Networked Office

Sarah Tanembaum · Jul 17, 2004

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 Tanembaum · Jul 17, 2004

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 Tanembaum · Jul 17, 2004

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 Tanembaum · Jul 17, 2004

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

Kevin Weilbacher [SBS-MVP] · Jul 17, 2004

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"

Kevin Weilbacher [SBS-MVP] · Jul 17, 2004

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"

Kevin Weilbacher [SBS-MVP] · Jul 17, 2004

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"

Kevin Weilbacher [SBS-MVP] · Jul 17, 2004

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"

Kevin Weilbacher [SBS-MVP] · Jul 17, 2004

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"

Kevin Weilbacher [SBS-MVP] · Jul 17, 2004

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"

Kevin Weilbacher [SBS-MVP] · Jul 17, 2004

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"

Kevin Weilbacher [SBS-MVP] · Jul 17, 2004

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"

Kevin Weilbacher [SBS-MVP] · Jul 17, 2004

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"

Frank McCallister · Jul 17, 2004

Hi Sarah

You can run the executables from the server if you wish but a certain number
of DLLs will have to be on the WS. You don't want to do this though because
your Office programs will run as slow as mollasses because the executables
will have to be loaded across the 100 mb network lines instead of from a
much faster HD unless you are using Terminal services where only the video
is transmitted across the Network and even that is slower than running
local. The only time you would want to run from server is if you had
extremely small Hard Disks which make no sense with the price of HDs these
days.

Frank McCallister
COMPUMAC

Frank McCallister · Jul 17, 2004

Hi Sarah

You can run the executables from the server if you wish but a certain number
of DLLs will have to be on the WS. You don't want to do this though because
your Office programs will run as slow as mollasses because the executables
will have to be loaded across the 100 mb network lines instead of from a
much faster HD unless you are using Terminal services where only the video
is transmitted across the Network and even that is slower than running
local. The only time you would want to run from server is if you had
extremely small Hard Disks which make no sense with the price of HDs these
days.

Frank McCallister
COMPUMAC

Frank McCallister · Jul 17, 2004

Hi Sarah

You can run the executables from the server if you wish but a certain number
of DLLs will have to be on the WS. You don't want to do this though because
your Office programs will run as slow as mollasses because the executables
will have to be loaded across the 100 mb network lines instead of from a
much faster HD unless you are using Terminal services where only the video
is transmitted across the Network and even that is slower than running
local. The only time you would want to run from server is if you had
extremely small Hard Disks which make no sense with the price of HDs these
days.

Frank McCallister
COMPUMAC

Frank McCallister · Jul 17, 2004

Hi Sarah

You can run the executables from the server if you wish but a certain number
of DLLs will have to be on the WS. You don't want to do this though because
your Office programs will run as slow as mollasses because the executables
will have to be loaded across the 100 mb network lines instead of from a
much faster HD unless you are using Terminal services where only the video
is transmitted across the Network and even that is slower than running
local. The only time you would want to run from server is if you had
extremely small Hard Disks which make no sense with the price of HDs these
days.

Frank McCallister
COMPUMAC

Frank McCallister · Jul 17, 2004

Hi Sarah

You can run the executables from the server if you wish but a certain number
of DLLs will have to be on the WS. You don't want to do this though because
your Office programs will run as slow as mollasses because the executables
will have to be loaded across the 100 mb network lines instead of from a
much faster HD unless you are using Terminal services where only the video
is transmitted across the Network and even that is slower than running
local. The only time you would want to run from server is if you had
extremely small Hard Disks which make no sense with the price of HDs these
days.

Frank McCallister
COMPUMAC

Frank McCallister · Jul 17, 2004

Hi Sarah

You can run the executables from the server if you wish but a certain number
of DLLs will have to be on the WS. You don't want to do this though because
your Office programs will run as slow as mollasses because the executables
will have to be loaded across the 100 mb network lines instead of from a
much faster HD unless you are using Terminal services where only the video
is transmitted across the Network and even that is slower than running
local. The only time you would want to run from server is if you had
extremely small Hard Disks which make no sense with the price of HDs these
days.

Frank McCallister
COMPUMAC

Frank McCallister · Jul 17, 2004

Hi Sarah

You can run the executables from the server if you wish but a certain number
of DLLs will have to be on the WS. You don't want to do this though because
your Office programs will run as slow as mollasses because the executables
will have to be loaded across the 100 mb network lines instead of from a
much faster HD unless you are using Terminal services where only the video
is transmitted across the Network and even that is slower than running
local. The only time you would want to run from server is if you had
extremely small Hard Disks which make no sense with the price of HDs these
days.

Frank McCallister
COMPUMAC

Outlook Desktop (latest) stopped syncing IMAP accpounts from selfowned Mail server.	0	Sep 17, 2022
Can someone provide me with info on how Office 365 works?	2	Jan 24, 2019
Microsoft 365 Activations, Users or Devices?	0	Nov 4, 2021
Office 2003 Admin Installation Point	0	May 15, 2009
VSTO C# add in Outlook.Appointment error	0	Sep 14, 2022
office 2003 pro to 2007 standard	0	Apr 8, 2009
ODBC error 100 when accessing Bookkeeper version 15 software (accounting software using Access dbase)	0	Dec 6, 2019
A couple questions BEFORE using Office 365	0	Jun 17, 2021

Networked Office

Sarah Tanembaum

Sarah Tanembaum

Sarah Tanembaum

Sarah Tanembaum

Kevin Weilbacher [SBS-MVP]

Kevin Weilbacher [SBS-MVP]

Kevin Weilbacher [SBS-MVP]

Kevin Weilbacher [SBS-MVP]

Kevin Weilbacher [SBS-MVP]

Kevin Weilbacher [SBS-MVP]

Kevin Weilbacher [SBS-MVP]

Kevin Weilbacher [SBS-MVP]

Kevin Weilbacher [SBS-MVP]

Frank McCallister

Frank McCallister

Frank McCallister

Frank McCallister

Frank McCallister

Frank McCallister

Frank McCallister

Ask a Question

Similar Threads