Networked Office

[Sarah Tanembaum]

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

 

[Sarah Tanembaum]

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

 

[Sarah Tanembaum]

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

 

[Sarah Tanembaum]

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

 

[Sarah Tanembaum]

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

 

[Sarah Tanembaum]

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

 

[Sarah Tanembaum]

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

 

[Sarah Tanembaum]

I don't think I'm worry about my network speed. I have ample bandwidth (Giga
ethernet), fast workstation, and fast server. All I want is to execute the
app from file server.

I don;t think this is such a hard technology to implement isn't it?

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

Thanks Kevin. Unfortunately the terminal services are out of the question.
We have pretty powerful workstation and server, why would I use my
workstation
as a terminal(Isn't this goes again MS ideology)?

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

Or perhaps Microsoft is still ironing-out on how to implement this this
type
of
technology(networked-multi-user-multi-task-apps)?

Thanks

Sarah, what you have described is called 'Windows Terminal Server'. You are
right about the fact that by installing Office on one system, and letting
everyone access it reduces administrative issues. But, SBS2003 does not
allow you to configure Terminal Server on the SBS server itself. You

can
add

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

server.
The

temrinal server would house your Office apps, and your SBS server would
handle Exchange/email, Internet access, and file/print services.

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


I'm trying to use my server as a file server, where I will store all
the
Office executable. If MS so willing, then they can tell us what
registry
setting on the local machine has to change so each of my workstation
can
run
office apps, e.g. MS Word, Excel, and other, right from their
workstation?

Is it a technology issues that prevent this to happen? What's the big
problem since other OSes can handle multi-user apps?

Imagine if I can do that, everytime the workstation crashed and corrupted
the disk, all I have to do is install the os, mount the directory where
office reside, and voile ... it's back up again. Also, when the office
need
upgrade, all I have to do is to upgrade the one on the server and
again,
those 10(or for that matter 100K)workstation has their office upgraded!

Any ideas?




I think you have the option upon installing if you want to install
Office
to
a server, but I am thinking if you have 10 users it is going to slow
down
your server badly. Is there a particular reason you dont want to install
on
the workstations? You can setup admin install of office to install just
like
Outlook installs on SBS client upon connection.


Is it possible to run office from a server?

We just purchased 10 brand new PC with Windows XP Pro
Pre-installed,
an
a
server with ample of memory and disk space.

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

Instead of installing MS Office 2003 on all the workstation, is there
a
way
to run Office from a server?

I know of the terminal services/citrix way but that is out of the
question
as it will add cost per client.

Thanks

 

[Sarah Tanembaum]

I don't think I'm worry about my network speed. I have ample bandwidth (Giga
ethernet), fast workstation, and fast server. All I want is to execute the
app from file server.

I don;t think this is such a hard technology to implement isn't it?

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

Thanks Kevin. Unfortunately the terminal services are out of the question.
We have pretty powerful workstation and server, why would I use my
workstation
as a terminal(Isn't this goes again MS ideology)?

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

Or perhaps Microsoft is still ironing-out on how to implement this this
type
of
technology(networked-multi-user-multi-task-apps)?

Thanks

Sarah, what you have described is called 'Windows Terminal Server'. You are
right about the fact that by installing Office on one system, and letting
everyone access it reduces administrative issues. But, SBS2003 does not
allow you to configure Terminal Server on the SBS server itself. You

can
add

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

server.
The

temrinal server would house your Office apps, and your SBS server would
handle Exchange/email, Internet access, and file/print services.

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


I'm trying to use my server as a file server, where I will store all
the
Office executable. If MS so willing, then they can tell us what
registry
setting on the local machine has to change so each of my workstation
can
run
office apps, e.g. MS Word, Excel, and other, right from their
workstation?

Is it a technology issues that prevent this to happen? What's the big
problem since other OSes can handle multi-user apps?

Imagine if I can do that, everytime the workstation crashed and corrupted
the disk, all I have to do is install the os, mount the directory where
office reside, and voile ... it's back up again. Also, when the office
need
upgrade, all I have to do is to upgrade the one on the server and
again,
those 10(or for that matter 100K)workstation has their office upgraded!

Any ideas?




I think you have the option upon installing if you want to install
Office
to
a server, but I am thinking if you have 10 users it is going to slow
down
your server badly. Is there a particular reason you dont want to install
on
the workstations? You can setup admin install of office to install just
like
Outlook installs on SBS client upon connection.


Is it possible to run office from a server?

We just purchased 10 brand new PC with Windows XP Pro
Pre-installed,
an
a
server with ample of memory and disk space.

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

Instead of installing MS Office 2003 on all the workstation, is there
a
way
to run Office from a server?

I know of the terminal services/citrix way but that is out of the
question
as it will add cost per client.

Thanks

 

[Sarah Tanembaum]

I don't think I'm worry about my network speed. I have ample bandwidth (Giga
ethernet), fast workstation, and fast server. All I want is to execute the
app from file server.

I don;t think this is such a hard technology to implement isn't it?

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

Thanks Kevin. Unfortunately the terminal services are out of the question.
We have pretty powerful workstation and server, why would I use my
workstation
as a terminal(Isn't this goes again MS ideology)?

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

Or perhaps Microsoft is still ironing-out on how to implement this this
type
of
technology(networked-multi-user-multi-task-apps)?

Thanks

Sarah, what you have described is called 'Windows Terminal Server'. You are
right about the fact that by installing Office on one system, and letting
everyone access it reduces administrative issues. But, SBS2003 does not
allow you to configure Terminal Server on the SBS server itself. You

can
add

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

server.
The

temrinal server would house your Office apps, and your SBS server would
handle Exchange/email, Internet access, and file/print services.

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


I'm trying to use my server as a file server, where I will store all
the
Office executable. If MS so willing, then they can tell us what
registry
setting on the local machine has to change so each of my workstation
can
run
office apps, e.g. MS Word, Excel, and other, right from their
workstation?

Is it a technology issues that prevent this to happen? What's the big
problem since other OSes can handle multi-user apps?

Imagine if I can do that, everytime the workstation crashed and corrupted
the disk, all I have to do is install the os, mount the directory where
office reside, and voile ... it's back up again. Also, when the office
need
upgrade, all I have to do is to upgrade the one on the server and
again,
those 10(or for that matter 100K)workstation has their office upgraded!

Any ideas?




I think you have the option upon installing if you want to install
Office
to
a server, but I am thinking if you have 10 users it is going to slow
down
your server badly. Is there a particular reason you dont want to install
on
the workstations? You can setup admin install of office to install just
like
Outlook installs on SBS client upon connection.


Is it possible to run office from a server?

We just purchased 10 brand new PC with Windows XP Pro
Pre-installed,
an
a
server with ample of memory and disk space.

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

Instead of installing MS Office 2003 on all the workstation, is there
a
way
to run Office from a server?

I know of the terminal services/citrix way but that is out of the
question
as it will add cost per client.

Thanks

 

[Sarah Tanembaum]

I don't think I'm worry about my network speed. I have ample bandwidth (Giga
ethernet), fast workstation, and fast server. All I want is to execute the
app from file server.

I don;t think this is such a hard technology to implement isn't it?

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

Thanks Kevin. Unfortunately the terminal services are out of the question.
We have pretty powerful workstation and server, why would I use my
workstation
as a terminal(Isn't this goes again MS ideology)?

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

Or perhaps Microsoft is still ironing-out on how to implement this this
type
of
technology(networked-multi-user-multi-task-apps)?

Thanks

Sarah, what you have described is called 'Windows Terminal Server'. You are
right about the fact that by installing Office on one system, and letting
everyone access it reduces administrative issues. But, SBS2003 does not
allow you to configure Terminal Server on the SBS server itself. You

can
add

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

server.
The

temrinal server would house your Office apps, and your SBS server would
handle Exchange/email, Internet access, and file/print services.

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


I'm trying to use my server as a file server, where I will store all
the
Office executable. If MS so willing, then they can tell us what
registry
setting on the local machine has to change so each of my workstation
can
run
office apps, e.g. MS Word, Excel, and other, right from their
workstation?

