples [MVP - Outlook]"
| || No, you can either run Office from a TS/Citrix environment or you can
|| install it locally. You can create an admin installation point on
|| the server and have the clients load office via a logon script when
|| they first start Windows. But you cannot run it from a plain server.
||
|| --
|| Milly Staples [MVP - Outlook]
||
|| Post all replies to the group to keep the discussion intact. Due to
|| the (insert latest virus name here) virus, all mail sent to my
|| personal account will be deleted without reading.
||
|| After searching google.groups.com and finding no answer, Sarah
|| Tanembaum asked:
||
||| 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

 

[Sarah Tanembaum]

What's WUS? Thanks

What you are wanting in a TS install of Office which cannot be done on
SBS2003 without an additional server and TS cals.

You don't have the parts to do this.

So why not install office directly on the workstations? When WUS comes
out you can still centrally patch.

Office REQUIRES specific files to be installed locally in order to run. If
you want a pure server solution, it will not work.

How many specific file(s) are you talking about? Do you have a list of what
specific files are you mentioning?

Thanks


"Milly Staples [MVP - Outlook]"

wrote in message

Please do yourself a favor and look at the Office Resource Kit and the
Windows 2003 (or whatever version of Windows you have) Terminal Services
white papers.

What you are asking has been answered many times here - if it is not the
answer you like, then look for a different vendor/solution. We have all
told you what is and is not possible, the problems inherent in trying to
meet your requests, and have basically given up providing answers that you
do not want to hear.

Office REQUIRES specific files to be installed locally in order to run. If
you want a pure server solution, it will not work.


--
Milly Staples [MVP - Outlook]

Post all replies to the group to keep the discussion intact. Due to
the (insert latest virus name here) virus, all mail sent to my personal
account will be deleted without reading.

After searching google.groups.com and finding no answer, Sarah Tanembaum
asked:

| Why not possible?
|
| Thanks.
|
| "Milly Staples [MVP - Outlook]"
| || No, you can either run Office from a TS/Citrix environment or you can
|| install it locally. You can create an admin installation point on
|| the server and have the clients load office via a logon script when
|| they first start Windows. But you cannot run it from a plain server.
||
|| --
|| Milly Staples [MVP - Outlook]
||
|| Post all replies to the group to keep the discussion intact. Due to
|| the (insert latest virus name here) virus, all mail sent to my
|| personal account will be deleted without reading.
||
|| After searching google.groups.com and finding no answer, Sarah
|| Tanembaum asked:
||
||| 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

 

[Sarah Tanembaum]

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.

Why would I do that if I can just run on my workstation an executable file
located at a file server? I do not have to push anything at all, therefore
no additional disk space required on my workstation and no additional load
on the network.

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

Funny, that now MS admitting that the thin-client is a better solution(at
least for this case) where traditionaly MS won't touch this and taught that
FAT CLIENT IS THE BEST SOLUTION!

Sarah

 

[Sarah Tanembaum]

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.

Why would I do that if I can just run on my workstation an executable file
located at a file server? I do not have to push anything at all, therefore
no additional disk space required on my workstation and no additional load
on the network.

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

Funny, that now MS admitting that the thin-client is a better solution(at
least for this case) where traditionaly MS won't touch this and taught that
FAT CLIENT IS THE BEST SOLUTION!

Sarah

 

[Sarah Tanembaum]

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.

Why would I do that if I can just run on my workstation an executable file
located at a file server? I do not have to push anything at all, therefore
no additional disk space required on my workstation and no additional load
on the network.

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

Funny, that now MS admitting that the thin-client is a better solution(at
least for this case) where traditionaly MS won't touch this and taught that
FAT CLIENT IS THE BEST SOLUTION!

Sarah