Networked Office

[Cary Shultz [A.D. MVP]]

Or, instead of the updates via the GPO you could use WUS.

Cary

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.

server it about)
we

from

a

file server. Its just as simple as that.



Sarah,

There's different solutions available to fit different needs. By

your
post

it appears that you bought your solution before determining your

needs.

If
your need and desire is to administer a single installation of

Office
for

all of your users, then Terminal Services is a valid solution.

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

Services
as

a

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

and

cons, and make the best choice possible.

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

and

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

you've

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

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

how

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

Windows

Terminal Server. You want to talk about economical? You want to talk about
redundancy? You want to talk about ease of administering such

network?
You

want to talk about implementing new security policies?

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

it
is

a

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

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



Thanks Kevin. Unfortunately the terminal services are out of the

question.

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

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

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

type

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

Thanks



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

You

are

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

letting

everyone access it reduces administrative issues. But, SBS2003 does

not

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

can

add

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

server.

The

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

would

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

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



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

the

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

registry

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

can

run

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

workstation?

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

big

problem since other OSes can handle multi-user apps?

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

corrupted

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

where

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

office

need

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

again,

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

upgraded!

Any ideas?





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

Office

to

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

slow

down

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

install

on

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

just

like

Outlook installs on SBS client upon connection.



Is it possible to run office from a server?

We just purchased 10 brand new PC with Windows XP Pro

Pre-installed,

an

a

server with ample of memory and disk space.

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

Professional.

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

there

a

way

to run Office from a server?

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

the

question

as it will add cost per client.

Thanks

 

[Cary Shultz [A.D. MVP]]

Or, instead of the updates via the GPO you could use WUS.

Cary

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.

server it about)
we

from

a

file server. Its just as simple as that.



Sarah,

There's different solutions available to fit different needs. By

your
post

it appears that you bought your solution before determining your

needs.

If
your need and desire is to administer a single installation of

Office
for

all of your users, then Terminal Services is a valid solution.

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

Services
as

a

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

and

cons, and make the best choice possible.

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

and

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

you've

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

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

how

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

Windows

Terminal Server. You want to talk about economical? You want to talk about
redundancy? You want to talk about ease of administering such

network?
You

want to talk about implementing new security policies?

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

it
is

a

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

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



Thanks Kevin. Unfortunately the terminal services are out of the

question.

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

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

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

type

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

Thanks



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

You

are

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

letting

everyone access it reduces administrative issues. But, SBS2003 does

not

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

can

add

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

server.

The

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

would

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

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



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

the

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

registry

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

can

run

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

workstation?

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

big

problem since other OSes can handle multi-user apps?

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

corrupted

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

where

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

office

need

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

again,

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

upgraded!

Any ideas?





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

Office

to

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

slow

down

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

install

on

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

just

like

Outlook installs on SBS client upon connection.



Is it possible to run office from a server?

We just purchased 10 brand new PC with Windows XP Pro

Pre-installed,

an

a

server with ample of memory and disk space.

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

Professional.

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

there

a

way

to run Office from a server?

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

the

question

as it will add cost per client.

Thanks

 

[Cary Shultz [A.D. MVP]]

Or, instead of the updates via the GPO you could use WUS.

Cary

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.

server it about)
we

from

a

file server. Its just as simple as that.



Sarah,

There's different solutions available to fit different needs. By

your
post

it appears that you bought your solution before determining your

needs.

If
your need and desire is to administer a single installation of

Office
for

all of your users, then Terminal Services is a valid solution.

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

Services
as

a

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

and

cons, and make the best choice possible.

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

and

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

you've

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

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

how

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

Windows

Terminal Server. You want to talk about economical? You want to talk about
redundancy? You want to talk about ease of administering such

network?
You

want to talk about implementing new security policies?

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

it
is

a

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

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



Thanks Kevin. Unfortunately the terminal services are out of the

question.

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

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

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

type

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

Thanks



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

You

are

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

letting

everyone access it reduces administrative issues. But, SBS2003 does

not

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

can

add

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

server.

