Multi User Sharing a PC

[YueHong]

Hi,

As today PC are getting more and more powerful, we are now able to run multiple OSes virtually using virtual PC, VMware, and etc. So, I am thinking is it possible to have a PC to be used by multiple user at the same time? I mean have a CPU to be plug in with 2 to 3 monitors, and 2 to 3 sets of USB mouse & keyboard to be used by 2-3 people at the same time for normal usage such as word processing, web surfing. Is it possible to do that? Thanks.

 

[VirtualLarry]

I would like to find this out too. Would be neat to be able to hook up multiple root console users on a Windows box.

From what I've heard, though, Microsoft really frowns on this. They want each user to have their own PC, and therefore their own OS license. Sharing one OS (and thus one OS license) between multiple users, isn't in their plans. Unless of course, you pay for a Terminal Server, which requires a seperate Client Access License for each user or device.

 

[Nothinman]

I don't think so with Windows, but it seems pretty straight forward to setup a Linux box with as many X servers as you can put video ports in it.

 

[Chiefcrowe]

Have you heard of N Computing?
it's not free but it seems to be a quite good solution. i've seen a demo a while back and I liked it.

http://www.ncomputing.com

 

[stlcardinals]

Microsoft has several solutions, their latest is Multipoint Server.

Terminal Services is another option, but that goes into the dumb terminal, remote desktop client -> server category.

 

[Ichinisan]

Windows Server supports concurrent sessions, so multiple users can be connected at the same time using RDC. I *think* a user can also work directly from the computer too, as long as each person uses a different Windows user account.

 

[Chiefcrowe]

Unless it is a terminal server however, the concurrent remote user limit is very low, i think 2 or 3.

Windows Server supports concurrent sessions, so multiple users can be connected at the same time using RDC. I *think* a user can also work directly from the computer too, as long as each person uses a different Windows user account.

 

[Ichinisan]

Unless it is a terminal server however, the concurrent remote user limit is very low, i think 2 or 3.

I find artificial software limitations to be infuriating. If I make a piece of software, I just want it to be as good as it can be.

 

[marino.DV]

yeah but on this case who would be the min administrator?!

 

[Nothinman]

yeah but on this case who would be the min administrator?!

Whoever does the initial install?

 

[seepy83]

I find artificial software limitations to be infuriating. If I make a piece of software, I just want it to be as good as it can be.

Artificial software limitation? There is no artificial limitation. It's a licensing issue. If you want X number of users to be run concurrent RDP sessions on a single server, then you need to pay for X number of licenses.

 

[Nothinman]

Artificial software limitation? There is no artificial limitation. It's a licensing issue. If you want X number of users to be run concurrent RDP sessions on a single server, then you need to pay for X number of licenses.

Exactly, licensing restrictions are artificial restrictions added to make you pay more for things that developer wants you to.

 

[dawks]

I know VMware Fusion on the Mac lets you pass USB devices directly to a Guest OS (I do this because I prefer using a Microsoft Mouse on OS/X because I HATE the default OS/X accel curve, but Fusion seems to have a glitch where if you click in a text box, the mouse goes hyperspeed).

So you could technically have say 3 monitors, launch 3 different VM's, make them fullscreen, then with enough USB ports, you could hook up a keyboard and mouse, and have the VM software capture them and pass them directly to the Guest OS..

Probably easier/cheaper to just buy 3 low end PC's though.

 

[Nothinman]

Probably easier/cheaper to just buy 3 low end PC's though.

That seems unlikely, especially once you factor in the cost of 3 or 4 Windows licenses.

 

[spikespiegal]

If I make a piece of software, I just want it to be as good as it can be.

Kudos, but in a certain respect this is an oxymoron if you're using the typical Windows API calls in a TS environment (stop laughing Nothinman). Why bother checking to see if the user has admin rights first when you can attempt to write to that same registry key a few million times first and make everybody else slow down. What the hell, there's eight cores, so who cares if two of them are tied up trying to hump a wall.

Ironic that Microsoft is advertising Multipoint is an education environment where I've found TS to be an inefficient solution. Note to Microsoft - Kids don't spend a lot of time in Excel, 5250 sessions and Outlook but on on flash and java based web sites that are murder on RDP and TS servers. Half a dozen kids can bring a VMware cluster to it's knees playing flash games. Just give them each their own cheap workstation and manage them with SCCM (oh wait - that doesn't work either - ROFL).

Windows OEM licenses are so darn cheap on entry level workstations it's kind of silly to bicker about that end of it. It's the cost of managing the environment that everybody is trying to slash.

 

[Ichinisan]

Artificial software limitation? There is no artificial limitation. It's a licensing issue. If you want X number of users to be run concurrent RDP sessions on a single server, then you need to pay for X number of licenses.

