Softxpand Miniframe

[drjivago]

Dave Hicks! Once again the voice of reason! SoftXpand currently supports Server 2003, but only SoftXpand 3 which is 64 bit compatible will run ON Server 2008. SoftXpand 3 will be released in the next 2 weeks. But it is a desktop OS application by rights.

 

A question for miniframeUK :

I know that Windows 7 (and Vista ofcourse) uses the Aero display engine which is very

"heavy" and "neady" so it demands a propierty GPU for each instance.

Will SoftXpand 3 be able to manage with this demand and still use one VGA Card with 2

outputs (VGA+DVI) for two stations as it does today ?

 

Dr. jivago

[tmcd35]

I know Vista and 7 of load GUI features to the GPU to improve performance, but is it really that intensive?

 

The simple answer would be to buy a faster graphics card, no?

[drjivago]

I know Vista and 7 of load GUI features to the GPU to improve performance, but is it really that intensive?

 

The simple answer would be to buy a faster graphics card, no?

 

Unforunatly no.

 

I know it for sure, as I'm a costumer of BeTwin (Remote Access Windows Vista, Remote Access Windows Server, Remote Access Windows XP, Remote Access Software, Remote Acess Server, PC Sharing, Linux RDP Client, RDP Client, Thin Client, Linux Thin Client, Thin Client Software, WinConnect, BeTwin, WinC).

When I saw your conversations with miniframeUK, and I've look at all of them,

I had only one thing on my mind : what is the big news over here ???

 

I've been using BeTwin since it was for Windows 98 (10 years ago) and was a hardware solution.

Today ThinSoft have BeTwin, which is a software-only solution, and working on 2000/XP (Home

and Professional) 32 bit. Half a year ago they have launched their Windows Vista 64bits\ Server 2008 (BeTwin VS 32\64 bit) and in a month they'll release the Windows 7 version.

 

The only problem with the Vista version, and probably with 7 also, is that you can't use a single

VGA card for 2 stations, and you'll need a card for each station.

 

Dr. jivago

[verygreenpc]

On the XP version the simple answer would be to up the quality of the graphics card (if necessary). HOWEVER the honest answer for Windows 7 is that we cannot share certain information BUT I can guarantee we're not going down the proprietory hardware route nor do we intend to shoehorn 12 graphics cards onto a 6 user PC.

 

We're of course aware of BeTwin, and would have begun distributing WinConnect Server XP etc were it not for some serious limitations that made it unsaleable in the UK - I'm not sure about it being around prior to SoftXpand though? Why not put it to the forum for an unbiaised comparison, and why not for your own peace of mind (as you understand the multiseat concept) download a free trial of SoftXpand and give us your feedback. I've just checked the BeTwin site and they also have a free trial download for all edugeekers

 

For us the BeTwin range is taking the thin client route and using RDP almost like todays "gotomyPC" or "logmein" and is a fantastic product, but not what we're trying to achieve. We focus on the ecological side of the equation, adding in the best possible trade off of price v performance and think we've found the right balance.

 

Clearly we have a competetive analysis done but wouldn't be so silly as to list the faults of the BeTwin product range here. (although as an employee I'm so close to pulling the trigger here!)

[dhicks]

A CAL gets you access to a defined set of resources on windows server, and one of the things you don't get is a desktop session, unless you license terminal server. I don't think server on it's own really covers it.

 

Sorry, my mistake, I meant TS CALs, of course.

 

--

David Hicks

[drjivago]

On the XP version the simple answer would be to up the quality of the graphics card (if necessary). HOWEVER the honest answer for Windows 7 is that we cannot share certain information BUT I can guarantee we're not going down the proprietory hardware route nor do we intend to shoehorn 12 graphics cards onto a 6 user PC.

 

We're of course aware of BeTwin, and would have begun distributing WinConnect Server XP etc were it not for some serious limitations that made it unsaleable in the UK - I'm not sure about it being around prior to SoftXpand though? Why not put it to the forum for an unbiaised comparison, and why not for your own peace of mind (as you understand the multiseat concept) download a free trial of SoftXpand and give us your feedback. I've just checked the BeTwin site and they also have a free trial download for all edugeekers

 

For us the BeTwin range is taking the thin client route and using RDP almost like todays "gotomyPC" or "logmein" and is a fantastic product, but not what we're trying to achieve. We focus on the ecological side of the equation, adding in the best possible trade off of price v performance and think we've found the right balance.