The

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

would

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

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



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

the

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

registry

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

can

run

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

workstation?

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

big

problem since other OSes can handle multi-user apps?

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

corrupted

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

where

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

office

need

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

again,

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

upgraded!

Any ideas?





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

Office

to

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

slow

down

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

install

on

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

just

like

Outlook installs on SBS client upon connection.



Is it possible to run office from a server?

We just purchased 10 brand new PC with Windows XP Pro

Pre-installed,

an

a

server with ample of memory and disk space.

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

Professional.

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

there

a

way

to run Office from a server?

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

the

question

as it will add cost per client.

Thanks

 

[Cary Shultz [A.D. MVP]]

Or, instead of the updates via the GPO you could use WUS.

Cary

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.

server it about)
we

from

a

file server. Its just as simple as that.



Sarah,

There's different solutions available to fit different needs. By

your
post

it appears that you bought your solution before determining your

needs.

If
your need and desire is to administer a single installation of

Office
for

all of your users, then Terminal Services is a valid solution.

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

Services
as

a

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

and

cons, and make the best choice possible.

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

and

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

you've

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

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

how

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

Windows

Terminal Server. You want to talk about economical? You want to talk about
redundancy? You want to talk about ease of administering such

network?
You

want to talk about implementing new security policies?

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

it
is

a

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

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



Thanks Kevin. Unfortunately the terminal services are out of the

question.

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

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

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

type

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

Thanks



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

You

are

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

letting

everyone access it reduces administrative issues. But, SBS2003 does

not

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

can

add

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

server.

The

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

would

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

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



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

the

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

registry

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

can

run

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

workstation?

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

big

problem since other OSes can handle multi-user apps?

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

corrupted

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

where

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

office

need

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

again,

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

upgraded!

Any ideas?





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

Office

to

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

slow

down

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

install

on

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

just

like

Outlook installs on SBS client upon connection.



Is it possible to run office from a server?

We just purchased 10 brand new PC with Windows XP Pro

Pre-installed,

an

a

server with ample of memory and disk space.

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

Professional.

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

there

a

way

to run Office from a server?

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

the

question

as it will add cost per client.

Thanks

 

[Cary Shultz [A.D. MVP]]

Or, instead of the updates via the GPO you could use WUS.

Cary

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.

server it about)
we

from

a

file server. Its just as simple as that.



Sarah,

There's different solutions available to fit different needs. By

your
post

it appears that you bought your solution before determining your

needs.

If
your need and desire is to administer a single installation of

Office
for

all of your users, then Terminal Services is a valid solution.

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

Services
as

a

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

and

cons, and make the best choice possible.

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

and

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

you've

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

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

how

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

Windows

Terminal Server. You want to talk about economical? You want to talk about
redundancy? You want to talk about ease of administering such

network?
You

want to talk about implementing new security policies?

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

it
is

a

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

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



Thanks Kevin. Unfortunately the terminal services are out of the

question.

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

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

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

type

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

Thanks



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

You

are

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

letting

everyone access it reduces administrative issues. But, SBS2003 does

not

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

can

add

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

server.

The

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

would

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

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



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

the

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

registry

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

can

run

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

workstation?

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

big

problem since other OSes can handle multi-user apps?

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

corrupted

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

where

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

office

need

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

again,

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

upgraded!

Any ideas?





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

Office

to

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

slow

down

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

install

on

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

just

like

Outlook installs on SBS client upon connection.



Is it possible to run office from a server?

We just purchased 10 brand new PC with Windows XP Pro

Pre-installed,

an

a

server with ample of memory and disk space.

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

Professional.

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

there

a

way

to run Office from a server?

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

the

question

as it will add cost per client.

Thanks

 

[Cary Shultz [A.D. MVP]]

Or, instead of the updates via the GPO you could use WUS.

Cary

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.

server it about)
we

from

a

file server. Its just as simple as that.



