Networked Office

[Kevin Weilbacher [SBS-MVP]]

Sarah, not sure what you mean to imply by saying "now MS [is] admitting" --
since Terminal Services have been provided since at least the NT 4.0 days by
Microsoft (see the 1998 article
http://www.microsoft.com/ntserver/ProductInfo/terminal/tsarchitecture.asp)
and Microsoft continues to make improvements in it every year, and companies
like Citrix continue to improve and adapt their product lines.

But then again, I know you already knew that.

 

[Kevin Weilbacher [SBS-MVP]]

Sarah, not sure what you mean to imply by saying "now MS [is] admitting" --
since Terminal Services have been provided since at least the NT 4.0 days by
Microsoft (see the 1998 article
http://www.microsoft.com/ntserver/ProductInfo/terminal/tsarchitecture.asp)
and Microsoft continues to make improvements in it every year, and companies
like Citrix continue to improve and adapt their product lines.

But then again, I know you already knew that.

 

[Frank McCallister]

Frank

It's like talking to a wall. Give it up people. She's never going to
listen. Let her beat herself bloody against his problem by herself.

--
Kelley
aka catwalker
IT Professional, MCP

I wonder why MS do all that fuss which in fact it is easier to just make the
apps to run from any file server and execute it on the individual
workstation.

Application will only be installed once in the file server.
What is so hard to do that? The technology is already there and it needs
only MS willingness to make it to work or not.

Sarah

If you purchased the MOLP version you can do what's called an
administrative install on the server and PUSH it down to the workstations.

But honestly these days, Office 2003 will install without the install
point and get updates.

Creating an Administrative Installation Point (Office 2003 Editions
Resource Kit):
http://www.microsoft.com/office/ork/2003/two/ch3/DepB01.htm



Sarah Tanembaum wrote:

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.

You can. It's called Terminal Server.. but you can't do this with SBS2003.

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.


No we're telling you

a. you can do what you want but you don't have the right products to do
it with [you need TS in application mode which SBS cannot do]

b. You can work around it with an install point on the server that
pushes out the software directly to the workstation.

We're not avoiding the issue, unfortunately, you aren't liking the
answers we are giving you which are the only ones we can give you
unless you

1. Buy a second server for TS in application mode
2. Buy TS cals for those XPs

You don't have the right parts to do what you want.

You do have the right parts to do an alternative.

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






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

 

[Frank McCallister]

Frank

It's like talking to a wall. Give it up people. She's never going to
listen. Let her beat herself bloody against his problem by herself.

--
Kelley
aka catwalker
IT Professional, MCP

I wonder why MS do all that fuss which in fact it is easier to just make the
apps to run from any file server and execute it on the individual
workstation.

Application will only be installed once in the file server.
What is so hard to do that? The technology is already there and it needs
only MS willingness to make it to work or not.

Sarah

If you purchased the MOLP version you can do what's called an
administrative install on the server and PUSH it down to the workstations.

But honestly these days, Office 2003 will install without the install
point and get updates.

Creating an Administrative Installation Point (Office 2003 Editions
Resource Kit):
http://www.microsoft.com/office/ork/2003/two/ch3/DepB01.htm



Sarah Tanembaum wrote:

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.

You can. It's called Terminal Server.. but you can't do this with SBS2003.

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.


No we're telling you

a. you can do what you want but you don't have the right products to do
it with [you need TS in application mode which SBS cannot do]

b. You can work around it with an install point on the server that
pushes out the software directly to the workstation.

We're not avoiding the issue, unfortunately, you aren't liking the
answers we are giving you which are the only ones we can give you
unless you

1. Buy a second server for TS in application mode
2. Buy TS cals for those XPs

You don't have the right parts to do what you want.

You do have the right parts to do an alternative.

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






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

 

[Frank McCallister]

Frank

It's like talking to a wall. Give it up people. She's never going to
listen. Let her beat herself bloody against his problem by herself.

--
Kelley
aka catwalker
IT Professional, MCP

I wonder why MS do all that fuss which in fact it is easier to just make the
apps to run from any file server and execute it on the individual
workstation.

Application will only be installed once in the file server.
What is so hard to do that? The technology is already there and it needs
only MS willingness to make it to work or not.

Sarah

If you purchased the MOLP version you can do what's called an
administrative install on the server and PUSH it down to the workstations.

But honestly these days, Office 2003 will install without the install
point and get updates.

Creating an Administrative Installation Point (Office 2003 Editions
Resource Kit):
http://www.microsoft.com/office/ork/2003/two/ch3/DepB01.htm



Sarah Tanembaum wrote:

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.

You can. It's called Terminal Server.. but you can't do this with SBS2003.

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.


