Re: [OT] True multiuser?
Re: [OT] True multiuser?
- Subject: Re: [OT] True multiuser?
- From: Peter Astrand <email@hidden>
- Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 21:03:19 +0100 (CET)
>
> Note Microsoft licenses/ed Citrix stuff for windows.
>
>
Further, this application has issues with many applications not
>
specifically designed to deal with it, including anything that use the
>
Jet database engine for an Access database, as well as any Visual Basic
>
application that uses the default registry settings, as it writes to
>
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE rather than HKEY_CURRENT_USER. This is the same
>
situation as a OS X application storing it's user preferences in
>
/Library/Preferences rather than ~/Library/Preferences.
I know about the problems with Windows Terminal Servers, but it has very
little to do with this topic.
>
> Maintaining NXHost given the large amount of changes made in the
>
> windowing system since NeXTStep just wasn't in the cards I guess. In
>
> general very few Windows customers know anything about terminal
>
> services it is still in the realm of power users, many other services
>
> in the OS are more important before tackling this.
>
>
not only that, this is functionality that really doesn't belong in the
>
desktop, consumer level operating system, it's functionality that
>
doesn't exist in Windows XP the way you think it does.
I have never talked about Windows XP. I know very well what it can and
cannot do. Customers with the need I'm talking about would probably buy
"Mac OS X Server Super Mega Terminal Server Edition", if it was available.
>
Considering the graphical demands of Quartz and Quartz Extreme, it's
>
going to require a beast of an XTerm to handle displaying the Aqua user
>
interface.
Sure, OS X is great for apps with extreme graphical demands, but not all
users are extreme. Lots of users just want to run Safari, MS Word and
Finder, just the way they have been doing all their lives. I'm pretty sure
MS Word for OS X won't require more bandwidth than MS Word for Windows.
Well, actually I know: I've tested running OS X inside MOL (Mac-On-Linux)
inside Xvnc, and it works pretty good. It's just that running one instance
of the OS per user wastes lots of resources.
>
Now all of that said, it would be nice to have this functionality in a
>
server, but on the desktop, it simply doesn't make much sense unless
Yes, of course, I'm talking about "Server Based Computing". I have never
limited my scope to the OS X consumer versions, but OS X Server versions
doesn't support remote applications either.
--
/Peter Estrand <email@hidden>
_______________________________________________
cocoa-dev mailing list | email@hidden
Help/Unsubscribe/Archives:
http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/cocoa-dev
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.