Sarah,

There's different solutions available to fit different needs. By

your
post

it appears that you bought your solution before determining your

needs.

If
your need and desire is to administer a single installation of

Office
for

all of your users, then Terminal Services is a valid solution.

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

Services
as

a

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

and

cons, and make the best choice possible.

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

and

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

you've

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

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

how

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

Windows

Terminal Server. You want to talk about economical? You want to talk about
redundancy? You want to talk about ease of administering such

network?
You

want to talk about implementing new security policies?

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

it
is

a

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

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



Thanks Kevin. Unfortunately the terminal services are out of the

question.

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

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

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

type

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

Thanks



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

You

are

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

letting

everyone access it reduces administrative issues. But, SBS2003 does

not

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

can

add

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

server.

The

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

would

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

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



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

the

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

registry

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

can

run

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

workstation?

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

big

problem since other OSes can handle multi-user apps?

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

corrupted

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

where

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

office

need

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

again,

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

upgraded!

Any ideas?





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

Office

to

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

slow

down

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

install

on

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

just

like

Outlook installs on SBS client upon connection.



Is it possible to run office from a server?

We just purchased 10 brand new PC with Windows XP Pro

Pre-installed,

an

a

server with ample of memory and disk space.

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

Professional.

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

there

a

way

to run Office from a server?

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

the

question

as it will add cost per client.

Thanks

 

[Cary Shultz [A.D. MVP]]

Or, instead of the updates via the GPO you could use WUS.

Cary

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.

server it about)
we

from

a

file server. Its just as simple as that.



Sarah,

There's different solutions available to fit different needs. By

your
post

it appears that you bought your solution before determining your

needs.

If
your need and desire is to administer a single installation of

Office
for

all of your users, then Terminal Services is a valid solution.

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

Services
as

a

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

and

cons, and make the best choice possible.

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

and

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

you've

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

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

how

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

Windows

Terminal Server. You want to talk about economical? You want to talk about
redundancy? You want to talk about ease of administering such

network?
You

want to talk about implementing new security policies?

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

it
is

a

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

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



Thanks Kevin. Unfortunately the terminal services are out of the

question.

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

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

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

type

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

Thanks



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

You

are

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

letting

everyone access it reduces administrative issues. But, SBS2003 does

not

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

can

add

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

server.

The

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

would

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

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



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

the

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

registry

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

can

run

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

workstation?

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

big

problem since other OSes can handle multi-user apps?

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

corrupted

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

where

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

office

need

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

again,

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

upgraded!

Any ideas?





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

Office

to

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

slow

down

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

install

on

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

just

like

Outlook installs on SBS client upon connection.



Is it possible to run office from a server?

We just purchased 10 brand new PC with Windows XP Pro

Pre-installed,

an

a

server with ample of memory and disk space.

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

Professional.

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

there

a

way

to run Office from a server?

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

the

question

as it will add cost per client.

Thanks

 

[Cary Shultz [A.D. MVP]]

Or, instead of the updates via the GPO you could use WUS.

Cary

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.

server it about)
we

from

a

file server. Its just as simple as that.



Sarah,

There's different solutions available to fit different needs. By

your
post

it appears that you bought your solution before determining your

needs.

If
your need and desire is to administer a single installation of

Office
for

all of your users, then Terminal Services is a valid solution.

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

Services
as

a

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

and

cons, and make the best choice possible.

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

and

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

you've

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

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

how

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

Windows

Terminal Server. You want to talk about economical? You want to talk about
redundancy? You want to talk about ease of administering such

network?
You

want to talk about implementing new security policies?

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

it
is

a

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

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



Thanks Kevin. Unfortunately the terminal services are out of the

question.

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

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

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

type

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

Thanks



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

You

are

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

letting

everyone access it reduces administrative issues. But, SBS2003 does

not

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

can

add

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

server.

The

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

would

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

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



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

the

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

registry

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

can

run

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

workstation?

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

big

problem since other OSes can handle multi-user apps?

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

corrupted

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

where

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

office

need

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

again,

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

upgraded!