 

Clearly we have a competetive analysis done but wouldn't be so silly as to list the faults of the BeTwin product range here. (although as an employee I'm so close to pulling the trigger here!)

 

 

I'll be happy to hear you are going to solve this problem with Windows 7, but I doubt it...

Either you install USB display cards or it can't be done. But again, if you say you've a solution for that,

I'll wait those 2 weeks - it worth it.

 

Can you tell me the limitations of WinConnect Server XP that made it unusable in the UK ?

 

And yes - it was much perior to SoftXpand. Look what I've found, a piece of history:

Review of the Virtual PC BUDDY B-210

This is what I've told you about - the hardware solution.

 

I don't see BeTwin's stations as a RDP session. It's exactly like SoftXpand with few changes

but with a lot more experience - Since 1997 !!!

Can you imagin how many features would MiniFrame develope in 12 years ? For me, exprience

means a lot.

 

And as for your ecological remark, pay attention to number 2 on your list:

http://kb.miniframe.com/kb/?View=entry&EntryID=220

 

I really don't have the time to make those comparisons, this is your job to do but as a costumer,

I can clearly recommand on BeTwin as a relaiable and good product for the past 12 years.

 

Dr. jivago

Edited July 1, 2009 by drjivago

[DMcCoy]

Sorry, my mistake, I meant TS CALs, of course.

 

--

David Hicks

 

Ah, I agree then - I think TS is really the closest way you can get to the "correct" licensing, you pay for a desktop, you get a desktop. Multiple normal licenses has the same effect, although I don't know if only one could be OEM with the others being FPP.

[tmcd35]

Licensing with FPP would make this type of system unusable . £200+ per seat is a lot of money. Even OEM per seat is way too expensive to be worth while - 6xOEM would be about £600 for Windows on a 6 seat system.

 

If the final word from M$ is one of these two for Win XP/Vista/7 then I for one would be very interested in the TS CAL route!

 

My Money is still on 1xOEM + as many Volume licenses as required (ie 1 or 2 copies of Enterprise Edition).

[verygreenpc]

Hi Guys,

 

I've been talking to the MD here in the UK who is just back from Israeli Head Office. We are prepared to state that you only need 1 copy of Windows XP per system. After some dialogue between Ballmer and Segal this directive is what MiniFame will be communicating globally.

 

We are happy for all you guys to persist in your attempts to have Microsoft confirm this for your own peace of mind and will make ouselves available to your reps at Microsoft to help you clarify this position to them, as on occasion they need to know the technical witchcraft behind the product to best understand the licensing implications.

 

Whilst learning about TS CALs, Windows Server has been interesting I hope this puts this one to bed. 1 Copy of XP.

 

Being a young wipper snapper, I was too eager to comment back on Dr Shivago's posts earlier. It is clear that BeTwin surfaced before SoftXpand. I was discussing it with my MD who explained that BeTwin was the product that everyone tried but didn't work, most likely due to technology limitations back before the millenium. We think the BeTwin concept is brilliant. However anyone who considers a screen saver to be eco friendly is a mad man no? The UK Govt are actively trying to prevent their users from enabling screen savers.

 

Also, does anyone know if the Ranger Suite & RMs network management products are actually white label versions of Net Support?

 

Cheers, and have a good one!

Col

[rdhawkins]

miniframeuk: "Also, does anyone know if the Ranger Suite & RMs network management products are actually white label versions of Net Support?"

 

Yes they are, RM Tutor 3 and Ranger Remote Control are OEM's of our NetSupport School product.

 

Rob

[verygreenpc]

Rob, you're a legend. 95% of the education market in Worcestershire uses either RM or Ranger, so we've been unceremoniously locked out, which has really frustrated my resellers and their end users, as the above mentioned have been unwilling to make the necessary tweaks. Net Support have been fantastic and helped schools take advantage of SoftXpand and keep Net Support which they love. We've got one of your men coming in next thursday for further talks too which is really pleasing.