Is it a technology issues that prevent this to happen? What's the big
problem since other OSes can handle multi-user apps?

Imagine if I can do that, everytime the workstation crashed and corrupted
the disk, all I have to do is install the os, mount the directory where
office reside, and voile ... it's back up again. Also, when the office
need
upgrade, all I have to do is to upgrade the one on the server and
again,
those 10(or for that matter 100K)workstation has their office upgraded!

Any ideas?




I think you have the option upon installing if you want to install
Office
to
a server, but I am thinking if you have 10 users it is going to slow
down
your server badly. Is there a particular reason you dont want to install
on
the workstations? You can setup admin install of office to install just
like
Outlook installs on SBS client upon connection.


Is it possible to run office from a server?

We just purchased 10 brand new PC with Windows XP Pro
Pre-installed,
an
a
server with ample of memory and disk space.

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

Instead of installing MS Office 2003 on all the workstation, is there
a
way
to run Office from a server?

I know of the terminal services/citrix way but that is out of the
question
as it will add cost per client.

Thanks

 

[Sarah Tanembaum]

I don't think I'm worry about my network speed. I have ample bandwidth (Giga
ethernet), fast workstation, and fast server. All I want is to execute the
app from file server.

I don;t think this is such a hard technology to implement isn't it?

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

Thanks Kevin. Unfortunately the terminal services are out of the question.
We have pretty powerful workstation and server, why would I use my
workstation
as a terminal(Isn't this goes again MS ideology)?

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

Or perhaps Microsoft is still ironing-out on how to implement this this
type
of
technology(networked-multi-user-multi-task-apps)?

Thanks

Sarah, what you have described is called 'Windows Terminal Server'. You are
right about the fact that by installing Office on one system, and letting
everyone access it reduces administrative issues. But, SBS2003 does not
allow you to configure Terminal Server on the SBS server itself. You

can
add

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

server.
The

temrinal server would house your Office apps, and your SBS server would
handle Exchange/email, Internet access, and file/print services.

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


I'm trying to use my server as a file server, where I will store all
the
Office executable. If MS so willing, then they can tell us what
registry
setting on the local machine has to change so each of my workstation
can
run
office apps, e.g. MS Word, Excel, and other, right from their
workstation?

Is it a technology issues that prevent this to happen? What's the big
problem since other OSes can handle multi-user apps?

Imagine if I can do that, everytime the workstation crashed and corrupted
the disk, all I have to do is install the os, mount the directory where
office reside, and voile ... it's back up again. Also, when the office
need
upgrade, all I have to do is to upgrade the one on the server and
again,
those 10(or for that matter 100K)workstation has their office upgraded!

Any ideas?




I think you have the option upon installing if you want to install
Office
to
a server, but I am thinking if you have 10 users it is going to slow
down
your server badly. Is there a particular reason you dont want to install
on
the workstations? You can setup admin install of office to install just
like
Outlook installs on SBS client upon connection.


Is it possible to run office from a server?

We just purchased 10 brand new PC with Windows XP Pro
Pre-installed,
an
a
server with ample of memory and disk space.

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

Instead of installing MS Office 2003 on all the workstation, is there
a
way
to run Office from a server?

I know of the terminal services/citrix way but that is out of the
question
as it will add cost per client.

Thanks

 

[Sarah Tanembaum]

I don't think I'm worry about my network speed. I have ample bandwidth (Giga
ethernet), fast workstation, and fast server. All I want is to execute the
app from file server.

I don;t think this is such a hard technology to implement isn't it?

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

Thanks Kevin. Unfortunately the terminal services are out of the question.
We have pretty powerful workstation and server, why would I use my
workstation
as a terminal(Isn't this goes again MS ideology)?

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

Or perhaps Microsoft is still ironing-out on how to implement this this
type
of
technology(networked-multi-user-multi-task-apps)?

Thanks

Sarah, what you have described is called 'Windows Terminal Server'. You are
right about the fact that by installing Office on one system, and letting
everyone access it reduces administrative issues. But, SBS2003 does not
allow you to configure Terminal Server on the SBS server itself. You

can
add

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

server.
The

temrinal server would house your Office apps, and your SBS server would
handle Exchange/email, Internet access, and file/print services.

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


I'm trying to use my server as a file server, where I will store all
the
Office executable. If MS so willing, then they can tell us what
registry
setting on the local machine has to change so each of my workstation
can
run
office apps, e.g. MS Word, Excel, and other, right from their
workstation?

Is it a technology issues that prevent this to happen? What's the big
problem since other OSes can handle multi-user apps?

Imagine if I can do that, everytime the workstation crashed and corrupted
the disk, all I have to do is install the os, mount the directory where
office reside, and voile ... it's back up again. Also, when the office
need
upgrade, all I have to do is to upgrade the one on the server and
again,
those 10(or for that matter 100K)workstation has their office upgraded!

Any ideas?




I think you have the option upon installing if you want to install
Office
to
a server, but I am thinking if you have 10 users it is going to slow
down
your server badly. Is there a particular reason you dont want to install
on
the workstations? You can setup admin install of office to install just
like
Outlook installs on SBS client upon connection.


Is it possible to run office from a server?

We just purchased 10 brand new PC with Windows XP Pro
Pre-installed,
an
a
server with ample of memory and disk space.

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

Instead of installing MS Office 2003 on all the workstation, is there
a
way
to run Office from a server?

I know of the terminal services/citrix way but that is out of the
question
as it will add cost per client.

Thanks

 

[Sarah Tanembaum]

I don't think I'm worry about my network speed. I have ample bandwidth (Giga
ethernet), fast workstation, and fast server. All I want is to execute the
app from file server.

I don;t think this is such a hard technology to implement isn't it?

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

Thanks Kevin. Unfortunately the terminal services are out of the question.
We have pretty powerful workstation and server, why would I use my
workstation
as a terminal(Isn't this goes again MS ideology)?

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

Or perhaps Microsoft is still ironing-out on how to implement this this
type
of
technology(networked-multi-user-multi-task-apps)?

Thanks

Sarah, what you have described is called 'Windows Terminal Server'. You are
right about the fact that by installing Office on one system, and letting
everyone access it reduces administrative issues. But, SBS2003 does not
allow you to configure Terminal Server on the SBS server itself. You

can
add

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

server.
The

temrinal server would house your Office apps, and your SBS server would
handle Exchange/email, Internet access, and file/print services.

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


I'm trying to use my server as a file server, where I will store all
the
Office executable. If MS so willing, then they can tell us what
registry
setting on the local machine has to change so each of my workstation
can
run
office apps, e.g. MS Word, Excel, and other, right from their
workstation?

Is it a technology issues that prevent this to happen? What's the big
problem since other OSes can handle multi-user apps?

Imagine if I can do that, everytime the workstation crashed and corrupted
the disk, all I have to do is install the os, mount the directory where
office reside, and voile ... it's back up again. Also, when the office
need
upgrade, all I have to do is to upgrade the one on the server and
again,
those 10(or for that matter 100K)workstation has their office upgraded!

Any ideas?




I think you have the option upon installing if you want to install
Office
to
a server, but I am thinking if you have 10 users it is going to slow
down
your server badly. Is there a particular reason you dont want to install
on
the workstations? You can setup admin install of office to install just
like
Outlook installs on SBS client upon connection.


Is it possible to run office from a server?

We just purchased 10 brand new PC with Windows XP Pro
Pre-installed,
an
a
server with ample of memory and disk space.

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

Instead of installing MS Office 2003 on all the workstation, is there
a
way
to run Office from a server?

I know of the terminal services/citrix way but that is out of the
question
as it will add cost per client.

Thanks

 

[Sarah Tanembaum]

I don't think I'm worry about my network speed. I have ample bandwidth (Giga
ethernet), fast workstation, and fast server. All I want is to execute the
app from file server.

I don;t think this is such a hard technology to implement isn't it?