No we're telling you

a. you can do what you want but you don't have the right products to do
it with [you need TS in application mode which SBS cannot do]

b. You can work around it with an install point on the server that
pushes out the software directly to the workstation.

We're not avoiding the issue, unfortunately, you aren't liking the
answers we are giving you which are the only ones we can give you
unless you

1. Buy a second server for TS in application mode
2. Buy TS cals for those XPs

You don't have the right parts to do what you want.

You do have the right parts to do an alternative.

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






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

 

[Frank McCallister]

Frank

It's like talking to a wall. Give it up people. She's never going to
listen. Let her beat herself bloody against his problem by herself.

--
Kelley
aka catwalker
IT Professional, MCP

I wonder why MS do all that fuss which in fact it is easier to just make the
apps to run from any file server and execute it on the individual
workstation.

Application will only be installed once in the file server.
What is so hard to do that? The technology is already there and it needs
only MS willingness to make it to work or not.

Sarah

If you purchased the MOLP version you can do what's called an
administrative install on the server and PUSH it down to the workstations.

But honestly these days, Office 2003 will install without the install
point and get updates.

Creating an Administrative Installation Point (Office 2003 Editions
Resource Kit):
http://www.microsoft.com/office/ork/2003/two/ch3/DepB01.htm



Sarah Tanembaum wrote:

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.

You can. It's called Terminal Server.. but you can't do this with SBS2003.

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.


No we're telling you

a. you can do what you want but you don't have the right products to do
it with [you need TS in application mode which SBS cannot do]

b. You can work around it with an install point on the server that
pushes out the software directly to the workstation.

We're not avoiding the issue, unfortunately, you aren't liking the
answers we are giving you which are the only ones we can give you
unless you

1. Buy a second server for TS in application mode
2. Buy TS cals for those XPs

You don't have the right parts to do what you want.

You do have the right parts to do an alternative.

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






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

 

[Frank McCallister]

Frank

It's like talking to a wall. Give it up people. She's never going to
listen. Let her beat herself bloody against his problem by herself.

--
Kelley
aka catwalker
IT Professional, MCP

I wonder why MS do all that fuss which in fact it is easier to just make the
apps to run from any file server and execute it on the individual
workstation.

Application will only be installed once in the file server.
What is so hard to do that? The technology is already there and it needs
only MS willingness to make it to work or not.

Sarah

If you purchased the MOLP version you can do what's called an
administrative install on the server and PUSH it down to the workstations.

But honestly these days, Office 2003 will install without the install
point and get updates.

Creating an Administrative Installation Point (Office 2003 Editions
Resource Kit):
http://www.microsoft.com/office/ork/2003/two/ch3/DepB01.htm



Sarah Tanembaum wrote:

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.

You can. It's called Terminal Server.. but you can't do this with SBS2003.

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.


No we're telling you

a. you can do what you want but you don't have the right products to do
it with [you need TS in application mode which SBS cannot do]

b. You can work around it with an install point on the server that
pushes out the software directly to the workstation.

We're not avoiding the issue, unfortunately, you aren't liking the
answers we are giving you which are the only ones we can give you
unless you

1. Buy a second server for TS in application mode
2. Buy TS cals for those XPs

You don't have the right parts to do what you want.

You do have the right parts to do an alternative.

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






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

 

[Frank McCallister]

Frank

It's like talking to a wall. Give it up people. She's never going to
listen. Let her beat herself bloody against his problem by herself.

--
Kelley
aka catwalker
IT Professional, MCP

I wonder why MS do all that fuss which in fact it is easier to just make the
apps to run from any file server and execute it on the individual
workstation.

Application will only be installed once in the file server.
What is so hard to do that? The technology is already there and it needs
only MS willingness to make it to work or not.

Sarah

If you purchased the MOLP version you can do what's called an
administrative install on the server and PUSH it down to the workstations.

But honestly these days, Office 2003 will install without the install
point and get updates.

Creating an Administrative Installation Point (Office 2003 Editions
Resource Kit):
http://www.microsoft.com/office/ork/2003/two/ch3/DepB01.htm



Sarah Tanembaum wrote:

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.

You can. It's called Terminal Server.. but you can't do this with SBS2003.

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.


No we're telling you

a. you can do what you want but you don't have the right products to do
it with [you need TS in application mode which SBS cannot do]

b. You can work around it with an install point on the server that
pushes out the software directly to the workstation.

We're not avoiding the issue, unfortunately, you aren't liking the
answers we are giving you which are the only ones we can give you
unless you

1. Buy a second server for TS in application mode
2. Buy TS cals for those XPs

You don't have the right parts to do what you want.

You do have the right parts to do an alternative.