[drjivago]

Hi Guys,

 

I've been talking to the MD here in the UK who is just back from Israeli Head Office. We are prepared to state that you only need 1 copy of Windows XP per system. After some dialogue between Ballmer and Segal this directive is what MiniFame will be communicating globally.

 

We are happy for all you guys to persist in your attempts to have Microsoft confirm this for your own peace of mind and will make ouselves available to your reps at Microsoft to help you clarify this position to them, as on occasion they need to know the technical witchcraft behind the product to best understand the licensing implications.

 

Whilst learning about TS CALs, Windows Server has been interesting I hope this puts this one to bed. 1 Copy of XP.

 

Being a young wipper snapper, I was too eager to comment back on Dr Shivago's posts earlier. It is clear that BeTwin surfaced before SoftXpand. I was discussing it with my MD who explained that BeTwin was the product that everyone tried but didn't work, most likely due to technology limitations back before the millenium. We think the BeTwin concept is brilliant. However anyone who considers a screen saver to be eco friendly is a mad man no? The UK Govt are actively trying to prevent their users from enabling screen savers.

 

Also, does anyone know if the Ranger Suite & RMs network management products are actually white label versions of Net Support?

 

Cheers, and have a good one!

Col

 

I'm having trouble to accept your declerations, as you mentioned yourself as "Being a young wipper snapper"... till it's out from MiniFrame HQ & MS that you need 1 XP license per system I suggest

you don't miss lead everyone here. The same goes for your past enouncments about SoftXpand 3

supporting Windows 7 and Dual Head VGA cards etc.

 

If BeTwin was a product everyone tried but didn't work, how come it still exist and developing new

and much more advanced systems than SoftXpand ? I don't see SoftXpand supporting any of those

OS that BeTwin does (2000, XP Home, Vista 32&64bit).

 

I would like to bring another piece of history here:

http://www.stable.com.tw/images/stories/stable/product_buddy/007030836.gif

I think that ThinSoft can submit a claim on MiniFrame for infringement...

 

And as for being a mad man, I still didn't get any answers to my questions. Well, what can I expect

from a sales man...

 

Dr. Jivago

[verygreenpc]

1 (The number of XP licenses) - Who's misleading?

2 (The supported OSes) - Change the record.

3 (Patent infringement) - Thank you for the best laugh this morning. After leaving the house wearing shorts (but not checking the weathe forecast) and getting soaked, you've made my day.

4 (Attack on my integrity) - I want to ask you to stop, but this is better publicity than MiniFrame coming up in the House of Commons even! Investing in our future - Community - ComputerworldUK

 

You clearly believe in the BeTwin product range so good luck to you. We don't want to make enemies and we've all got jobs to do.

 

Cheers,

Col (salesman)

[Ric_]

Admin bit: Guys, can you please calm down a bit and keep on topic.

 

@miniframeuk: I would have to agree with the MS 'unofficial' line mentioned earlier. In the Windows XP Pro EULA it states:

 

Except as otherwise permitted by the NetMeeting, Remote Assistance, and Remote Desktop features described below, you may not use the Product to permit any Device to use, access, display or run other executable software residing on the Workstation Computer, nor may you permit any Device to use, access, display, or run the Product or Product's user interface, unless the Device has a separate license for the Product.

 

IMHO this conclusively states that if you are using some form of device to run multiple instances of the OS, you have to have a full license for each instance. This also fits with the way Remote Desktop connections work on XP Pro. If a user connects to an XP PC remotely, it will lock the local console and transfer control to the remote client.

[stu]

1 (The number of XP licenses) - Who's misleading?

2 (The supported OSes) - Change the record.

3 (Patent infringement) - Thank you for the best laugh this morning. After leaving the house wearing shorts (but not checking the weathe forecast) and getting soaked, you've made my day.

4 (Attack on my integrity) - I want to ask you to stop, but this is better publicity than MiniFrame coming up in the House of Commons even! Investing in our future - Community - ComputerworldUK

 

You clearly believe in the BeTwin product range so good luck to you. We don't want to make enemies and we've all got jobs to do.

