OSNews

Not sure if there is a free RDP ActiveX plugin that works via IE. It is easier/faster/cheaper to use an existing solution than trying to license or create one from scratch.

There is indeed a free RDP plugin that ships with every version of Windows Server 2003. I use it all the time. There is no reason they should have used Citrix. RDP is much faster IMO.

no no no she's talking about a Free RDP client that works with IE. The server is readily available but not the client as a plugin to a browser.

no no no she's talking about a Free RDP client that works with IE. The server is readily available but not the client as a plugin to a browser.

There is a free RDP client AX control that works with IE. You can download it to IE when you view the RDP webpage on the server.

Details here:
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/downloads/tools/rdwebconn.mspx

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/networking/expert/russel_0...

Interesting. That's good to know! Thanks.

Not really -- Citrix/RDP are rather bandwidth efficient.

You can run a Citrix session in about 11kbs if needed.

It's not bandwidth that kills here - it's the amount of RAM and processing power required to run simultaneous Office 2007 instances for every user that connects to the server.

I got the same problem (Slackware + SeaMonkey here), it's odd they would do such a thing, it must heavily rely on ActiveX.
Sometimes it's almost like they _intentionally_ taunt the Linux users.

Could marketing be thinking anyone who runs another OS can't be considered a possible sale and has no faith in the demo's ability to make them switch?

No, marketing departments actually think the opposite.

A rival OS user is a future sale.
A rival office suite user is a future sale.

Marketing departments would like the demo seen by as many people as possible.

However, whoever put the demo together, has no idea there is more out there than Windows and IE.

"However, whoever put the demo together, has no idea there is more out there than Windows and IE."

No, they simply realised that the effort to support other platforms (and associated future sales) would not be worth their pay and time and bother. You can still download it and run it in a virtual PC, right? (If you have a valid Windows CD)

If marketing isn't driving the bus then who is?

And ? Does Microsoft make Office for your OS ?

And ? Does Microsoft make Office for your OS ?

No, they don't (yet), but creating barriers to remotely trying out one of their flagship products also says they don't want our business.

In essence MS is preaching to the choir here and closing the doors for any non-believer. MS makes it easy to to hate them and to turn away from them, as they give every non-MS websurfer the feeling they are unwanted.

The problem is though, that this web based demo could have been a step towards multiplatform support. But instead they made it IE / XP only.
The other problem is that some Linux users who may otherwise use Microsoft Office on their XP box (or recommend it to a friend, etc.) will likely just become more bitter towards Microsoft and their products.
I know I personally felt a little offended that in 2006 (and all the ajax hype) they can't release even multiplatform web suites.

They probably don't make office for your OS either

I believe Terminal Server was basically a product developed by Insignia Software called NTrigue (based on NT 3.51 at the time) - I think the way it worked was that Microsoft basically had licensed the NT 3.51 code to Insignia Software so that they could develop their custom NT-based OS.

When Microsoft released NT 4, they basically cut off Insignia Software's access to the NT code at that point and either bought, licensed, or "stole" the concept from them at that time (I never followed up on this to see how it came to be part of NT 4 and newer).

hen Microsoft released NT 4, they basically cut off Insignia Software's access to the NT code at that point and either bought, licensed, or "stole" the concept from them at that time (I never followed up on this to see how it came to be part of NT 4 and newer).

Actually Citrix was the buyer.


http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0MWK/is_n4_v12/ai_201910...

I'm guessing that they wanted this whole thing to be as simple as possible for end-users (who may or may not be technically inclined). Asking end users to download a Citrix client and then run it is probably a bit too much for your average user.

Also, having it be completely web-/ActiveX-based provides the ability to throttle the connections as needed.

This seems idiotic that they would choose Citrix, which doesn't need ActiveX and can be even run in Linux (I know that some universities even use it so that students can use Office without needing to buy it for their personal computer), and then put in an ActiveX restriction to limit those that can use it.

Does anyone know why they added such a stupid requirement?

Because Microsoft, while arrogant, slow to react to the market, and heavily manipulative... isn't stupid.

If I could run their newfangled Office on a backend server, and use a linux client for the front end, I'd be able to move about 30% more of my current desktops from Windows XP to Linux.

I have a large chunk of my userbase that really DOES have to use Microsoft Office. Granted, I can run crossover, but by the time I've bought the desktop, crossover, and office, I'm really not saving that much over the Windows XP license the computer came with.

If, on the other hand, they can simply consume a CAL, and run Office from a server, then there's nothing stopping me from migrating those users to Linux, as that's the only Win32 app they have to have.

//If I could run their newfangled Office on a backend server, and use a linux client for the front end, I'd be able to move about 30% more of my current desktops from Windows XP to Linux.

I have a large chunk of my userbase that really DOES have to use Microsoft Office. Granted, I can run crossover, but by the time I've bought the desktop, crossover, and office, I'm really not saving that much over the Windows XP license the computer came with.

If, on the other hand, they can simply consume a CAL, and run Office from a server, then there's nothing stopping me from migrating those users to Linux, as that's the only Win32 app they have to have.//

Your solution = Konqueror + Wine + reacktivate?

http://www.konqueror.org/announcements/reaktivate.php

There you go, that might be worth a try.

Good luck!

If I could run their newfangled Office on a backend server, and use a linux client for the front end, I'd be able to move about 30% more of my current desktops from Windows XP to Linux.

However, I'm not sure that won't happen. What if they would tell you something like "Use whatever client system you wish but pay 30$ per year to access Office online?". You could save OS fees and start paying services. This might be even be worthy if you only use Office as you maybe are currently paying for more that you need.

And this might be a win-win situation for Microsoft if you consider that less than a half of their userbase is ACTUALLY a paying userbase. Remember that second most widespread OS in the world is "pirated Windows" from which Microsoft gets marketshare but doesn't get ANY money.

So they might even have a gain if users switch to other OSes but at the same time will buy services from Microsoft.

If I could run their newfangled Office on a backend server, and use a linux client for the front end, I'd be able to move about 30% more of my current desktops from Windows XP to Linux.

I have a large chunk of my userbase that really DOES have to use Microsoft Office. Granted, I can run crossover, but by the time I've bought the desktop, crossover, and office, I'm really not saving that much over the Windows XP license the computer came with.

Absolutely. Our office standard system are XP-based HP desktops for using Citrix based applications running out of our regional datacenters.

I use Citrix on my Suse laptop with the exact same level of functionality as my XP counterparts for our corporate apps.

Microsoft realizes this. I suspect that's why they're making that very stripped down version of Vista at reduced cost for corporate customers only, suitable only for running browser-based or remote apps. They're preparing to counter the thin-client version of the "why pay twice for Windows?" argument.

(to those of you wondering about how many servers this will take).

You mean clients?

No, read someone elses comments.

They were asking about how many servers it would take to run this thing to be able to handle everyone.

and do not forget thinkfree

http://www.thinkfree.com/

they are already a lot better than google by using Java instead of javascript

Why was the parent modded down? ThinkFree Online is far far superior to Writely currently IMHO.

Only reasons I can think it'd be modded down are:

1. The person loves Google
> Google didn't make Writely, it was made by four people and currently uses ASP.NET, the horror! ... Google has not alot to do with what we currently know as Writely other than owning it.

2. The person loves JavaScript, dislikes Java
> I don't really know what to say here.

3. The person doesn't like choice.
> I think there's probably more than a couple of hundred comments here on OSNews that could be referred to as to why choice is a good thing.

thanks