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

Thanks Kevin. Unfortunately the terminal services are out of the question.
We have pretty powerful workstation and server, why would I use my
workstation
as a terminal(Isn't this goes again MS ideology)?

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

Or perhaps Microsoft is still ironing-out on how to implement this this
type
of
technology(networked-multi-user-multi-task-apps)?

Thanks

Sarah, what you have described is called 'Windows Terminal Server'. You are
right about the fact that by installing Office on one system, and letting
everyone access it reduces administrative issues. But, SBS2003 does not
allow you to configure Terminal Server on the SBS server itself. You

can
add

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

server.
The

temrinal server would house your Office apps, and your SBS server would
handle Exchange/email, Internet access, and file/print services.

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


I'm trying to use my server as a file server, where I will store all
the
Office executable. If MS so willing, then they can tell us what
registry
setting on the local machine has to change so each of my workstation
can
run
office apps, e.g. MS Word, Excel, and other, right from their
workstation?

Is it a technology issues that prevent this to happen? What's the big
problem since other OSes can handle multi-user apps?

Imagine if I can do that, everytime the workstation crashed and corrupted
the disk, all I have to do is install the os, mount the directory where
office reside, and voile ... it's back up again. Also, when the office
need
upgrade, all I have to do is to upgrade the one on the server and
again,
those 10(or for that matter 100K)workstation has their office upgraded!

Any ideas?




I think you have the option upon installing if you want to install
Office
to
a server, but I am thinking if you have 10 users it is going to slow
down
your server badly. Is there a particular reason you dont want to install
on
the workstations? You can setup admin install of office to install just
like
Outlook installs on SBS client upon connection.


Is it possible to run office from a server?

We just purchased 10 brand new PC with Windows XP Pro
Pre-installed,
an
a
server with ample of memory and disk space.

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

Instead of installing MS Office 2003 on all the workstation, is there
a
way
to run Office from a server?

I know of the terminal services/citrix way but that is out of the
question
as it will add cost per client.

Thanks

 

[Sarah Tanembaum]

I don't think I'm worry about my network speed. I have ample bandwidth (Giga
ethernet), fast workstation, and fast server. All I want is to execute the
app from file server.

I don;t think this is such a hard technology to implement isn't it?

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

Thanks Kevin. Unfortunately the terminal services are out of the question.
We have pretty powerful workstation and server, why would I use my
workstation
as a terminal(Isn't this goes again MS ideology)?

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

Or perhaps Microsoft is still ironing-out on how to implement this this
type
of
technology(networked-multi-user-multi-task-apps)?

Thanks

Sarah, what you have described is called 'Windows Terminal Server'. You are
right about the fact that by installing Office on one system, and letting
everyone access it reduces administrative issues. But, SBS2003 does not
allow you to configure Terminal Server on the SBS server itself. You

can
add

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

server.
The

temrinal server would house your Office apps, and your SBS server would
handle Exchange/email, Internet access, and file/print services.

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


I'm trying to use my server as a file server, where I will store all
the
Office executable. If MS so willing, then they can tell us what
registry
setting on the local machine has to change so each of my workstation
can
run
office apps, e.g. MS Word, Excel, and other, right from their
workstation?

Is it a technology issues that prevent this to happen? What's the big
problem since other OSes can handle multi-user apps?

Imagine if I can do that, everytime the workstation crashed and corrupted
the disk, all I have to do is install the os, mount the directory where
office reside, and voile ... it's back up again. Also, when the office
need
upgrade, all I have to do is to upgrade the one on the server and
again,
those 10(or for that matter 100K)workstation has their office upgraded!

Any ideas?




I think you have the option upon installing if you want to install
Office
to
a server, but I am thinking if you have 10 users it is going to slow
down
your server badly. Is there a particular reason you dont want to install
on
the workstations? You can setup admin install of office to install just
like
Outlook installs on SBS client upon connection.


Is it possible to run office from a server?

We just purchased 10 brand new PC with Windows XP Pro
Pre-installed,
an
a
server with ample of memory and disk space.