 

Cheers,

Col (salesman)

 

1 Unless you have written proof from Microsoft that this is true then you are as it is Microsoft's product you are manipulating

 

2 The latest OS being supported by a product is quite a critical issue for most schools/ users/ administrators

 

3 I don't know what process went in to making / deploying your product so i cant comment on the patent

[verygreenpc]

Hey Guys, thanks for your comments. The only M$ response thus far has been:

 

Windows Operating System

 

One of our M$ Gold partners (MTB in Kent) had the response below from Jackie Elleker, Licensing Specialist at M$:

 

"Jackie: We have a product that allows a normal PC to present multiple (up to 6) desktops via multiple mice, keyboards and screens. It means that the operating system (e.g. windows) is installed only once on that PC device. If the licence is purchased in per device mode does this mean that the PC is licenced correctly with one licence? Best regards, Mike"

 

"Hi Mike, Apologies for the delay – I hope these answers help you. Desktop Operating Systems – per copy per device license. You must acquire a license for each device on or from which you access or use the software (locally and remotely). You may install only one copy on the device. You may install that copy on the host operating system or in a virtual (or otherwise emulated) hardware system." Which means that 1 copy of the OS is all that's required. Best regards, Jackie.

 

However, I'm beginning to get more into the nitty gritty of the licensing as it's hugely important to you guys. I know I need to get you clarification on this but I assure you it's not MiniFrame who are stalling on the press release.

 

In fact I'm going to call M$ and try and sell it to them! Anyone have a number for someone in their IT department here in the UK?

[verygreenpc]

Hey Ric, just re-read your post. When we handed the EULA to legal, noone could agree on the definition of a device and I believe therein lies the problem. Can a USB hub be considered an access device?

 

Stu, the OS issue was that Dr Jivago asked why we haven't got a SoftXpand product that runs on pre XP OS's. SoftXpand 3 is already Windows 7 ready, and we upgrade our users for free to latest versions of OS's.

 

I'll do my best to keep you all updated on the number of OS's you'd need.

[Ric_]

Hey Ric, just re-read your post. When we handed the EULA to legal, noone could agree on the definition of a device and I believe therein lies the problem. Can a USB hub be considered an access device.

 

True... however, I would have thought that any 'product' that allows multiple instances of the OS to run can be considered a device in this instance. It need not mean hardware, as is the case with software virtualisation technologies - these require multiple OS licenses.

 

Taking XP Pro as the example, the OS is fundamentally a single user product which you have created software for allowing off-the-shelf hardware to be used as access devices making the OS multi-user.

[verygreenpc]

Hi Guys, the UK MD has written an answer to this on my blog page.

[SYNACK]

The only M$ response

 

Right, I have been watching this thread for a while and been purposfuly putting off replying to it but I give in...

 

You are a company that is building upon Microsoft technology for your core business and it seems relying on an exemption from them to make your product signifigantly cost effective for clients. I am completely puzzled by your insistance then on refering to them as M$.

 

This in general is a derogotory moniker often used by fan(atic)s of other systems, why would you effectivly insult the core of your own system and do you consider this behaviour to be even remotly proffessional?

 

Next up is your absolute insistance without any proof that people only need one license. You cannot speak for Microsoft and while your and your companies word may mean something to those that know you it is not in any way leagally binding. Without a genuine Microsoft statement the only way that you can state this is ift he purchase agreement for your software contains a clause stating that your company is liable for and will pay for any licensing over and above what you have stated is nessisary.

 

It may well be the case that Microsoft will decide in your favor however this has not been the case for simmilar systems. I am aware that this puts you in a difficult situation when it comes to selling the system as you still do not have a definitave answer from Microsoft however this also puts your clients in a difficult situation also. It is part of our jobs to be careful with regard to software licenses and protect our schools/clients from prosecution and so we must all investigate issues like this thoroughly and to our own satisfaction.

 

I do hope that you get your responce from Microsoft soon so that this matter can be fully resolved.

[verygreenpc]

Sorry, I use M$ because the board members here use it, I had no idea it was derogatory. Is that true?