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






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

 

[Frank McCallister]

Frank

It's like talking to a wall. Give it up people. She's never going to
listen. Let her beat herself bloody against his problem by herself.

--
Kelley
aka catwalker
IT Professional, MCP

I wonder why MS do all that fuss which in fact it is easier to just make the
apps to run from any file server and execute it on the individual
workstation.

Application will only be installed once in the file server.
What is so hard to do that? The technology is already there and it needs
only MS willingness to make it to work or not.

Sarah

If you purchased the MOLP version you can do what's called an
administrative install on the server and PUSH it down to the workstations.

But honestly these days, Office 2003 will install without the install
point and get updates.

Creating an Administrative Installation Point (Office 2003 Editions
Resource Kit):
http://www.microsoft.com/office/ork/2003/two/ch3/DepB01.htm



Sarah Tanembaum wrote:

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.

You can. It's called Terminal Server.. but you can't do this with SBS2003.

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.


No we're telling you

a. you can do what you want but you don't have the right products to do
it with [you need TS in application mode which SBS cannot do]

b. You can work around it with an install point on the server that
pushes out the software directly to the workstation.

We're not avoiding the issue, unfortunately, you aren't liking the
answers we are giving you which are the only ones we can give you
unless you

1. Buy a second server for TS in application mode
2. Buy TS cals for those XPs

You don't have the right parts to do what you want.

You do have the right parts to do an alternative.

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






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

 

[Frank McCallister]

Frank

It's like talking to a wall. Give it up people. She's never going to
listen. Let her beat herself bloody against his problem by herself.

--
Kelley
aka catwalker
IT Professional, MCP

I wonder why MS do all that fuss which in fact it is easier to just make the
apps to run from any file server and execute it on the individual
workstation.

Application will only be installed once in the file server.
What is so hard to do that? The technology is already there and it needs
only MS willingness to make it to work or not.

Sarah

If you purchased the MOLP version you can do what's called an
administrative install on the server and PUSH it down to the workstations.

But honestly these days, Office 2003 will install without the install
point and get updates.

Creating an Administrative Installation Point (Office 2003 Editions
Resource Kit):
http://www.microsoft.com/office/ork/2003/two/ch3/DepB01.htm



Sarah Tanembaum wrote:

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.

You can. It's called Terminal Server.. but you can't do this with SBS2003.

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.


No we're telling you

a. you can do what you want but you don't have the right products to do
it with [you need TS in application mode which SBS cannot do]

b. You can work around it with an install point on the server that
pushes out the software directly to the workstation.

We're not avoiding the issue, unfortunately, you aren't liking the
answers we are giving you which are the only ones we can give you
unless you

1. Buy a second server for TS in application mode
2. Buy TS cals for those XPs

You don't have the right parts to do what you want.

You do have the right parts to do an alternative.

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






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

 

[Frank McCallister]

Frank

It's like talking to a wall. Give it up people. She's never going to
listen. Let her beat herself bloody against his problem by herself.

--
Kelley
aka catwalker
IT Professional, MCP

I wonder why MS do all that fuss which in fact it is easier to just make the
apps to run from any file server and execute it on the individual
workstation.

Application will only be installed once in the file server.
What is so hard to do that? The technology is already there and it needs
only MS willingness to make it to work or not.

Sarah

If you purchased the MOLP version you can do what's called an
administrative install on the server and PUSH it down to the workstations.

But honestly these days, Office 2003 will install without the install
point and get updates.

Creating an Administrative Installation Point (Office 2003 Editions
Resource Kit):
http://www.microsoft.com/office/ork/2003/two/ch3/DepB01.htm



Sarah Tanembaum wrote:

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.

You can. It's called Terminal Server.. but you can't do this with SBS2003.

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.


No we're telling you

a. you can do what you want but you don't have the right products to do
it with [you need TS in application mode which SBS cannot do]

b. You can work around it with an install point on the server that
pushes out the software directly to the workstation.

We're not avoiding the issue, unfortunately, you aren't liking the
answers we are giving you which are the only ones we can give you
unless you

1. Buy a second server for TS in application mode
2. Buy TS cals for those XPs

You don't have the right parts to do what you want.

You do have the right parts to do an alternative.

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






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

 

[Cary Shultz [A.D. MVP]]

Sarah,

Group Policy does exactly this. You make the Administrative Installation
Point and install to the workstations from this AIP. All need to do
updates? Update the AIP and then simply go to the GPO and select
'redeploy'. The next time the user logs on or the computer restarts (
depending on how you did this ) the update is deployed. Users delete a file
on their local workstation, something like WinWord.exe or an important .dll
file, and the GPO is smart enough to know this and will shoot down this file
to the particular client. It is part of the self-healing feature of
deploying applications via GPO.