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

Instead of installing MS Office 2003 on all the workstation, is there
a
way
to run Office from a server?

I know of the terminal services/citrix way but that is out of the
question
as it will add cost per client.

Thanks

 

[Sarah Tanembaum]

Office REQUIRES specific files to be installed locally in order to run. If

you want a pure server solution, it will not work.

How many specific file(s) are you talking about? Do you have a list of what
specific files are you mentioning?

Thanks

Please do yourself a favor and look at the Office Resource Kit and the
Windows 2003 (or whatever version of Windows you have) Terminal Services
white papers.

What you are asking has been answered many times here - if it is not the
answer you like, then look for a different vendor/solution. We have all
told you what is and is not possible, the problems inherent in trying to
meet your requests, and have basically given up providing answers that you
do not want to hear.

Office REQUIRES specific files to be installed locally in order to run. If
you want a pure server solution, it will not work.


--
Milly Staples [MVP - Outlook]

Post all replies to the group to keep the discussion intact. Due to
the (insert latest virus name here) virus, all mail sent to my personal
account will be deleted without reading.

After searching google.groups.com and finding no answer, Sarah Tanembaum
asked:

| Why not possible?
|
| Thanks.
|
| "Milly Staples [MVP - Outlook]"
| || No, you can either run Office from a TS/Citrix environment or you can
|| install it locally. You can create an admin installation point on
|| the server and have the clients load office via a logon script when
|| they first start Windows. But you cannot run it from a plain server.
||
|| --
|| Milly Staples [MVP - Outlook]
||
|| Post all replies to the group to keep the discussion intact. Due to
|| the (insert latest virus name here) virus, all mail sent to my
|| personal account will be deleted without reading.
||
|| After searching google.groups.com and finding no answer, Sarah
|| Tanembaum asked:
||
||| Is it possible to run office from a server?
|||
||| We just purchased 10 brand new PC with Windows XP Pro Pre-installed,
||| an a server with ample of memory and disk space.
|||
||| We also purchase a 15-user license of Microsoft Office 2003
||| Professional.
|||
||| Instead of installing MS Office 2003 on all the workstation, is
||| there
||| a way to run Office from a server?
|||
||| I know of the terminal services/citrix way but that is out of the
||| question as it will add cost per client.
|||
||| Thanks

 

[Sarah Tanembaum]

Office REQUIRES specific files to be installed locally in order to run. If

you want a pure server solution, it will not work.

How many specific file(s) are you talking about? Do you have a list of what
specific files are you mentioning?

Thanks

Please do yourself a favor and look at the Office Resource Kit and the
Windows 2003 (or whatever version of Windows you have) Terminal Services
white papers.

What you are asking has been answered many times here - if it is not the
answer you like, then look for a different vendor/solution. We have all
told you what is and is not possible, the problems inherent in trying to
meet your requests, and have basically given up providing answers that you
do not want to hear.

Office REQUIRES specific files to be installed locally in order to run. If
you want a pure server solution, it will not work.


--
Milly Staples [MVP - Outlook]

Post all replies to the group to keep the discussion intact. Due to
the (insert latest virus name here) virus, all mail sent to my personal
account will be deleted without reading.

After searching google.groups.com and finding no answer, Sarah Tanembaum
asked:

| Why not possible?
|
| Thanks.
|
| "Milly Staples [MVP - Outlook]"
| || No, you can either run Office from a TS/Citrix environment or you can
|| install it locally. You can create an admin installation point on
|| the server and have the clients load office via a logon script when
|| they first start Windows. But you cannot run it from a plain server.
||
|| --
|| Milly Staples [MVP - Outlook]
||
|| Post all replies to the group to keep the discussion intact. Due to
|| the (insert latest virus name here) virus, all mail sent to my
|| personal account will be deleted without reading.
||
|| After searching google.groups.com and finding no answer, Sarah
|| Tanembaum asked:
||
||| Is it possible to run office from a server?
|||
||| We just purchased 10 brand new PC with Windows XP Pro Pre-installed,
||| an a server with ample of memory and disk space.
|||
||| We also purchase a 15-user license of Microsoft Office 2003
||| Professional.
|||
||| Instead of installing MS Office 2003 on all the workstation, is
||| there
||| a way to run Office from a server?
|||
||| I know of the terminal services/citrix way but that is out of the
||| question as it will add cost per client.
|||
||| Thanks

 

[Sarah Tanembaum]

Office REQUIRES specific files to be installed locally in order to run. If

you want a pure server solution, it will not work.