Any ideas?





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

Office

to

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

slow

down

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

install

on

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

just

like

Outlook installs on SBS client upon connection.



Is it possible to run office from a server?

We just purchased 10 brand new PC with Windows XP Pro

Pre-installed,

an

a

server with ample of memory and disk space.

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

Professional.

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

there

a

way

to run Office from a server?

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

the

question

as it will add cost per client.

Thanks

 

[Cary Shultz [A.D. MVP]]

Or, instead of the updates via the GPO you could use WUS.

Cary

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.

server it about)
we

from

a

file server. Its just as simple as that.



Sarah,

There's different solutions available to fit different needs. By

your
post

it appears that you bought your solution before determining your

needs.

If
your need and desire is to administer a single installation of

Office
for

all of your users, then Terminal Services is a valid solution.

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

Services
as

a

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

and

cons, and make the best choice possible.

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

and

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

you've

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

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

how

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

Windows

Terminal Server. You want to talk about economical? You want to talk about
redundancy? You want to talk about ease of administering such

network?
You

want to talk about implementing new security policies?

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

it
is

a

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

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



Thanks Kevin. Unfortunately the terminal services are out of the

question.

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

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

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

type

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

Thanks



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

You

are

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

letting

everyone access it reduces administrative issues. But, SBS2003 does

not

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

can

add

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

server.

The

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

would

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

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



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

the

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

registry

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

can

run

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

workstation?

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

big

problem since other OSes can handle multi-user apps?

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

corrupted

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

where

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

office

need

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

again,

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

upgraded!

Any ideas?





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

Office

to

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

slow

down

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

install

on

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

just

like

Outlook installs on SBS client upon connection.



Is it possible to run office from a server?

We just purchased 10 brand new PC with Windows XP Pro

Pre-installed,

an

a

server with ample of memory and disk space.

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

Professional.

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

there

a

way

to run Office from a server?

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

the

question

as it will add cost per client.

Thanks

 

[Sarah Tanembaum]

Thanks Cary.

I've use redeployment process quite often for many different OS which
include Windows as well.

For a small size of file, the push-method is quite efficient, e.g: scripts,
small files that is absolutely necessary to reside on each individual
workstation(In my view, if the apps were designed with
multi-user-multi-system-client-server in mind, there should be no(very
little)dependency on the workstation at all.

This push-method(== Redeployment == Update Service) put too much strain on
the network bandwidth(imagine if you have 1000 workstation, and you need to
update those instantaneously). Also, it adds substantial amount of disk
space(I know it does not cost much, but why waste it).

Seriously, what prevent MS cannot be executed from fileserver?

Thanks again

Sarah

Or, instead of the updates via the GPO you could use WUS.

Cary

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

install
an file well
and mind
it from the
pros you
can ironing
out

....

it

is

a

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

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



Thanks Kevin. Unfortunately the terminal services are out of the

question.

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

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

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

this
this

type

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

Thanks



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

You

are

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

letting

everyone access it reduces administrative issues. But, SBS2003 does

not

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

can

add

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

server.

The

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

would

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

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



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

store
all

the

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

registry

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

can

run

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

workstation?

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

big

problem since other OSes can handle multi-user apps?

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

corrupted

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

where

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

office

need

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

again,

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

upgraded!

Any ideas?





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

Office

to

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

slow

down

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

install

on

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

just

like

Outlook installs on SBS client upon connection.



Is it possible to run office from a server?

We just purchased 10 brand new PC with Windows XP Pro

Pre-installed,

an

a

server with ample of memory and disk space.

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

Professional.

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

there

a

way

to run Office from a server?

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

the

question

as it will add cost per client.

Thanks

 

[Sarah Tanembaum]

Thanks Cary.

I've use redeployment process quite often for many different OS which
include Windows as well.

For a small size of file, the push-method is quite efficient, e.g: scripts,
small files that is absolutely necessary to reside on each individual
workstation(In my view, if the apps were designed with
multi-user-multi-system-client-server in mind, there should be no(very
little)dependency on the workstation at all.