Cary

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.

server

and

it

is

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

 

[Cary Shultz [A.D. MVP]]

Sarah,

Group Policy does exactly this. You make the Administrative Installation
Point and install to the workstations from this AIP. All need to do
updates? Update the AIP and then simply go to the GPO and select
'redeploy'. The next time the user logs on or the computer restarts (
depending on how you did this ) the update is deployed. Users delete a file
on their local workstation, something like WinWord.exe or an important .dll
file, and the GPO is smart enough to know this and will shoot down this file
to the particular client. It is part of the self-healing feature of
deploying applications via GPO.

Cary

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.

server

and

it

is

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

 

[Cary Shultz [A.D. MVP]]

Sarah,

Group Policy does exactly this. You make the Administrative Installation
Point and install to the workstations from this AIP. All need to do
updates? Update the AIP and then simply go to the GPO and select
'redeploy'. The next time the user logs on or the computer restarts (
depending on how you did this ) the update is deployed. Users delete a file
on their local workstation, something like WinWord.exe or an important .dll
file, and the GPO is smart enough to know this and will shoot down this file
to the particular client. It is part of the self-healing feature of
deploying applications via GPO.

Cary

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.

server

and

it

is

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

 

[Cary Shultz [A.D. MVP]]

Sarah,

Group Policy does exactly this. You make the Administrative Installation
Point and install to the workstations from this AIP. All need to do
updates? Update the AIP and then simply go to the GPO and select
'redeploy'. The next time the user logs on or the computer restarts (
depending on how you did this ) the update is deployed. Users delete a file
on their local workstation, something like WinWord.exe or an important .dll
file, and the GPO is smart enough to know this and will shoot down this file
to the particular client. It is part of the self-healing feature of
deploying applications via GPO.

Cary

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.

server

and

it

is

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

 

[Cary Shultz [A.D. MVP]]

Sarah,

Group Policy does exactly this. You make the Administrative Installation
Point and install to the workstations from this AIP. All need to do
updates? Update the AIP and then simply go to the GPO and select
'redeploy'. The next time the user logs on or the computer restarts (
depending on how you did this ) the update is deployed. Users delete a file
on their local workstation, something like WinWord.exe or an important .dll
file, and the GPO is smart enough to know this and will shoot down this file
to the particular client. It is part of the self-healing feature of
deploying applications via GPO.

Cary

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.

server

and

it

is

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

 

[Cary Shultz [A.D. MVP]]

Sarah,

Group Policy does exactly this. You make the Administrative Installation
Point and install to the workstations from this AIP. All need to do
updates? Update the AIP and then simply go to the GPO and select
'redeploy'. The next time the user logs on or the computer restarts (
depending on how you did this ) the update is deployed. Users delete a file
on their local workstation, something like WinWord.exe or an important .dll
file, and the GPO is smart enough to know this and will shoot down this file
to the particular client. It is part of the self-healing feature of
deploying applications via GPO.

Cary

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.

server

and

it

is

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

 

[Cary Shultz [A.D. MVP]]

Sarah,

Group Policy does exactly this. You make the Administrative Installation
Point and install to the workstations from this AIP. All need to do
updates? Update the AIP and then simply go to the GPO and select
'redeploy'. The next time the user logs on or the computer restarts (
depending on how you did this ) the update is deployed. Users delete a file
on their local workstation, something like WinWord.exe or an important .dll
file, and the GPO is smart enough to know this and will shoot down this file
to the particular client. It is part of the self-healing feature of
deploying applications via GPO.

Cary

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.

server

and

it

is

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

 

[Cary Shultz [A.D. MVP]]

Sarah,

Group Policy does exactly this. You make the Administrative Installation
Point and install to the workstations from this AIP. All need to do
updates? Update the AIP and then simply go to the GPO and select
'redeploy'. The next time the user logs on or the computer restarts (
depending on how you did this ) the update is deployed. Users delete a file
on their local workstation, something like WinWord.exe or an important .dll
file, and the GPO is smart enough to know this and will shoot down this file
to the particular client. It is part of the self-healing feature of
deploying applications via GPO.

Cary

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.

server

and

it

is

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

 

[Cary Shultz [A.D. MVP]]

Sarah,

Group Policy does exactly this. You make the Administrative Installation
Point and install to the workstations from this AIP. All need to do
updates? Update the AIP and then simply go to the GPO and select
'redeploy'. The next time the user logs on or the computer restarts (
depending on how you did this ) the update is deployed. Users delete a file
on their local workstation, something like WinWord.exe or an important .dll
file, and the GPO is smart enough to know this and will shoot down this file
to the particular client. It is part of the self-healing feature of
deploying applications via GPO.

Cary

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.

server

and

it

is

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