If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Windows server 2003 licencing
"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 |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Windows server 2003 licencing
"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 |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Windows server 2003 licencing
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/ |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Windows server 2003 licencing
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 |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Windows server 2003 licencing
"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. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Windows server 2003 licencing
"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 |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Windows server 2003 licencing
"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 |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Windows server 2003 licencing
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/ |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Windows server 2003 licencing
"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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
WARNING LONG - Brian Livingston's take on Windows Genuine Advantage | Sparky Spartacus | Dell Computers | 12 | June 20th 06 12:09 PM |
Windows 2003 Server | [email protected] | Nvidia Videocards | 2 | April 18th 06 01:39 PM |
P4C800-DELUXE XP Install Problems --- Hanging | bubbadawg | Asus Motherboards | 2 | April 12th 06 02:39 AM |
Lexmark x83 & Windows Server 2003 | xelon | Printers | 0 | January 28th 04 04:32 AM |
Windows Server 2003 and GeForce 256 Direct3D | BeyerIII | Nvidia Videocards | 0 | December 15th 03 05:57 AM |