How many specific file(s) are you talking about? Do you have a list of what
specific files are you mentioning?

Thanks

Please do yourself a favor and look at the Office Resource Kit and the
Windows 2003 (or whatever version of Windows you have) Terminal Services
white papers.

What you are asking has been answered many times here - if it is not the
answer you like, then look for a different vendor/solution. We have all
told you what is and is not possible, the problems inherent in trying to
meet your requests, and have basically given up providing answers that you
do not want to hear.

Office REQUIRES specific files to be installed locally in order to run. If
you want a pure server solution, it will not work.


--
Milly Staples [MVP - Outlook]

Post all replies to the group to keep the discussion intact. Due to
the (insert latest virus name here) virus, all mail sent to my personal
account will be deleted without reading.

After searching google.groups.com and finding no answer, Sarah Tanembaum
asked:

| Why not possible?
|
| Thanks.
|
| "Milly Staples [MVP - Outlook]"
| || No, you can either run Office from a TS/Citrix environment or you can
|| install it locally. You can create an admin installation point on
|| the server and have the clients load office via a logon script when
|| they first start Windows. But you cannot run it from a plain server.
||
|| --
|| Milly Staples [MVP - Outlook]
||
|| Post all replies to the group to keep the discussion intact. Due to
|| the (insert latest virus name here) virus, all mail sent to my
|| personal account will be deleted without reading.
||
|| After searching google.groups.com and finding no answer, Sarah
|| Tanembaum asked:
||
||| Is it possible to run office from a server?
|||
||| We just purchased 10 brand new PC with Windows XP Pro Pre-installed,
||| an a server with ample of memory and disk space.
|||
||| We also purchase a 15-user license of Microsoft Office 2003
||| Professional.
|||
||| Instead of installing MS Office 2003 on all the workstation, is
||| there
||| a way to run Office from a server?
|||
||| I know of the terminal services/citrix way but that is out of the
||| question as it will add cost per client.
|||
||| Thanks

 

[Sarah Tanembaum]

Office REQUIRES specific files to be installed locally in order to run. If

you want a pure server solution, it will not work.

How many specific file(s) are you talking about? Do you have a list of what
specific files are you mentioning?

Thanks

Please do yourself a favor and look at the Office Resource Kit and the
Windows 2003 (or whatever version of Windows you have) Terminal Services
white papers.

What you are asking has been answered many times here - if it is not the
answer you like, then look for a different vendor/solution. We have all
told you what is and is not possible, the problems inherent in trying to
meet your requests, and have basically given up providing answers that you
do not want to hear.

Office REQUIRES specific files to be installed locally in order to run. If
you want a pure server solution, it will not work.


--
Milly Staples [MVP - Outlook]

Post all replies to the group to keep the discussion intact. Due to
the (insert latest virus name here) virus, all mail sent to my personal
account will be deleted without reading.

After searching google.groups.com and finding no answer, Sarah Tanembaum
asked:

| Why not possible?
|
| Thanks.
|
| "Milly Staples [MVP - Outlook]"
| || No, you can either run Office from a TS/Citrix environment or you can
|| install it locally. You can create an admin installation point on
|| the server and have the clients load office via a logon script when
|| they first start Windows. But you cannot run it from a plain server.
||
|| --
|| Milly Staples [MVP - Outlook]
||
|| Post all replies to the group to keep the discussion intact. Due to
|| the (insert latest virus name here) virus, all mail sent to my
|| personal account will be deleted without reading.
||
|| After searching google.groups.com and finding no answer, Sarah
|| Tanembaum asked:
||
||| 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