Networked Office

[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

 

[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

 

[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

 

[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

 

[Edward Lee]

PMFJI. I have some experience with creating an admin install of Office. I'm
looking for some info that would get me started using GPO to deploy an
upgrade to O2k3 and then deploy patches in the future.

Thanks,

--
Edward Lee
Microsoft MVP - Sharepoint Portal Server

Sarah,

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

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

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

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

Cary



PS. MVP stands for Microsoft Most Valuable Professional

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

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

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

Please ....

Sarah,

I might jump in here for a second.

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

a
good

idea to run Terminal Server in Application Mode on a Domain Controller....

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

Secondly, you can indeed make an Administrative Installation of Office 2003
on your Server and install that application on each workstation from that
Admin Installation. The advantages of doing this are 1) you have a common,
accessible installation point and 2) you do not have to worry about losing
the Office 2003 CD! However, the disadvantage of doing this (

compared

to Kit Sure,
you you
have or
when and -
here sure
that an

there

a

 

[Edward Lee]

PMFJI. I have some experience with creating an admin install of Office. I'm
looking for some info that would get me started using GPO to deploy an
upgrade to O2k3 and then deploy patches in the future.

Thanks,

--
Edward Lee
Microsoft MVP - Sharepoint Portal Server

Sarah,

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

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

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

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

Cary



PS. MVP stands for Microsoft Most Valuable Professional

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

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

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

Please ....

Sarah,

I might jump in here for a second.

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

a
good

idea to run Terminal Server in Application Mode on a Domain Controller....

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

Secondly, you can indeed make an Administrative Installation of Office 2003
on your Server and install that application on each workstation from that
Admin Installation. The advantages of doing this are 1) you have a common,
accessible installation point and 2) you do not have to worry about losing
the Office 2003 CD! However, the disadvantage of doing this (

compared

to Kit Sure,
you you
have or
when and -
here sure
that an

there

a

 

[Edward Lee]

PMFJI. I have some experience with creating an admin install of Office. I'm
looking for some info that would get me started using GPO to deploy an
upgrade to O2k3 and then deploy patches in the future.

Thanks,

--
Edward Lee
Microsoft MVP - Sharepoint Portal Server

Sarah,

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

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

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

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

Cary



PS. MVP stands for Microsoft Most Valuable Professional

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

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

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

Please ....

Sarah,

I might jump in here for a second.

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

a
good

idea to run Terminal Server in Application Mode on a Domain Controller....

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

Secondly, you can indeed make an Administrative Installation of Office 2003
on your Server and install that application on each workstation from that
Admin Installation. The advantages of doing this are 1) you have a common,
accessible installation point and 2) you do not have to worry about losing
the Office 2003 CD! However, the disadvantage of doing this (

compared

to Kit Sure,
you you
have or
when and -
here sure
that an

there

a

 

[Edward Lee]

PMFJI. I have some experience with creating an admin install of Office. I'm
looking for some info that would get me started using GPO to deploy an
upgrade to O2k3 and then deploy patches in the future.

Thanks,

--
Edward Lee
Microsoft MVP - Sharepoint Portal Server

Sarah,

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

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

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

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

Cary



PS. MVP stands for Microsoft Most Valuable Professional

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

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

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

Please ....

Sarah,

I might jump in here for a second.

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

a
good

idea to run Terminal Server in Application Mode on a Domain Controller....

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

Secondly, you can indeed make an Administrative Installation of Office 2003
on your Server and install that application on each workstation from that
Admin Installation. The advantages of doing this are 1) you have a common,
accessible installation point and 2) you do not have to worry about losing
the Office 2003 CD! However, the disadvantage of doing this (

compared

to Kit Sure,
you you
have or
when and -
here sure
that an

there

a

 

[Edward Lee]

PMFJI. I have some experience with creating an admin install of Office. I'm
looking for some info that would get me started using GPO to deploy an
upgrade to O2k3 and then deploy patches in the future.

Thanks,

--
Edward Lee
Microsoft MVP - Sharepoint Portal Server

Sarah,

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

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

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

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

Cary



PS. MVP stands for Microsoft Most Valuable Professional

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

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

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

Please ....

Sarah,

I might jump in here for a second.

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

a
good

idea to run Terminal Server in Application Mode on a Domain Controller....

