Networked Office

[Sarah Tanembaum]

Cary, I'm not that hard to convince if the solution is not a
patch-up/ducktape solution.
There are many things that Windows need to learn from its brothers that
has been running for large enterprises, doesn't it?

May be not! Perhaps Windows is much more superior

Sarah

 

[Sarah Tanembaum]

Cary, I'm not that hard to convince if the solution is not a
patch-up/ducktape solution.
There are many things that Windows need to learn from its brothers that
has been running for large enterprises, doesn't it?

May be not! Perhaps Windows is much more superior

Sarah

 

[AndyC]

If you are talking WUS(Windows Update Services), it is not yet available
(Information Week this week).

I never mentioned WUS. I was talking about Active Directory. Please don't
put words in my mouth.

Let me rephrase it again:
1. There is an Apps called: AppsA
2. Install apps A in the server --- e.g: \\servername\appsdir\AppsA\
3. UserXX in WorkstationY want to access AppsA
4. UserXX in WorkstationY type: \\<servername>\appsdir\AppsA\A.exe
5. Voila, UserXX is running AppsA in his/her WorkstationYY.

In short, install appsA in the <servername>, and then 1000 users can access
those apps
in a blink by just typing \\<servername>\appsdir\AppsA\A.exe (he/she can
create
a shortcut anytime)

When there are updates, all we need to do is update those AppsA in <
servername>\appsdir\AppsA directory, and VOILA, all users/workstation
see the update.

Which is precisely the scenario I've outlined. As Cary says though, you seem
to completely refuse to either believe or understand a fairly trivial
explanation. Contrary to your comments, Windows simply is more flexible than
*nix based operating systems in this regard and all three of the scenarios
suggested are officially supported configurations. Clearly you don't want to
know that because you're happier living in your little bubble.

I'd suggest you stick to *nix, put on your tin-foil hat and go back to
reading /. You best leave us poor Windows admins to run round installing
everything from floppy disk as that's the only way we can do it right?

*plonk*

AndyC

 

[AndyC]

If you are talking WUS(Windows Update Services), it is not yet available
(Information Week this week).

I never mentioned WUS. I was talking about Active Directory. Please don't
put words in my mouth.

Let me rephrase it again:
1. There is an Apps called: AppsA
2. Install apps A in the server --- e.g: \\servername\appsdir\AppsA\
3. UserXX in WorkstationY want to access AppsA
4. UserXX in WorkstationY type: \\<servername>\appsdir\AppsA\A.exe
5. Voila, UserXX is running AppsA in his/her WorkstationYY.

In short, install appsA in the <servername>, and then 1000 users can access
those apps
in a blink by just typing \\<servername>\appsdir\AppsA\A.exe (he/she can
create
a shortcut anytime)

When there are updates, all we need to do is update those AppsA in <
servername>\appsdir\AppsA directory, and VOILA, all users/workstation
see the update.

Which is precisely the scenario I've outlined. As Cary says though, you seem
to completely refuse to either believe or understand a fairly trivial
explanation. Contrary to your comments, Windows simply is more flexible than
*nix based operating systems in this regard and all three of the scenarios
suggested are officially supported configurations. Clearly you don't want to
know that because you're happier living in your little bubble.

I'd suggest you stick to *nix, put on your tin-foil hat and go back to
reading /. You best leave us poor Windows admins to run round installing
everything from floppy disk as that's the only way we can do it right?

*plonk*

AndyC

 

[AndyC]

If you are talking WUS(Windows Update Services), it is not yet available
(Information Week this week).

I never mentioned WUS. I was talking about Active Directory. Please don't
put words in my mouth.

Let me rephrase it again:
1. There is an Apps called: AppsA
2. Install apps A in the server --- e.g: \\servername\appsdir\AppsA\
3. UserXX in WorkstationY want to access AppsA
4. UserXX in WorkstationY type: \\<servername>\appsdir\AppsA\A.exe
5. Voila, UserXX is running AppsA in his/her WorkstationYY.

In short, install appsA in the <servername>, and then 1000 users can access
those apps
in a blink by just typing \\<servername>\appsdir\AppsA\A.exe (he/she can
create
a shortcut anytime)

When there are updates, all we need to do is update those AppsA in <
servername>\appsdir\AppsA directory, and VOILA, all users/workstation
see the update.

Which is precisely the scenario I've outlined. As Cary says though, you seem
to completely refuse to either believe or understand a fairly trivial
explanation. Contrary to your comments, Windows simply is more flexible than
*nix based operating systems in this regard and all three of the scenarios
suggested are officially supported configurations. Clearly you don't want to
know that because you're happier living in your little bubble.

I'd suggest you stick to *nix, put on your tin-foil hat and go back to
reading /. You best leave us poor Windows admins to run round installing
everything from floppy disk as that's the only way we can do it right?

*plonk*

AndyC

 

[AndyC]

If you are talking WUS(Windows Update Services), it is not yet available
(Information Week this week).

I never mentioned WUS. I was talking about Active Directory. Please don't
put words in my mouth.

Let me rephrase it again:
1. There is an Apps called: AppsA
2. Install apps A in the server --- e.g: \\servername\appsdir\AppsA\
3. UserXX in WorkstationY want to access AppsA
4. UserXX in WorkstationY type: \\<servername>\appsdir\AppsA\A.exe
5. Voila, UserXX is running AppsA in his/her WorkstationYY.

In short, install appsA in the <servername>, and then 1000 users can access
those apps
in a blink by just typing \\<servername>\appsdir\AppsA\A.exe (he/she can
create
a shortcut anytime)

When there are updates, all we need to do is update those AppsA in <
servername>\appsdir\AppsA directory, and VOILA, all users/workstation
see the update.

Which is precisely the scenario I've outlined. As Cary says though, you seem
to completely refuse to either believe or understand a fairly trivial
explanation. Contrary to your comments, Windows simply is more flexible than
*nix based operating systems in this regard and all three of the scenarios
suggested are officially supported configurations. Clearly you don't want to
know that because you're happier living in your little bubble.

I'd suggest you stick to *nix, put on your tin-foil hat and go back to
reading /. You best leave us poor Windows admins to run round installing
everything from floppy disk as that's the only way we can do it right?

*plonk*

AndyC

 

[AndyC]

If you are talking WUS(Windows Update Services), it is not yet available
(Information Week this week).

I never mentioned WUS. I was talking about Active Directory. Please don't
put words in my mouth.

Let me rephrase it again:
1. There is an Apps called: AppsA
2. Install apps A in the server --- e.g: \\servername\appsdir\AppsA\
3. UserXX in WorkstationY want to access AppsA
4. UserXX in WorkstationY type: \\<servername>\appsdir\AppsA\A.exe
5. Voila, UserXX is running AppsA in his/her WorkstationYY.

In short, install appsA in the <servername>, and then 1000 users can access
those apps
in a blink by just typing \\<servername>\appsdir\AppsA\A.exe (he/she can
create
a shortcut anytime)

When there are updates, all we need to do is update those AppsA in <
servername>\appsdir\AppsA directory, and VOILA, all users/workstation
see the update.

Which is precisely the scenario I've outlined. As Cary says though, you seem
to completely refuse to either believe or understand a fairly trivial
explanation. Contrary to your comments, Windows simply is more flexible than
*nix based operating systems in this regard and all three of the scenarios
suggested are officially supported configurations. Clearly you don't want to
know that because you're happier living in your little bubble.

I'd suggest you stick to *nix, put on your tin-foil hat and go back to
reading /. You best leave us poor Windows admins to run round installing
everything from floppy disk as that's the only way we can do it right?

*plonk*

AndyC

 

[AndyC]

If you are talking WUS(Windows Update Services), it is not yet available
(Information Week this week).

I never mentioned WUS. I was talking about Active Directory. Please don't
put words in my mouth.

Let me rephrase it again:
1. There is an Apps called: AppsA
2. Install apps A in the server --- e.g: \\servername\appsdir\AppsA\
3. UserXX in WorkstationY want to access AppsA
4. UserXX in WorkstationY type: \\<servername>\appsdir\AppsA\A.exe
5. Voila, UserXX is running AppsA in his/her WorkstationYY.

In short, install appsA in the <servername>, and then 1000 users can access
those apps
in a blink by just typing \\<servername>\appsdir\AppsA\A.exe (he/she can
create
a shortcut anytime)

When there are updates, all we need to do is update those AppsA in <
servername>\appsdir\AppsA directory, and VOILA, all users/workstation
see the update.