This push-method(== Redeployment == Update Service) put too much strain on
the network bandwidth(imagine if you have 1000 workstation, and you need to
update those instantaneously). Also, it adds substantial amount of disk
space(I know it does not cost much, but why waste it).

Seriously, what prevent MS cannot be executed from fileserver?

Thanks again

Sarah

Or, instead of the updates via the GPO you could use WUS.

Cary

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

install
an file well
and mind
it from the
pros you
can ironing
out

....

it

is

a

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

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



Thanks Kevin. Unfortunately the terminal services are out of the

question.

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

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

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

this
this

type

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

Thanks



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

You

are

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

letting

everyone access it reduces administrative issues. But, SBS2003 does

not

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

can

add

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

server.

The

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

would

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

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



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

store
all

the

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

registry

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

can

run

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

workstation?

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

big

problem since other OSes can handle multi-user apps?

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

corrupted

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

where

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

office

need

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

again,

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

upgraded!

Any ideas?





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

Office

to

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

slow

down

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

install

on

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

just

like

Outlook installs on SBS client upon connection.



Is it possible to run office from a server?

We just purchased 10 brand new PC with Windows XP Pro

Pre-installed,

an

a

server with ample of memory and disk space.

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

Professional.

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

there

a

way

to run Office from a server?

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

the

question

as it will add cost per client.

Thanks

 

[Sarah Tanembaum]

Thanks Cary.

I've use redeployment process quite often for many different OS which
include Windows as well.

For a small size of file, the push-method is quite efficient, e.g: scripts,
small files that is absolutely necessary to reside on each individual
workstation(In my view, if the apps were designed with
multi-user-multi-system-client-server in mind, there should be no(very
little)dependency on the workstation at all.

This push-method(== Redeployment == Update Service) put too much strain on
the network bandwidth(imagine if you have 1000 workstation, and you need to
update those instantaneously). Also, it adds substantial amount of disk
space(I know it does not cost much, but why waste it).

Seriously, what prevent MS cannot be executed from fileserver?

Thanks again

Sarah

Or, instead of the updates via the GPO you could use WUS.

Cary

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

install
an file well
and mind
it from the
pros you
can ironing
out

....

it

is

a

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

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



Thanks Kevin. Unfortunately the terminal services are out of the

question.

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

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

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

this
this

type

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

Thanks



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

You

are

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

letting

everyone access it reduces administrative issues. But, SBS2003 does

not

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

can

add

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

server.

The

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

would

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

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



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

store
all

the

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

registry

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

can

run

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

workstation?

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

big

problem since other OSes can handle multi-user apps?

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

corrupted

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

where

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

office

need

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

again,

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

upgraded!

Any ideas?





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

Office

to

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

slow

down

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

install

on

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

just

like

Outlook installs on SBS client upon connection.



Is it possible to run office from a server?

We just purchased 10 brand new PC with Windows XP Pro

Pre-installed,

an

a

server with ample of memory and disk space.

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

Professional.

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

there

a

way

to run Office from a server?

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

the

question

as it will add cost per client.

Thanks

 

[Sarah Tanembaum]

Thanks Cary.

I've use redeployment process quite often for many different OS which
include Windows as well.

For a small size of file, the push-method is quite efficient, e.g: scripts,
small files that is absolutely necessary to reside on each individual
workstation(In my view, if the apps were designed with
multi-user-multi-system-client-server in mind, there should be no(very
little)dependency on the workstation at all.

This push-method(== Redeployment == Update Service) put too much strain on
the network bandwidth(imagine if you have 1000 workstation, and you need to
update those instantaneously). Also, it adds substantial amount of disk
space(I know it does not cost much, but why waste it).

Seriously, what prevent MS cannot be executed from fileserver?

Thanks again

Sarah

Or, instead of the updates via the GPO you could use WUS.

Cary

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

install
an file well
and mind
it from the
pros you
can ironing
out

....

it

is

a

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

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



Thanks Kevin. Unfortunately the terminal services are out of the

question.