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

Secondly, you can indeed make an Administrative Installation of Office 2003
on your Server and install that application on each workstation from that
Admin Installation. The advantages of doing this are 1) you have a common,
accessible installation point and 2) you do not have to worry about losing
the Office 2003 CD! However, the disadvantage of doing this (

compared

to Kit Sure,
you you
have or
when and -
here sure
that an

there

a

 

[Edward Lee]

PMFJI. I have some experience with creating an admin install of Office. I'm
looking for some info that would get me started using GPO to deploy an
upgrade to O2k3 and then deploy patches in the future.

Thanks,

--
Edward Lee
Microsoft MVP - Sharepoint Portal Server

Sarah,

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

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

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

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

Cary



PS. MVP stands for Microsoft Most Valuable Professional

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

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

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

Please ....

Sarah,

I might jump in here for a second.

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

a
good

idea to run Terminal Server in Application Mode on a Domain Controller....

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

Secondly, you can indeed make an Administrative Installation of Office 2003
on your Server and install that application on each workstation from that
Admin Installation. The advantages of doing this are 1) you have a common,
accessible installation point and 2) you do not have to worry about losing
the Office 2003 CD! However, the disadvantage of doing this (

compared

to Kit Sure,
you you
have or
when and -
here sure
that an

there

a

 

[Edward Lee]

PMFJI. I have some experience with creating an admin install of Office. I'm
looking for some info that would get me started using GPO to deploy an
upgrade to O2k3 and then deploy patches in the future.

Thanks,

--
Edward Lee
Microsoft MVP - Sharepoint Portal Server

Sarah,

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

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

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

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

Cary



PS. MVP stands for Microsoft Most Valuable Professional

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

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

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

Please ....

Sarah,

I might jump in here for a second.

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

a
good

idea to run Terminal Server in Application Mode on a Domain Controller....

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

Secondly, you can indeed make an Administrative Installation of Office 2003
on your Server and install that application on each workstation from that
Admin Installation. The advantages of doing this are 1) you have a common,
accessible installation point and 2) you do not have to worry about losing
the Office 2003 CD! However, the disadvantage of doing this (

compared

to Kit Sure,
you you
have or
when and -
here sure
that an

there

a

 

[Edward Lee]

PMFJI. I have some experience with creating an admin install of Office. I'm
looking for some info that would get me started using GPO to deploy an
upgrade to O2k3 and then deploy patches in the future.

Thanks,

--
Edward Lee
Microsoft MVP - Sharepoint Portal Server

Sarah,

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

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

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

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

Cary



PS. MVP stands for Microsoft Most Valuable Professional

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

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

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

Please ....

Sarah,

I might jump in here for a second.

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

a
good

idea to run Terminal Server in Application Mode on a Domain Controller....

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

Secondly, you can indeed make an Administrative Installation of Office 2003
on your Server and install that application on each workstation from that
Admin Installation. The advantages of doing this are 1) you have a common,
accessible installation point and 2) you do not have to worry about losing
the Office 2003 CD! However, the disadvantage of doing this (

compared

to Kit Sure,
you you
have or
when and -
here sure
that an

there

a

 

[Edward Lee]

PMFJI. I have some experience with creating an admin install of Office. I'm
looking for some info that would get me started using GPO to deploy an
upgrade to O2k3 and then deploy patches in the future.

Thanks,

--
Edward Lee
Microsoft MVP - Sharepoint Portal Server

Sarah,

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

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

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

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

Cary



PS. MVP stands for Microsoft Most Valuable Professional

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

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

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

Please ....

Sarah,

I might jump in here for a second.

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

a
good

idea to run Terminal Server in Application Mode on a Domain Controller....

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

Secondly, you can indeed make an Administrative Installation of Office 2003
on your Server and install that application on each workstation from that
Admin Installation. The advantages of doing this are 1) you have a common,
accessible installation point and 2) you do not have to worry about losing
the Office 2003 CD! However, the disadvantage of doing this (

compared

to Kit Sure,
you you
have or
when and -
here sure
that an

there

a

 

[Cary Shultz [A.D. MVP]]

Edward,

What in the world does "pmfji" mean?

I would go to the MS Office Resource Kit for this. If you need / want more
help with this you can either post this in the Group Policy news group -OR-
you can e-mail me directly with the particulars and I will gladly help you.
This is really easy - assuming that you have done it a hundred and one
times! Should be really easy with a push in the right direction and a
couple of MSKB articles.

Cary

PMFJI. I have some experience with creating an admin install of Office. I'm
looking for some info that would get me started using GPO to deploy an
upgrade to O2k3 and then deploy patches in the future.