Which is precisely the scenario I've outlined. As Cary says though, you seem
to completely refuse to either believe or understand a fairly trivial
explanation. Contrary to your comments, Windows simply is more flexible than
*nix based operating systems in this regard and all three of the scenarios
suggested are officially supported configurations. Clearly you don't want to
know that because you're happier living in your little bubble.

I'd suggest you stick to *nix, put on your tin-foil hat and go back to
reading /. You best leave us poor Windows admins to run round installing
everything from floppy disk as that's the only way we can do it right?

*plonk*

AndyC

 

[AndyC]

If you are talking WUS(Windows Update Services), it is not yet available
(Information Week this week).

I never mentioned WUS. I was talking about Active Directory. Please don't
put words in my mouth.

Let me rephrase it again:
1. There is an Apps called: AppsA
2. Install apps A in the server --- e.g: \\servername\appsdir\AppsA\
3. UserXX in WorkstationY want to access AppsA
4. UserXX in WorkstationY type: \\<servername>\appsdir\AppsA\A.exe
5. Voila, UserXX is running AppsA in his/her WorkstationYY.

In short, install appsA in the <servername>, and then 1000 users can access
those apps
in a blink by just typing \\<servername>\appsdir\AppsA\A.exe (he/she can
create
a shortcut anytime)

When there are updates, all we need to do is update those AppsA in <
servername>\appsdir\AppsA directory, and VOILA, all users/workstation
see the update.

Which is precisely the scenario I've outlined. As Cary says though, you seem
to completely refuse to either believe or understand a fairly trivial
explanation. Contrary to your comments, Windows simply is more flexible than
*nix based operating systems in this regard and all three of the scenarios
suggested are officially supported configurations. Clearly you don't want to
know that because you're happier living in your little bubble.

I'd suggest you stick to *nix, put on your tin-foil hat and go back to
reading /. You best leave us poor Windows admins to run round installing
everything from floppy disk as that's the only way we can do it right?

*plonk*

AndyC

 

[AndyC]

If you are talking WUS(Windows Update Services), it is not yet available
(Information Week this week).

I never mentioned WUS. I was talking about Active Directory. Please don't
put words in my mouth.

Let me rephrase it again:
1. There is an Apps called: AppsA
2. Install apps A in the server --- e.g: \\servername\appsdir\AppsA\
3. UserXX in WorkstationY want to access AppsA
4. UserXX in WorkstationY type: \\<servername>\appsdir\AppsA\A.exe
5. Voila, UserXX is running AppsA in his/her WorkstationYY.

In short, install appsA in the <servername>, and then 1000 users can access
those apps
in a blink by just typing \\<servername>\appsdir\AppsA\A.exe (he/she can
create
a shortcut anytime)

When there are updates, all we need to do is update those AppsA in <
servername>\appsdir\AppsA directory, and VOILA, all users/workstation
see the update.

Which is precisely the scenario I've outlined. As Cary says though, you seem
to completely refuse to either believe or understand a fairly trivial
explanation. Contrary to your comments, Windows simply is more flexible than
*nix based operating systems in this regard and all three of the scenarios
suggested are officially supported configurations. Clearly you don't want to
know that because you're happier living in your little bubble.

I'd suggest you stick to *nix, put on your tin-foil hat and go back to
reading /. You best leave us poor Windows admins to run round installing
everything from floppy disk as that's the only way we can do it right?

*plonk*

AndyC

 

[AndyC]

If you are talking WUS(Windows Update Services), it is not yet available
(Information Week this week).

I never mentioned WUS. I was talking about Active Directory. Please don't
put words in my mouth.

Let me rephrase it again:
1. There is an Apps called: AppsA
2. Install apps A in the server --- e.g: \\servername\appsdir\AppsA\
3. UserXX in WorkstationY want to access AppsA
4. UserXX in WorkstationY type: \\<servername>\appsdir\AppsA\A.exe
5. Voila, UserXX is running AppsA in his/her WorkstationYY.

In short, install appsA in the <servername>, and then 1000 users can access
those apps
in a blink by just typing \\<servername>\appsdir\AppsA\A.exe (he/she can
create
a shortcut anytime)

When there are updates, all we need to do is update those AppsA in <
servername>\appsdir\AppsA directory, and VOILA, all users/workstation
see the update.