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

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

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

this
this

type

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

Thanks



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

You

are

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

letting

everyone access it reduces administrative issues. But, SBS2003 does

not

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

can

add

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

server.

The

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

would

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

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



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

store
all

the

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

registry

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

can

run

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

workstation?

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

big

problem since other OSes can handle multi-user apps?

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

corrupted

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

where

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

office

need

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

again,

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

upgraded!

Any ideas?





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

Office

to

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

slow

down

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

install

on

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

just

like

Outlook installs on SBS client upon connection.



Is it possible to run office from a server?

We just purchased 10 brand new PC with Windows XP Pro

Pre-installed,

an

a

server with ample of memory and disk space.

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

Professional.

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

there

a

way

to run Office from a server?

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

the

question

as it will add cost per client.

Thanks

 

[Sarah Tanembaum]

Thanks Cary.

I've use redeployment process quite often for many different OS which
include Windows as well.

For a small size of file, the push-method is quite efficient, e.g: scripts,
small files that is absolutely necessary to reside on each individual
workstation(In my view, if the apps were designed with
multi-user-multi-system-client-server in mind, there should be no(very
little)dependency on the workstation at all.

This push-method(== Redeployment == Update Service) put too much strain on
the network bandwidth(imagine if you have 1000 workstation, and you need to
update those instantaneously). Also, it adds substantial amount of disk
space(I know it does not cost much, but why waste it).

Seriously, what prevent MS cannot be executed from fileserver?

Thanks again

Sarah

Or, instead of the updates via the GPO you could use WUS.

Cary

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

install
an file well
and mind
it from the
pros you
can ironing
out

....

it

is

a

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

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



Thanks Kevin. Unfortunately the terminal services are out of the

question.

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

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

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

this
this

type

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

Thanks



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

You

are

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

letting

everyone access it reduces administrative issues. But, SBS2003 does

not

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

can

add

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

server.

The

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

would

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

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



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

store
all

the

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

registry

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

can

run

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

workstation?

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

big

problem since other OSes can handle multi-user apps?

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

corrupted

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

where

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

office

need

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

again,

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

upgraded!

Any ideas?





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

Office

to

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

slow

down

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

install

on

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

just

like

Outlook installs on SBS client upon connection.



Is it possible to run office from a server?

We just purchased 10 brand new PC with Windows XP Pro

Pre-installed,

an

a

server with ample of memory and disk space.

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

Professional.

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

there

a

way

to run Office from a server?

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

the

question

as it will add cost per client.

Thanks

 

[Sarah Tanembaum]

Thanks Cary.

I've use redeployment process quite often for many different OS which
include Windows as well.

For a small size of file, the push-method is quite efficient, e.g: scripts,
small files that is absolutely necessary to reside on each individual
workstation(In my view, if the apps were designed with
multi-user-multi-system-client-server in mind, there should be no(very
little)dependency on the workstation at all.

This push-method(== Redeployment == Update Service) put too much strain on
the network bandwidth(imagine if you have 1000 workstation, and you need to
update those instantaneously). Also, it adds substantial amount of disk
space(I know it does not cost much, but why waste it).

Seriously, what prevent MS cannot be executed from fileserver?

Thanks again

Sarah

Or, instead of the updates via the GPO you could use WUS.

Cary

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

install
an file well
and mind
it from the
pros you
can ironing
out

....

it

is

a

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

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



Thanks Kevin. Unfortunately the terminal services are out of the

question.

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

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

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

this
this

type

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

Thanks



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

You

are

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

letting

everyone access it reduces administrative issues. But, SBS2003 does

not

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

can

add

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

server.

The

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

would

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

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



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

store
all

the

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

registry

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

can

run

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

workstation?

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

big

problem since other OSes can handle multi-user apps?

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

corrupted

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

where

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

office

need

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

again,

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

upgraded!

Any ideas?