 

You're correct in many of your assertions and I'm glad you posted (we need this to come out), but M$ haven't gone legal because they can't and haven't since SoftXpand was released. So how could they make life tough for us? Perhaps by remaining schtum on the issue, and it's working.

 

I know we have representatives from Microsoft, M$ or however you'd like me to call them on this forum, so why can't they put at ease the minds of the end users for us once and for all; they can come to the office, we'll have a Q and A and then we'll state the facts. Clearly it's a big issue. It's not an issue for any clients who have bought SoftXpand though, and never will be.

 

We as an organisation are committed to the 1 copy of XP model. There are things I cannot write, and it's not to create a mirage, it's just I can't. However I like your idea of liability on licensing and will feed that up the chain here. Would that bring comfort?

 

I am convinced after speaking with management that Microsoft will never ever ever ever state in writing other than by email to Gold partners that 1 copy of the OS is all that's required.

 

A funny thought I just had is that the Mexican Government now has over 25,000 SoftXpand units deployed and growing monthly, and the Nigerian Navy deal has grown to include various government operations. Could this cause an international war!

[SYNACK]

We as an organisation are committed to the 1 copy of XP model. There are things I cannot write, and it's not to create a mirage, it's just I can't. However I like your idea of liability on licensing and will feed that up the chain here. Would that bring comfort?

 

As long as it held up to scrutiny by the school legal advisors I do think that this would make it much more attractive and provide effective risk minimisation.

 

I am convinced after speaking with management that Microsoft will never ever ever ever state in writing other than by email to Gold partners that 1 copy of the OS is all that's required.

 

Possibly not, you could always set one up at one of your offices and then call the copyright police on yourselves. This would probably result in an audit and a definitave answer.

 

A funny thought I just had is that the Mexican Government now has over 25,000 SoftXpand units deployed and growing monthly, and the Nigerian Navy deal has grown to include various government operations. Could this cause an international war!

 

I don't think that any wars would get started over it though. MS does not really have the trained minions that some other brands enjoy

[tmcd35]

True... however, I would have thought that any 'product' that allows multiple instances of the OS to run can be considered a device in this instance. It need not mean hardware, as is the case with software virtualisation technologies - these require multiple OS licenses.

Only one instance of the OS is run. Products like iTALC and ABTutor see the different user desktops as RDP sessions. But what is actually happening is an extended display with different keyboard/mouse combinations inputing to different screens across the extended display.

 

Taking XP Pro as the example, the OS is fundamentally a single user product which you have created software for allowing off-the-shelf hardware to be used as access devices making the OS multi-user.

 

Here I agree, XP Pro (and Vista/7) are single-user-at-a-time EULA's. This means to use this product you need separate licenses for each user who will be using the system at the same time. My question remains - what is the best way to purchase those licenses? At FPP or even OEM prices this system could not be cost effective. At open/select license prices it's a totally different story.

 

Knowing how SoftXpand works it brings up another interesting question. If you need multiple licenses to use SoftXpand, then surely you'd need multiple licenses to play multiplayer games on the PC where two or more users are directly controlling the in game action on the same machine.

[tmcd35]

As I am sure many of you are aware I am extremely interested in this technology and I've been researching both it and Windows EULA's quiet extensively of late.

 

I thought I'd share my current thoughts and findings:

 

1. I am becoming of the opinion that Miniframe are correct - under Windows XP's EULA you only need 1 Windows XP License.

 

Why? The answer is in Windows Vista's EULA

 

2. I believe this software is NOT ALLOWED under Windows Vista's EULA - and for that matter neither are multiplayer (on the same computer (splitscreen,etc)) games.

 

Compare the clause 2 in Windows Vista EULA -

 

2. INSTALLATION AND USE RIGHTS. The software license is permanently assigned to the

device with which you acquired the software. That device is the “licensed device.” A

hardware partition is considered to be a separate device.

a. Licensed Device. You may install one copy of the software on the licensed device.

You may use the software on up to two processors on that device at one time. You may

not use the software on any other device.

b. Number of Users. Except as provided in the Device Connections (all editions), Remote

Access Technologies (Home Basic and Home Premium editions) and Other Access

Technologies (Ultimate edition) sections below, only one user may use the software at a

time.

c. Alternative Versions. The software may include more than one version, such as

32-bit and 64-bit. You may use only one version at one time. If manufacturer or

installer provides you with a one-time selection between language versions, you may use

only the one language version you select.