Which is precisely the scenario I've outlined. As Cary says though, you seem
to completely refuse to either believe or understand a fairly trivial
explanation. Contrary to your comments, Windows simply is more flexible than
*nix based operating systems in this regard and all three of the scenarios
suggested are officially supported configurations. Clearly you don't want to
know that because you're happier living in your little bubble.

I'd suggest you stick to *nix, put on your tin-foil hat and go back to
reading /. You best leave us poor Windows admins to run round installing
everything from floppy disk as that's the only way we can do it right?

*plonk*

AndyC

 

[Serialdj]

If your issue is with ease of recovery, and all machines are the same
make/model then I have simple solution. Build one machine, install Windows,
Office, all updates everything. Buy Symantec Ghost Enterprise, install it as
a server.

Ghost this machine and push its image to each other machine on the network.

If one machine dies, just re-image it from Ghost and everything is back in
less then 10 minutes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



Sarah,

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

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

a

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

and

cons, and make the best choice possible.

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

and

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

you've

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

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

how

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

Windows

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

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

a

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

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



Thanks Kevin. Unfortunately the terminal services are out of the

question.

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

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

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

type

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

Thanks



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

You

are

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

letting

everyone access it reduces administrative issues. But, SBS2003 does

not

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

can

add

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

server.

The

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

would

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

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



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

the

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

registry

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

can

run

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

workstation?

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

big

problem since other OSes can handle multi-user apps?

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

corrupted

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

where

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

office

need

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

again,

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

upgraded!

Any ideas?





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

Office

to

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

slow

down

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

install

on

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

just

like

Outlook installs on SBS client upon connection.



Is it possible to run office from a server?

We just purchased 10 brand new PC with Windows XP Pro

Pre-installed,

an

a

server with ample of memory and disk space.

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

Professional.

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

there

a

way

to run Office from a server?

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

the

question

as it will add cost per client.

Thanks

 

[Serialdj]

If your issue is with ease of recovery, and all machines are the same
make/model then I have simple solution. Build one machine, install Windows,
Office, all updates everything. Buy Symantec Ghost Enterprise, install it as
a server.

Ghost this machine and push its image to each other machine on the network.

If one machine dies, just re-image it from Ghost and everything is back in
less then 10 minutes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



Sarah,

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

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

a

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

and

cons, and make the best choice possible.

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

and

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

you've

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

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

how

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

Windows

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

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

a

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

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



Thanks Kevin. Unfortunately the terminal services are out of the

question.

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

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

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

type

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

Thanks



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

You

are

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

letting

everyone access it reduces administrative issues. But, SBS2003 does

not

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

can

add

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

server.

The

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

would

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

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



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

the

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

registry

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

can

run

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

workstation?

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

big

problem since other OSes can handle multi-user apps?

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

corrupted

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

where

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

office

need

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

again,

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

upgraded!

Any ideas?





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

Office

to

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

slow

down

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

install

on

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

just

like

Outlook installs on SBS client upon connection.



Is it possible to run office from a server?

We just purchased 10 brand new PC with Windows XP Pro

Pre-installed,

an

a

server with ample of memory and disk space.

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

Professional.

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

there

a

way

to run Office from a server?

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

the

question

as it will add cost per client.

Thanks

 

[Serialdj]

If your issue is with ease of recovery, and all machines are the same
make/model then I have simple solution. Build one machine, install Windows,
Office, all updates everything. Buy Symantec Ghost Enterprise, install it as
a server.

Ghost this machine and push its image to each other machine on the network.

If one machine dies, just re-image it from Ghost and everything is back in
less then 10 minutes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



Sarah,

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

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

a

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

and

cons, and make the best choice possible.

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

and

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

you've

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

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

how

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

Windows

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

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

a

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

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



Thanks Kevin. Unfortunately the terminal services are out of the

question.

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

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

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

type

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

Thanks



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

You

are

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

letting

everyone access it reduces administrative issues. But, SBS2003 does

not

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

can

add

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

server.

The

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

would

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

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



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

the

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

registry

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

can

run

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

workstation?

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

big

problem since other OSes can handle multi-user apps?