Thanks,

--
Edward Lee
Microsoft MVP - Sharepoint Portal Server

Sarah,

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

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

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

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

Cary



PS. MVP stands for Microsoft Most Valuable Professional

I think this is very inefficient. Why can I install my apps on a disk

in
my

server and mount that disk on my workstation and execute the exe file from
there.

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

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

Please ....


Sarah,

I might jump in here for a second.

First of all, the idea of a Terminal Server is generally a really good
idea.
I have been using Terminal Server for the last 15 months or so and

it

is

generally

a clients.
I compared 2003
from Resource
Kit rem
out quickly
and you
make (
say Petra
get the
GPO clients
can to
the Pre-installed,
an there

 

[Cary Shultz [A.D. MVP]]

Edward,

What in the world does "pmfji" mean?

I would go to the MS Office Resource Kit for this. If you need / want more
help with this you can either post this in the Group Policy news group -OR-
you can e-mail me directly with the particulars and I will gladly help you.
This is really easy - assuming that you have done it a hundred and one
times! Should be really easy with a push in the right direction and a
couple of MSKB articles.

Cary

PMFJI. I have some experience with creating an admin install of Office. I'm
looking for some info that would get me started using GPO to deploy an
upgrade to O2k3 and then deploy patches in the future.

Thanks,

--
Edward Lee
Microsoft MVP - Sharepoint Portal Server

Sarah,

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

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

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

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

Cary



PS. MVP stands for Microsoft Most Valuable Professional

I think this is very inefficient. Why can I install my apps on a disk

in
my

server and mount that disk on my workstation and execute the exe file from
there.

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

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

Please ....


Sarah,

I might jump in here for a second.

First of all, the idea of a Terminal Server is generally a really good
idea.
I have been using Terminal Server for the last 15 months or so and

it

is

generally

a clients.
I compared 2003
from Resource
Kit rem
out quickly
and you
make (
say Petra
get the
GPO clients
can to
the Pre-installed,
an there

 

[Cary Shultz [A.D. MVP]]

Edward,

What in the world does "pmfji" mean?

I would go to the MS Office Resource Kit for this. If you need / want more
help with this you can either post this in the Group Policy news group -OR-
you can e-mail me directly with the particulars and I will gladly help you.
This is really easy - assuming that you have done it a hundred and one
times! Should be really easy with a push in the right direction and a
couple of MSKB articles.

Cary

PMFJI. I have some experience with creating an admin install of Office. I'm
looking for some info that would get me started using GPO to deploy an
upgrade to O2k3 and then deploy patches in the future.

Thanks,

--
Edward Lee
Microsoft MVP - Sharepoint Portal Server

Sarah,

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

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

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

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

Cary



PS. MVP stands for Microsoft Most Valuable Professional

I think this is very inefficient. Why can I install my apps on a disk

in
my

server and mount that disk on my workstation and execute the exe file from
there.

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

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

Please ....


Sarah,

I might jump in here for a second.

First of all, the idea of a Terminal Server is generally a really good
idea.
I have been using Terminal Server for the last 15 months or so and

it

is

generally

a clients.
I compared 2003
from Resource
Kit rem
out quickly
and you
make (
say Petra
get the
GPO clients
can to
the Pre-installed,
an there

 

[Cary Shultz [A.D. MVP]]

Edward,

What in the world does "pmfji" mean?

I would go to the MS Office Resource Kit for this. If you need / want more
help with this you can either post this in the Group Policy news group -OR-
you can e-mail me directly with the particulars and I will gladly help you.
This is really easy - assuming that you have done it a hundred and one
times! Should be really easy with a push in the right direction and a
couple of MSKB articles.

Cary

PMFJI. I have some experience with creating an admin install of Office. I'm
looking for some info that would get me started using GPO to deploy an
upgrade to O2k3 and then deploy patches in the future.

Thanks,

--
Edward Lee
Microsoft MVP - Sharepoint Portal Server

Sarah,

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

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

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

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

Cary



PS. MVP stands for Microsoft Most Valuable Professional

I think this is very inefficient. Why can I install my apps on a disk

in
my

server and mount that disk on my workstation and execute the exe file from
there.

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

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

Please ....


Sarah,

I might jump in here for a second.

First of all, the idea of a Terminal Server is generally a really good
idea.
I have been using Terminal Server for the last 15 months or so and

it

is

generally

a clients.
I compared 2003
from Resource
Kit rem
out quickly
and you
make (
say Petra
get the
GPO clients
can to
the Pre-installed,
an there