Note Clause 2b - number of users

 

Compare with Windows XP Pro SP2 EULA Clause 1.1 -

 

1. GRANT OF LICENSE. Manufacturer grants you the following rights provided that you comply

with all terms and conditions of this EULA:

1.1 Installation and use. You may install, use, access, display and run one copy of

the SOFTWARE on the COMPUTER. The SOFTWARE may not be used by more than two (2)

processors at any one time on the COMPUTER, unless a higher number is indicated on the COA.

Notice XP limits number of processors but not number of users.

 

Both VISTA and XP limit number of device connections to ten for file and print sharing only

 

1.4 Device Connections. You may permit a maximum of ten (10) computers or

other electronic devices (each a “Device”) to connect to the COMPUTER to utilize one or more of

the following services of the SOFTWARE: File Services, Print Services, Internet Information

Services, Internet Connection Sharing and telephony services. The ten connection maximum

includes any indirect connections made through “multiplexing” or other software or hardware

which pools or aggregates connections. This ten connection maximum does not apply to other

uses of the SOFTWARE, such as synchronizing data between a Device and the COMPUTER,

provided only one user uses, accesses, displays or runs the SOFTWARE at any one time. This

Section 1.4 does not grant you rights to access a COMPUTER Session from any Device. A

“Session” means any use of the SOFTWARE that enables functionality similar to that available to

an end user who is interacting with the COMPUTER through any combination of input, output

and display peripherals.

 

And Remote Desktop Connections (no limit on number in EULA on XP) - or similar technology (VNC, etc) - must be licensed per device

 

1.5 Remote Desktop/Remote Assistance/NetMeeting. The SOFTWARE contains

Remote Desktop, Remote Assistance, and NetMeeting technologies that enable the SOFTWARE

or applications installed on the COMPUTER (sometimes referred to as a host device) to be

accessed remotely from other Devices. You may use the SOFTWARE’s Remote Desktop feature

(or other software which provides similar functionality for a similar purpose) to access a

COMPUTER Session from any Device provided you acquire a separate SOFTWARE license for

that Device. As an exception to this rule, the person who is the single primary user of the

COMPUTER may access a Computer Session from any Device without acquiring an additional

SOFTWARE license for that Device. When you are using Remote Assistance or NetMeeting (or

other software which provides similar functionality for a similar purpose) you may share a

Session with other users without any limit on the number of Device connections and without

acquiring additional licenses for the SOFTWARE. For Microsoft and non-Microsoft applications,

you should consult the license agreement accompanying the applicable software or contact the

applicable licensor to determine whether use of the software with Remote Desktop, Remote

Assistance, or NetMeeting is permitted without an additional license. Except as otherwise

permitted by the NetMeeting and Remote Assistance features described above, a license for the

SOFTWARE may not be shared or used concurrently on different computers, such as a workstation,

terminal or other device.

 

But the key with SoftXPand under XP is that no additional devices are being used. All users are using the same workstation/computer. The one user restriction does not appear until the Windows Vista EULA.

 

It'd be interesting, based on this, how the Windows 7 EULA reads...

[drjivago]

1 (The number of XP licenses) - Who's misleading?

2 (The supported OSes) - Change the record.

3 (Patent infringement) - Thank you for the best laugh this morning. After leaving the house wearing shorts (but not checking the weathe forecast) and getting soaked, you've made my day.

4 (Attack on my integrity) - I want to ask you to stop, but this is better publicity than MiniFrame coming up in the House of Commons even! Investing in our future - Community - ComputerworldUK

 

You clearly believe in the BeTwin product range so good luck to you. We don't want to make enemies and we've all got jobs to do.

 

Cheers,

Col (salesman)

 

1 Glad to see I'm not the only one who thought you are misleading...

 

Here is another link from the past:

Link: http://www.multiseatcomputer.be/files/mini5.pdf

 

2 Why can't I get a decent answer from you ?

 

3 You're welcome.

 

 

Dr. Jivago