Windows server 2003 licencing

"Nut Cracker" wrote in message
t...
why would you even consider putting a server OS on a desktop? I am curious
as to the determination process that resulted in the decision to put 2003
Web Edition as the standard OS on your enduser desktops ..

It's a fair question. We need two specific features:

1) Administrative RDP logins that take place in the background, while a user
is logged into the machine. This one alone is a major lifesaver and
convenience for us. With Windows XP, you can only login by RDP if the user
logs out.

2) Software disk mirroring. I know you have strong feelings against that
feature (per previous threads). I will just say that there have been many
situations where being able to dismount a mirror drive and work on it from a
different machine easily, while being able to maintain some "soft" level of
mirroring to protect against drive failures, has saved dozens of hours of
work. We really like the mirroring feature.

Having identified specific features we want that Windows XP lacks, have you
actually tried to use the Web Edition or any other server edition as a
workstation? I mean Windows is Windows. The core kernel and device
driver model are pretty much identical. Everything on top is just
packaging. Sure, some applications refuse to install on the server
version, and some refuse to install on Windows XP too. That's just a
marketing decision that is codified in some arbitrary rule in the installer
software. Vendors perceive they can sell the server version of some
software for more than the end user version.

What would make a lot more sense to me is if Microsoft would just sell a
core OS license and not call it end user or server. Then sell additional
packages of capabilities on top of that core OS. One package would give
end user applications. Another package would give servers. A third
package would add domain controller functionality. That would allow much
more flexible and sensible configurations of the core technology to suit the
particular need of an individual user.

--
Will

"Will" wrote in message
...
"Nut Cracker" wrote in message
t...
why would you even consider putting a server OS on a desktop? I am
curious
as to the determination process that resulted in the decision to put 2003
Web Edition as the standard OS on your enduser desktops ..

It's a fair question. We need two specific features:

1) Administrative RDP logins that take place in the background, while a
user
is logged into the machine. This one alone is a major lifesaver and
convenience for us. With Windows XP, you can only login by RDP if the
user
logs out.

2) Software disk mirroring. I know you have strong feelings against
that
feature (per previous threads). I will just say that there have been
many
situations where being able to dismount a mirror drive and work on it from
a
different machine easily, while being able to maintain some "soft" level
of
mirroring to protect against drive failures, has saved dozens of hours of
work. We really like the mirroring feature.

Having identified specific features we want that Windows XP lacks, have
you
actually tried to use the Web Edition or any other server edition as a
workstation? I mean Windows is Windows. The core kernel and device
driver model are pretty much identical. Everything on top is just
packaging. Sure, some applications refuse to install on the server
version, and some refuse to install on Windows XP too. That's just a
marketing decision that is codified in some arbitrary rule in the
installer
software. Vendors perceive they can sell the server version of some
software for more than the end user version.

What would make a lot more sense to me is if Microsoft would just sell a
core OS license and not call it end user or server. Then sell additional
packages of capabilities on top of that core OS. One package would give
end user applications. Another package would give servers. A third
package would add domain controller functionality. That would allow
much
more flexible and sensible configurations of the core technology to suit
the
particular need of an individual user.

--
Will

To address #1:

Have you used Remote Assistance ? or WebX, or any of the numerous other
solutions designed to fill this gap ? Why would anyone license an OS for a
desktop that is at least a factor of 4 times more expensive that an XP
licence, and any additonal licensing of the products (some mentioned above
are free) above?

To address #2:

http://www.tomshardware.com/2004/11/...raid_5_happen/

Google is your friend ... and dont forget to think outside the box.

- LC

"Nut Cracker" wrote in message
news:s5-dnS7f-
To address #1:

Have you used Remote Assistance ? or WebX, or any of the numerous other
solutions designed to fill this gap ? Why would anyone license an OS for a
desktop that is at least a factor of 4 times more expensive that an XP
licence, and any additonal licensing of the products (some mentioned above
are free) above?

My user doesn't need "assistance". We don't need for different users to
"collaborate". We have a different user who needs to simultaneously do a
different job from the console user on the same machine. It's a different
requirement.

Another use case for RDP: I have a test lab where two administrative users
often come into a machine to test applications simultaneously. User one
doesn't need to see the same screen as user two. They aren't
collaborating. They need to each do their own thing simultaneously from
the same box. Windows servers give you two simultaneous logins by RDP
and it meets the requirement for what we do.


To address #2:


http://www.tomshardware.com/2004/11/...raid_5_happen/

Google is your friend ... and dont forget to think outside the box.

I've done that Windows XP hack before, and I don't feel real comfortable
with it. I always worry that a future service pack will do something to
break it, and that we won't realize the breakage until it is too late. And
of course when you call Microsoft for support you will get the "Say what?
Oh, that's not supported."

It's a good idea, and I'm glad you brought it up, and it's reasonable to
consider it. Given the catastrophe with licensing that the other user
brought up, I may have no choice.

In the big picture, spending another $150 to get a standard configuration
that we can use in a standard way was worth the extra money. That is of
course until I found out that the Microsoft thought police decided to outlaw
any possibility of someone spending 100% more for their end users because
they live in a lawyer's cave where every thought that every user has to be
examined and over controlled and every living breath that the user makes has
to be squeezed out of them until they suffocate.

Sorry, I'm bitter about it.

--
Will

Will wrote:

Guy Macon wrote...

Will wrote:

Regarding open licensing, I think that makes sense if you are a big
company that values clean business processes more than you value money.

Even for a small company, bending the rules could end up costing more
than following them. Doing illegal things to save money put a bad
taste in many business owner's mouths.

I'm offended by this remark. I never once suggested that anyone should
bend rules.

I didn't mean to imply that you did. Sorry for being unclear.
I was trying to convey that many small businesses also value
clean business processes more than they value money.

Guy Macon
http://www.guymacon.com/

Will wrote:


My user doesn't need "assistance". We don't need for different users to
"collaborate". We have a different user who needs to simultaneously do a
different job from the console user on the same machine. It's a different
requirement.


We have similar requirements and find that using 'rdesktop' and 'TSWeb'
provide that mix of RDP logins we need without needing to logout of
any native sessions.

Regards,

Michael

"msg" wrote in message
...
Will wrote:


My user doesn't need "assistance". We don't need for different users to
"collaborate". We have a different user who needs to simultaneously do
a
different job from the console user on the same machine. It's a
different
requirement.


We have similar requirements and find that using 'rdesktop' and 'TSWeb'
provide that mix of RDP logins we need without needing to logout of
any native sessions.

Regards,

Michael

hrm ... an interesting approach.

"msg" wrote in message
...
We have similar requirements and find that using 'rdesktop' and 'TSWeb'
provide that mix of RDP logins we need without needing to logout of
any native sessions.

I'll look into those thanks. Are either vendor supported software?

--
Will

"Guy Macon" http://www.guymacon.com/ wrote in message
...
Will wrote:
"Nut Cracker" wrote...

why would you even consider putting a server OS on a desktop? I am
curious
as to the determination process that resulted in the decision to put
2003
Web Edition as the standard OS on your enduser desktops ..

It's a fair question. We need two specific features:

1) Administrative RDP logins that take place in the background, while a
user
is logged into the machine. This one alone is a major lifesaver and
convenience for us. With Windows XP, you can only login by RDP if the
user
logs out.

2) Software disk mirroring. I know you have strong feelings against
that
feature (per previous threads). I will just say that there have been
many
situations where being able to dismount a mirror drive and work on it
from a
different machine easily, while being able to maintain some "soft" level
of
mirroring to protect against drive failures, has saved dozens of hours of
work. We really like the mirroring feature.

For #1, WebX works really, really well, and requires nothing to be
installed on the workstation other than what Microsoft included in XP.

How is WebX going to allow a user at home to login to a system in the
office? And why in the name of security would I ever allow a third party
computer that I do not administer to have access through our firewall to our
most sensitive infrastructure?