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

Office

to

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

slow

down

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

install

on

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

just

like

Outlook installs on SBS client upon connection.



Is it possible to run office from a server?

We just purchased 10 brand new PC with Windows XP Pro

Pre-installed,

an

a

server with ample of memory and disk space.

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

Professional.

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

there

a

way

to run Office from a server?

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

the

question

as it will add cost per client.

Thanks

 

[Sarah Tanembaum]

Thanks Cary.

I've use redeployment process quite often for many different OS which
include Windows as well.

For a small size of file, the push-method is quite efficient, e.g: scripts,
small files that is absolutely necessary to reside on each individual
workstation(In my view, if the apps were designed with
multi-user-multi-system-client-server in mind, there should be no(very
little)dependency on the workstation at all.

This push-method(== Redeployment == Update Service) put too much strain on
the network bandwidth(imagine if you have 1000 workstation, and you need to
update those instantaneously). Also, it adds substantial amount of disk
space(I know it does not cost much, but why waste it).

Seriously, what prevent MS cannot be executed from fileserver?

Thanks again

Sarah

Or, instead of the updates via the GPO you could use WUS.

Cary

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

install
an file well
and mind
it from the
pros you
can ironing
out

....

it

is

a

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

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



Thanks Kevin. Unfortunately the terminal services are out of the

question.

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

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

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

this
this

type

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

Thanks



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

You

are

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

letting

everyone access it reduces administrative issues. But, SBS2003 does

not

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

can

add

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

server.

The

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

would

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

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



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

store
all

the

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

registry

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

can

run

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

workstation?

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

big

problem since other OSes can handle multi-user apps?

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

corrupted

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

where

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

office

need

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

again,

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

upgraded!

Any ideas?





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

Office

to

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

slow

down

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

install

on

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

just

like

Outlook installs on SBS client upon connection.



Is it possible to run office from a server?

We just purchased 10 brand new PC with Windows XP Pro

Pre-installed,

an

a

server with ample of memory and disk space.

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

Professional.

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

there

a

way

to run Office from a server?

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

the

question

as it will add cost per client.

Thanks

 

[Sarah Tanembaum]

Thanks Cary.

I've use redeployment process quite often for many different OS which
include Windows as well.

For a small size of file, the push-method is quite efficient, e.g: scripts,
small files that is absolutely necessary to reside on each individual
workstation(In my view, if the apps were designed with
multi-user-multi-system-client-server in mind, there should be no(very
little)dependency on the workstation at all.

This push-method(== Redeployment == Update Service) put too much strain on
the network bandwidth(imagine if you have 1000 workstation, and you need to
update those instantaneously). Also, it adds substantial amount of disk
space(I know it does not cost much, but why waste it).

Seriously, what prevent MS cannot be executed from fileserver?

Thanks again

Sarah

Or, instead of the updates via the GPO you could use WUS.

Cary

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

install
an file well
and mind
it from the
pros you
can ironing
out

....

it

is

a

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

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



Thanks Kevin. Unfortunately the terminal services are out of the

question.

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

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

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

this
this

type

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

Thanks



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

You

are

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

letting

everyone access it reduces administrative issues. But, SBS2003 does

not

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

can

add

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

server.

The

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

would

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

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



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

store
all

the

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

registry

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

can

run

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

workstation?

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

big

problem since other OSes can handle multi-user apps?

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

corrupted

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

where

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

office

need

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

again,

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

upgraded!

Any ideas?





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

Office

to

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

slow

down

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

install

on

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

just

like

Outlook installs on SBS client upon connection.



Is it possible to run office from a server?

We just purchased 10 brand new PC with Windows XP Pro

Pre-installed,

an

a

server with ample of memory and disk space.

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

Professional.

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

there

a

way

to run Office from a server?

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

the

question

as it will add cost per client.

Thanks

 

[Sarah Tanembaum]

Thanks Cary.

I've use redeployment process quite often for many different OS which
include Windows as well.

