A few corrections and updates from my earlier posts...
On Thursday 27 December 2007 11:55, Christopher Roberts wrote:
> ---++ 2x Application Server client
>
> * http://www.2x.com/applicationserver/
>
> Having installed the 2x ApplicationServer on the W2K3 server (an absolute
> doddle), this jus
On Sunday 30 December 2007 14:46, Frank Lienhard wrote:
> > * 2x - free for 5 users, not officially supported for XP, but works
> > * SeamlessRDP
> >
> > See my original posting for issues with these solutions and links.
>
> But no drive mapping means, you can't use the local CD-drive, which
On Thursday 27 December 2007 23:48, jam wrote:
> for my info: this setup seemed to work perfectly bar the directx video
> stuff ie games? video and photography stuff
I can imagine, fortunately that's a complication we haven't need to worry
about here.
> For me an Xp machine, but a TS server, and
>
>* 2x - free for 5 users, not officially supported for XP, but works
>* SeamlessRDP
>
> See my original posting for issues with these solutions and links.
>
>
But no drive mapping means, you can't use the local CD-drive, which is
needed for e.g. most games and edu CDs.
Seams any sol
On Friday 28 December 2007 17:09, Frank Lienhard wrote:
> > If you need multiple clients running
> > simultaneously then RDP is probably the most efficient way.
>
> But this will only be supported by server versions of windows, right?
XP would only allow a single RDP connection, there is an old Mi
I just found out:
If you have any win game/edutainment etc., which needs directX Support,
you are finally done, I think (Last try is VMware, I think...) and a
'fat' graphic card in every client. Not to mention al the traps you will
stock in, untill you get this working on the client..
>
> If you need multiple clients running
> simultaneously then RDP is probably the most efficient way.
>
But this will only be supported by server versions of windows, right?
-
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
On Thursday 27 December 2007 17:18, Frank Lienhard wrote:
> Just to get ist right:
> -which windows version did you use
> -did you start the virtualbox on the client or did you install a windows
> server inside virtualbox and the used rdp on the client?
On LTSP 4.2 I experimented only with W2K3 vi
On Thu, 2007-12-27 at 12:05 -0800,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Having been working for the past few months on introducing LTSP 4.2
> into our
> business (currently rolling out to all users), I was wondering which
> methods
> people have adopted for providing access to required Windows apps?
>
>
Hi Chris,
>
>* http://www.virtualbox.org/
>
> Not certain about all your requirements, but for home use I would use
> VirtualBox, as this is free for personal use and includes packages for Debian
> based distros. I believe it has evolved from QEMU, but is very fast. It comes
> with Guest Edi
On Thursday 27 December 2007 15:38, Frank Lienhard wrote:
> Qemu: to slow
QEMU was too slow for us until I switched on KVM and the virtual threading CPU
switch in the BIOS.
* http://www.virtualbox.org/
Not certain about all your requirements, but for home use I would use
VirtualBox, as this
Hi Chris,
>
> What have others done - or are you all in the enviable position of being able
> to go 100% open source?
>
>
At work I have no change to do something this way so far, but at home I
give my best to do so.
Currently I have this:
one LTSP server (debian based: etch + LTSP5) with 3 c
Having been working for the past few months on introducing LTSP 4.2 into our
business (currently rolling out to all users), I was wondering which methods
people have adopted for providing access to required Windows apps?
We are in the unfortunate position of having a number of industry-specific
13 matches
Mail list logo