For #2, it is my opinion that, for workstations, a solution that makes
images on a timed basis is better than real-time mirroring. For every
hardware failure you have 10 to 100 cases where Windows rots. I use
XXCOPY on a timed batch file and an occasional run of Norton Ghost.

Believe it or not, I have lost easily 20 drives in the last six years, and
have never lost a system because of the Windows drive mirroring feature. I
have only lost systems that were protected by no RAID or by hardware RAID.
The hardware RAID losses were attributable to having corrupted software
installs of the OS, and no straightforward way to build back the original
system image, or to transfer the hardware RAID drives to another workstation
for inspection and rework.

Your mileage may vary, and I am the first to understand that the software
RAID approach has many shortcomings. But for low importance end user
computers, they have proven themselves over and over.

--
Will

Will wrote:

How is WebX going to allow a user at home to login to a system
in the office?

The WebX thin client runs on Internet Explorer. A ClearSCADA-specific
ActiveX control is downloaded from the WebX server. Data is displayed
to the users as secure XML and HTML pages on standard web ports with
128-bit SSL encryption.

All that is required is a bog-standard installation of Windows, a
firewall that allows web access, and a local user willing to click
the button giving the remote user control of his desktop.

And why in the name of security would I ever allow a third party
computer that I do not administer to have access through our firewall
to our most sensitive infrastructure?

Unless you are blocking web access or blocking all ActiveX
(really blocking it, not just requiring the user to click on
a permission dialog box), you already are allowing a third
party computer that you do not administer to have access through
your firewall to whatever the logged in user can access.

If you are allowing ordinary users access to your "most sensitive
infrastructure", that's another problem. I will assume that is
hyperbole.

For #2, it is my opinion that, for workstations, a solution that makes
images on a timed basis is better than real-time mirroring. For every
hardware failure you have 10 to 100 cases where Windows rots. I use
XXCOPY on a timed batch file and an occasional run of Norton Ghost.

Believe it or not, I have lost easily 20 drives in the last six years, and
have never lost a system because of the Windows drive mirroring feature. I
have only lost systems that were protected by no RAID or by hardware RAID.
The hardware RAID losses were attributable to having corrupted software
installs of the OS, and no straightforward way to build back the original
system image, or to transfer the hardware RAID drives to another workstation
for inspection and rework.

Your mileage may vary, and I am the first to understand that the software
RAID approach has many shortcomings. But for low importance end user
computers, they have proven themselves over and over.

In my opinion. you should set up a system that cannot lose data
no matter what the failure mode is. Back up the configuration,
operating system and apps -- the things that don't change from
day to day -- and keep your data on redundant network storage.

--
Guy Macon
http://www.guymacon.com/

"Guy Macon" http://www.guymacon.com/ wrote in message
...



Will wrote:

How is WebX going to allow a user at home to login to a system
in the office?

The WebX thin client runs on Internet Explorer. A ClearSCADA-specific
ActiveX control is downloaded from the WebX server. Data is displayed
to the users as secure XML and HTML pages on standard web ports with
128-bit SSL encryption.

Hey Guy,

The more i think about it, the less suited WebX is for this guy. He says he
needs multiple independent sessions on his desktops. Yes, this baffles me
too. WebX gives secure sharing of a desktop session, but does not setup or
make available independent sessions on systems that dont normally support
them (like XP). So, WebX is out. I mentioned it in the beginning of this
thread because i wrongly assumed he wanted to shadow his users via RDP
sessions for support and whatnot.

It sounds to me like what he needs is a bunch of XP workstations, and a
proper terminal server solution for all these sessions. That would be the
conventional, and supported approach. Whatever it is that needs to be run by
several people at the same time should be in stalled on a server, and the
users can TS to that and have all the sessions they want. Yes, there is a
marginal cost per TS CAL, but when compared to licensing a large number of
server OS's for the desktop, the cost of the CAL's should be viewed as a
savings.