Exactly, licensing restrictions are artificial restrictions added to make you pay more for things that developer wants you to.

This.

 

[Nothinman]

Kudos, but in a certain respect this is an oxymoron if you're using the typical Windows API calls in a TS environment (stop laughing Nothinman). Why bother checking to see if the user has admin rights first when you can attempt to write to that same registry key a few million times first and make everybody else slow down. What the hell, there's eight cores, so who cares if two of them are tied up trying to hump a wall.

Ideally you wouldn't check for admin rights, you would check the specific rights on key first or attempt the write and check the return code and if it's Access Denied, tell the user that explicitly. But the point is mostly the same. Just from experience with all kinds of problematic software I get the feeling that no one bothers to check return codes, that little thing should be ingrained in your head from programming 101 and is probably the simplest thing you can do to make your program robust and not look retarded when someone runs it on a machine other than the one it was developed on.

Ironic that Microsoft is advertising Multipoint is an education environment where I've found TS to be an inefficient solution. Note to Microsoft - Kids don't spend a lot of time in Excel, 5250 sessions and Outlook but on on flash and java based web sites that are murder on RDP and TS servers. Half a dozen kids can bring a VMware cluster to it's knees playing flash games. Just give them each their own cheap workstation and manage them with SCCM (oh wait - that doesn't work either - ROFL).

Windows OEM licenses are so darn cheap on entry level workstations it's kind of silly to bicker about that end of it. It's the cost of managing the environment that everybody is trying to slash.

Doubly ironic that MS' software like Office was (is?) one of the worst offenders when it comes to TS support. The first thing most people think of when it comes to software that would work well on TS is Office and yet MS had to put out a number of docs and resource kit tools explaining how to make it work because they didn't do it right from the beginning.

 

[dawks]

That seems unlikely, especially once you factor in the cost of 3 or 4 Windows licenses.

In my example, you'd still need to buy the 3 or 4 licenses anyway and the virtualization software (plus you're probably paying for the host OS). Or an expensive Windows Server license with TS licenses.

Plus you'd need one powerful machine to get the same work done as several cheap machines. Plus consider the frustration factor of configuring and ensuring stability. Also the fact that you need to all be within a few feet of the computer, unless you can find some USB cable extenders for they KVM requirements. And you'd be lacking good 3D acceleration and smooth video support. Even cheap computers come with better video than virtualization can support.

 

[Nothinman]

In my example, you'd still need to buy the 3 or 4 licenses anyway and the virtualization software (plus you're probably paying for the host OS). Or an expensive Windows Server license with TS licenses.

Plus you'd need one powerful machine to get the same work done as several cheap machines. Plus consider the frustration factor of configuring and ensuring stability. Also the fact that you need to all be within a few feet of the computer, unless you can find some USB cable extenders for they KVM requirements. And you'd be lacking good 3D acceleration and smooth video support. Even cheap computers come with better video than virtualization can support.

Well I believe that Windows Server includes at least 1 VM license, but I'm not sure about the usage restrictions. So that might possibly save you a license there. But you're right that using 3 VMs won't give acceptable video performance, let alone 3D. Basically it's just a no-go if you want to use Windows.

 

[seepy83]

Exactly, licensing restrictions are artificial restrictions added to make you pay more for things that developer wants you to.

This.

By that rationale, an entire enterprise should be able to run off of 1 Windows Server license. Sounds like a good way to put Microsoft and all other software developers out of business.

 

[Nothinman]

By that rationale, an entire enterprise should be able to run off of 1 Windows Server license. Sounds like a good way to put Microsoft and all other software developers out of business.

I'm not saying everything for a flat rate it's a viable business plan, but you you can't deny that licensing restrictions are still artificially placed there by the developer to make you pay more for different features.

If you want to use 2> CPUs you have to pay for Windows Server because Win7 won't do it. There's absolutely no technical reason that Win7 can't do it, it's purely there to make you pay more for more hardware. Same for memory, some SKUs of Win7 can address more memory than others even though the software is exactly the same.

* Starter: 8GB
* Home Basic: 8GB
* Home Premium: 16GB
* Professional: 192GB
* Enterprise: 192GB
* Ultimate: 192GB

But frankly I couldn't care less about MS' profitability, that's for them and their shareholders to worry about. I use Linux at home which comes with no artificial limitations, it will use all of the hardware I can throw at it without requiring me to pay someone more money and run through an "Anytime Upgrade".

In theory, I could take a machine with enough hardware and configure it just how YueHong wants to with Linux but I can't with Windows for both technical and artificial/licensing reasons. These are facts that you can't deny.