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

corrupted

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

where

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

office

need

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

again,

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

upgraded!

Any ideas?





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

Office

to

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

slow

down

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

install

on

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

just

like

Outlook installs on SBS client upon connection.



Is it possible to run office from a server?

We just purchased 10 brand new PC with Windows XP Pro

Pre-installed,

an

a

server with ample of memory and disk space.

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

Professional.

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

there

a

way

to run Office from a server?

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

the

question

as it will add cost per client.

Thanks

 

[Serialdj]

If your issue is with ease of recovery, and all machines are the same
make/model then I have simple solution. Build one machine, install Windows,
Office, all updates everything. Buy Symantec Ghost Enterprise, install it as
a server.

Ghost this machine and push its image to each other machine on the network.

If one machine dies, just re-image it from Ghost and everything is back in
less then 10 minutes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



Sarah,

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

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

a

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

and

cons, and make the best choice possible.

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

and

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

you've

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

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

how

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

Windows

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

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

a

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

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



Thanks Kevin. Unfortunately the terminal services are out of the

question.

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

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

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

type

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

Thanks



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

You

are

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

letting

everyone access it reduces administrative issues. But, SBS2003 does

not

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

can

add

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

server.

The

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

would

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

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



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

the

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

registry

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

can

run

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

workstation?

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

big

problem since other OSes can handle multi-user apps?

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

corrupted

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

where

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

office

need

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

again,

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

upgraded!

Any ideas?





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

Office

to

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

slow

down

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

install

on

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

just

like

Outlook installs on SBS client upon connection.



Is it possible to run office from a server?

We just purchased 10 brand new PC with Windows XP Pro

Pre-installed,

an

a

server with ample of memory and disk space.

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

Professional.

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

there

a

way

to run Office from a server?

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

the

question

as it will add cost per client.

Thanks

 

[Serialdj]

If your issue is with ease of recovery, and all machines are the same
make/model then I have simple solution. Build one machine, install Windows,
Office, all updates everything. Buy Symantec Ghost Enterprise, install it as
a server.

Ghost this machine and push its image to each other machine on the network.

If one machine dies, just re-image it from Ghost and everything is back in
less then 10 minutes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



Sarah,

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

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

a

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

and

cons, and make the best choice possible.

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

and

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

you've

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

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

how

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

Windows

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

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

a

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

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



Thanks Kevin. Unfortunately the terminal services are out of the

question.

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

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

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

type

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

Thanks



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

You

are

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

letting

everyone access it reduces administrative issues. But, SBS2003 does

not

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

can

add

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

server.

The

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

would

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

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



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

the

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

registry

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

can

run

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

workstation?

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

big

problem since other OSes can handle multi-user apps?

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

corrupted

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

where

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

office

need

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

again,

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

upgraded!

Any ideas?





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

Office

to

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

slow

down

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

install

on

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

just

like

Outlook installs on SBS client upon connection.



Is it possible to run office from a server?

We just purchased 10 brand new PC with Windows XP Pro

Pre-installed,

an

a

server with ample of memory and disk space.

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

Professional.

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

there

a

way

to run Office from a server?

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

the

question

as it will add cost per client.

Thanks

 

[Serialdj]

If your issue is with ease of recovery, and all machines are the same
make/model then I have simple solution. Build one machine, install Windows,
Office, all updates everything. Buy Symantec Ghost Enterprise, install it as
a server.

Ghost this machine and push its image to each other machine on the network.

If one machine dies, just re-image it from Ghost and everything is back in
less then 10 minutes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



Sarah,

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

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

a

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

and

cons, and make the best choice possible.

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

and

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

you've

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

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

how

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

Windows

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

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

a

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

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



Thanks Kevin. Unfortunately the terminal services are out of the

question.

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

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

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

type

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

Thanks



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

You

are

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

letting

everyone access it reduces administrative issues. But, SBS2003 does

not

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

can

add

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

server.

The

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

would

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

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



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

the

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

registry

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

can

run

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

workstation?

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

big

problem since other OSes can handle multi-user apps?

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

corrupted

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

where

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

office

need

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

again,

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

upgraded!

Any ideas?





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

Office

to

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

slow

down

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

install

on

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

just

like

Outlook installs on SBS client upon connection.



Is it possible to run office from a server?

We just purchased 10 brand new PC with Windows XP Pro

Pre-installed,

an

a

server with ample of memory and disk space.

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

Professional.

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

there

a

way

to run Office from a server?

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

the

question

as it will add cost per client.

Thanks

 

[Serialdj]

If your issue is with ease of recovery, and all machines are the same
make/model then I have simple solution. Build one machine, install Windows,
Office, all updates everything. Buy Symantec Ghost Enterprise, install it as
a server.

Ghost this machine and push its image to each other machine on the network.

If one machine dies, just re-image it from Ghost and everything is back in
less then 10 minutes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



Sarah,

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

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

a

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

and

cons, and make the best choice possible.

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

and

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

you've

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

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

how

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

Windows

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

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

a

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

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



Thanks Kevin. Unfortunately the terminal services are out of the

question.

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

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

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

type

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

Thanks



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

You

are

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

letting

everyone access it reduces administrative issues. But, SBS2003 does

not

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

can

add

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

server.

The

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

would

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

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



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

the

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

registry

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

can

run

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

workstation?

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

big

problem since other OSes can handle multi-user apps?

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

corrupted

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

where

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

office

need

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

again,

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

upgraded!

Any ideas?





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

Office

to

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

slow

down

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

install

on

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

just

like

Outlook installs on SBS client upon connection.



Is it possible to run office from a server?

We just purchased 10 brand new PC with Windows XP Pro

Pre-installed,

an

a

server with ample of memory and disk space.

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

Professional.

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

there

a

way

to run Office from a server?

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

the

question

as it will add cost per client.

Thanks

 

[Serialdj]

If your issue is with ease of recovery, and all machines are the same
make/model then I have simple solution. Build one machine, install Windows,
Office, all updates everything. Buy Symantec Ghost Enterprise, install it as
a server.

Ghost this machine and push its image to each other machine on the network.

If one machine dies, just re-image it from Ghost and everything is back in
less then 10 minutes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



Sarah,

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

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

a

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

and

cons, and make the best choice possible.

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

and

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

you've

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

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

how

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

Windows

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

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

a

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

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



Thanks Kevin. Unfortunately the terminal services are out of the

question.

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

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

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

type

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

Thanks



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

You

are

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

letting

everyone access it reduces administrative issues. But, SBS2003 does

not

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

can

add

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

server.

The

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

would

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

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



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

the

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

registry

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

can

run

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

workstation?

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

big

problem since other OSes can handle multi-user apps?

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

corrupted

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

where

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

office

need

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

again,

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

upgraded!

Any ideas?





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

Office

to

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

slow

down

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

install

on

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

just

like

Outlook installs on SBS client upon connection.



Is it possible to run office from a server?

We just purchased 10 brand new PC with Windows XP Pro

Pre-installed,

an

a

server with ample of memory and disk space.

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

Professional.

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

there

a

way

to run Office from a server?

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

the

question

as it will add cost per client.

Thanks

 

[Serialdj]

If your issue is with ease of recovery, and all machines are the same
make/model then I have simple solution. Build one machine, install Windows,
Office, all updates everything. Buy Symantec Ghost Enterprise, install it as
a server.

Ghost this machine and push its image to each other machine on the network.

If one machine dies, just re-image it from Ghost and everything is back in
less then 10 minutes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



Sarah,

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

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

a

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

and

cons, and make the best choice possible.

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

and

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

you've

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

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

how

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

Windows

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

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

a

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

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



Thanks Kevin. Unfortunately the terminal services are out of the

question.

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

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

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

type

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

Thanks



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

You

are

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

letting

everyone access it reduces administrative issues. But, SBS2003 does

not

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

can

add

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

server.

The

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

would

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

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



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

the

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

registry

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

can

run

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

workstation?

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

big

problem since other OSes can handle multi-user apps?

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

corrupted

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

where

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

office

need

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

again,

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

upgraded!

Any ideas?





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

Office

to

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

slow

down

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

install

on

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

just

like

Outlook installs on SBS client upon connection.



Is it possible to run office from a server?

We just purchased 10 brand new PC with Windows XP Pro

Pre-installed,

an

a

server with ample of memory and disk space.

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

Professional.

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

there

a

way

to run Office from a server?

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

the

question

as it will add cost per client.

Thanks