For a small size of file, the push-method is quite efficient, e.g: scripts,
small files that is absolutely necessary to reside on each individual
workstation(In my view, if the apps were designed with
multi-user-multi-system-client-server in mind, there should be no(very
little)dependency on the workstation at all.

This push-method(== Redeployment == Update Service) put too much strain on
the network bandwidth(imagine if you have 1000 workstation, and you need to
update those instantaneously). Also, it adds substantial amount of disk
space(I know it does not cost much, but why waste it).

Seriously, what prevent MS cannot be executed from fileserver?

Thanks again

Sarah

Or, instead of the updates via the GPO you could use WUS.

Cary

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

install
an file well
and mind
it from the
pros you
can ironing
out

....

it

is

a

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

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



Thanks Kevin. Unfortunately the terminal services are out of the

question.

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

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

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

this
this

type

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

Thanks



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

You

are

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

letting

everyone access it reduces administrative issues. But, SBS2003 does

not

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

can

add

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

server.

The

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

would

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

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



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

store
all

the

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

registry

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

can

run

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

workstation?

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

big

problem since other OSes can handle multi-user apps?

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

corrupted

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

where

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

office

need

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

again,

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

upgraded!

Any ideas?





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

Office

to

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

slow

down

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

install

on

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

just

like

Outlook installs on SBS client upon connection.



Is it possible to run office from a server?

We just purchased 10 brand new PC with Windows XP Pro

Pre-installed,

an

a

server with ample of memory and disk space.

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

Professional.

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

there

a

way

to run Office from a server?

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

the

question

as it will add cost per client.

Thanks

 

[Sarah Tanembaum]

Dear Kevin,
As some of your colleage said, Terminal Services solution does not scale
well for the Enterprise.
And I do agree with them as I have direct experience with Citrix
Winframe(where Microsoft Terminal Services technology based-on), MS
Terminal Server, and Metaframe Server(a much better solution than MS
Terminal Services solution for Large Enterprise, more scalable, has more
admninstrative utilities, and best of all it is available for almost every
OS available).

As I said in my previous posting, MS has black-and-white solution only, that
is:
1- run ALL APPS in the server(Terminal Services)
2- run ALL APPS in the workstation(old technology).

Both solution is so archaic in my view as (1) is pretty much an old
mainframe solution except that we got to waste a good workstation computing
power, and (2) is only as good as home use or very small business solution.

For most large enterprise, the (3) solution that is to combine the power of
server technology, networking technology, and the workstation technology.
Ooops ... I forgot to mention that it is really good implementation of
client-server technology. But I guess MS has not yet catch on that ideas.
Otherwise, they would have solution as I mentioned earlier.

At any case, thanks for your info. I wish that MS would consider that
solution soon.

Sarah

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]
"The days pass by so quickly now, the nights are seldom long"

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

Sarah

 

[Sarah Tanembaum]

Dear Kevin,
As some of your colleage said, Terminal Services solution does not scale
well for the Enterprise.
And I do agree with them as I have direct experience with Citrix
Winframe(where Microsoft Terminal Services technology based-on), MS
Terminal Server, and Metaframe Server(a much better solution than MS
Terminal Services solution for Large Enterprise, more scalable, has more
admninstrative utilities, and best of all it is available for almost every
OS available).

As I said in my previous posting, MS has black-and-white solution only, that
is:
1- run ALL APPS in the server(Terminal Services)
2- run ALL APPS in the workstation(old technology).

Both solution is so archaic in my view as (1) is pretty much an old
mainframe solution except that we got to waste a good workstation computing
power, and (2) is only as good as home use or very small business solution.

For most large enterprise, the (3) solution that is to combine the power of
server technology, networking technology, and the workstation technology.
Ooops ... I forgot to mention that it is really good implementation of
client-server technology. But I guess MS has not yet catch on that ideas.
Otherwise, they would have solution as I mentioned earlier.

At any case, thanks for your info. I wish that MS would consider that
solution soon.

Sarah

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]
"The days pass by so quickly now, the nights are seldom long"

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

Sarah