I'm going to assume that there's some downfalls to this idea other than
the ones I've noted on my own, but perhaps there's some scenarios where
this could be slightly tinkered with to work - I can't help but be
curious as it's been half decent to use on a simple home network of a
few pc's, a few apps, and a single server.
Here's the thought - if all redirected options are in place to a file
server - be these application/user data, user settings, user folders,
etc and if roaming profiles are in place, is it necessary to install
local software? I've noticed that with a limited suite of applications
(that being Firefox, Office 2007 Beta, and just a few lightweight open
source applications such as Filezilla). I don't even have a printer
installed at my temporary residence, on a side note. On a home
environment, there's also just 2 active users total.

I could see (many) potential downfalls for this when used in a
corporate environment or perhaps a small business environment exceeding
perhaps 5+ users:

* Excessive Login Times for installed software that is send to desktops
(at least on 1st login) that is a part of the user's various data
folders.

* Very high network traffic (but we are in the days of 1gb ethernet
switches for $30..)

* Excessive/Wasted storage on the server level and (likely) on the
desktop level.

* Issues if DFS is not implemented and the server is offline without
offline folders not present.

There's probably a few more I can think of. I have noticed one
downfall for my environment which is annoying "feature" where simple
applications (think lnk/scr files) such as a simple loading of Firefox
or even clicking the "show desktop" icon will prompt me with a security
warning. I can't seem to fix this through modifying the file type from
folder options, so I'm up for ideas.

That being said, I know it's not "corrected" for the above scenario to
be implemented, although it's worked for me. I'm aware that there's
certainly advantages to using Intellimirror technology and the various
software deployment options & RIS are great technologies.

Okay, all of the above being said - am I missing anything major here?
A 45 minute search of Google with my best keywords in place didn't see
this question answered.

I'm very up for feedback on my own (limited use) solution that's
allowed me to save some time.

Thanks!

John C. Young
jcy@nevermind.org

In the case of Microsoft applications such as MS Office, generallly yes.

Doesn't matter what environtment. The problem is that 99 percent of MS (and
other) applicaitons *require* certain files to be on the *local* disk.
Period. That is how the applications are coded.

Aother thing to consider is that even if this were possible (and it is with
a few apps), you still are required to comply with licensing requirments.
Usually that means buying a licens for each user, not just each computer.

Microsoft does have a solution (for sale!) to solve this problem. A solution
to allow all apps to be loaded on one cetralized server and used by numerous
cleints. The cleint stations do not even have to be MS - they can be simple
Terminals. The solution is called Microsoft Terminal Services (comes with
Windows Server).

-Frank

On another side note here as well, Microsoft has a product we use out our
office that they bought called Softgrid (was Softricity). I have no clue
how it works, but it does work, and we have Lotus 123, Office 2007 (Word,
Excel, and Powerpoint) as well as our Access 2000 Runtime all running in it.
Local Apps, but with the manageability of central apps.

http://www.softricity.com/

Nate

"Frankster" <Frank@spam2trash.com> wrote in message
news:-P2dnSAYkPIgkTzYnZ2dnUVZ_vyunZ2d@giganews.com...

I'm checking it out right now - thanks to both of you for the replies!

Nate Davis wrote:

Hi ,

I'm just starting to work with softricity, and one of my problems is to
virtualize the microsoft office 2003. And as I see, you have done it. Is
there any public recipe to do it with the last version of
softricity(4.1.0.56)?

thanks in advance for your help, FermÃ*

"Nate Davis" wrote: