Softxpand Miniframe

[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

[tmcd35]

Dr Jivago,

 

I am a little confused by your posts. I get the feeling you are a rep for BeTwin. If you do work for them please say so and we can have an open and honest debate.

 

I get the impression you are trying to discredit SoftXpand. But surely in doing so, as with you last link from the past:

 

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

 

You will also discredit your beloved BeTwin system.

 

 

Can I ask we take this debate in a new direction? Can we forget software specifics. It doesn't matter if we are talking about nComputing, SoftXPand or BeTwin. Lets start by agreeing that all three systems are very very similar and are fundamentally a good idea.

 

 

Regardless of which of the three systems we individually choose to use (if any) the question we should concentrating on is same for each - Windows Licensing and EULA's. To be fair it's not up to SoftXpand, nComputing or BeTwin to answer this question. This is a question for us the end user and Microsoft.

 

I've clearly stated my position and have provided documented evidence from M$'s EULA's to support my arguments.

 

My contention remains that the fairest method of licensing this software for schools is 1xOEM + 1xEnterprise Edition Select/Open license per 4 workstation.

 

I would welcome some official clarification from Microsoft themselves. Until then this si how I choose to interpret the EULA and how I will be licensing such systems I purchase.

Edited July 3, 2009 by tmcd35

[drjivago]

Dr Jivago,

 

I am a little confused by your posts. I get the feeling you a rep for BeTwin. If you do work for them please say so and we can have an open and honest debate.

 

I get the impression you are trying to discredit SoftXpand. But surely in doing so, as with you last link from the past:

 

 

 

You will also discredit your beloved BeTwin system.

 

 

Can I ask we take this debate in a new direction? Can we forget software specifics. It doesn't matter if we are talking about nComputing, SoftXPand or BeTwin. Lets start by agreeing that all three systems are very very similar and are fundamentally a good idea.

 

 

Regardless of which of the three systems we individually choose to use (if any) the question we should concentrating on is same for each - Windows Licensing and EULA's. To be fair it's not up to SoftXpand, nComputing or BeTwin to answer this question. This is a question for us the end user and Microsoft.

 

I've clearly stated my position and have provided documented evidence from M$'s EULA's to support my arguments.

 

My contention remains that the fairest method of licensing this software for schools is 1xOEM + 1xEnterprise Edition Select/Open license per 4 workstation.

 

I would welcome some official clarification from Microsoft themselves. Until then this si how I choose to interpret the EULA and how I will be licensing such systems I purchase.

 

 

I'm only a costumer who bought 20 licenses of BeTwin (10 XP & 10 Vista) and also made all the

check ups you are trying to do, and the result was buying a license per user.

 

Unless you have academic degree in laws, I think it's wrong that you give MS's EULA as an example

and from there conclude your arguments.

 

I agree with you that MS should give us the answers, but they'll never do so - why should they ?

So to go on the safe side, I urge you to buy those licenses. There are many more good sides to

those products that on the long run will save you much more money than the cost of another

OS license : TCO, maintanance, network infrastructure, and ofcourse - electricity and electronic waste.

 

I'm a true believer of those multi-seats systems and got a little irritated by miniframeUK stating they are the first, the best and the only software product in the market. It's simply not true and I had to put an end to it.

 

Dr. Jivago

[tmcd35]

Okay, sorry if I jumped off the deep end a little - but I was getting a little annoyed at the x product is better than y product arguments, and which came first. Really it doesn't matter. MiniframeUK (Colin) is plugging his product, it's only to be expected and I take it with a pinch of salt.

 

You say you licensed each seat - 20 seats. I agree this is the way forward. The question is how did you purchase those licenses? 20 FPP licenses, thats £4000+. 20 OEM licenses, thats £2000+. Or 20 select/open licenses - about £600. And then there are questions with OEM and select/open licenses on their validity in this case. Thus the confusion and arguments here in.

 

FPP licenses mean this technology is too expensive and a waste of time. OEM licenses is very border line in cost and the other benefits of this tech may sway it. Select/Open licensing makes this tech a complete no brainer!

 

You don't need a Law Degree to read a EULA and draw conclusions from it. And the MS EULA, if legally binding (and there are some good arguments why it may not be), is the only source to draw from on this topic. It's the EULA that tells us if we are allowed to do this or not. Therefor reading and drawing conclusions from the EULA is the only way to get to the bottom of this without either

 

a) a definitive statement from Microsoft

 

or

 

b) a civil case being brought to test either the validity or meaning of the EULA

 

Quite frankly I have more chance of winning the lottery than either of those happening and so I am left with EULA and my interpretation of it. If my interpretation is wrong Microsoft are free to sue me and a civil court will make a ruling.

[Ric_]

Regardless of which of the three systems we individually choose to use (if any) the question we should concentrating on is same for each - Windows Licensing and EULA's. To be fair it's not up to SoftXpand, nComputing or BeTwin to answer this question. This is a question for us the end user and Microsoft.

 

I disagree... surely the companies selling such products should tell the end user what licenses are needed. If you take, for example, a Citrix partner, they will tell you that you need to purchase per user or per device terminal services CALs in addition to your XenApp licenses. Likewise, I would imagine Windows CALs and Office licenses should be purchased according to the same rules as in a terminal services enviroment.

 

I also believe that the only 'safe' way of licensing is to air on the side of caution... you cannot assume that these softwares get around the 'device issue'. If you turned around to MS and told them you were running multiple instances of XP in VMs on a single physical host so that multiple users could connect, they wwould simply tell you to buy the correct number of licenses. IMHO this is the same situation to what is being discussed.

 

I think that the only way to resolve this grey area is for Softxpand (or a similar company) to follow the same path as Citrix and become a MS partner. Paying MS for the right to alter their software in this way is the only way to get a definitive answer. I'm not a fan of MS licensing but I do believe that a company building it's product around the MS operating systems should pay for the right.

[tmcd35]

I disagree... surely the companies selling such products should tell the end user what licenses are needed.

I think this is were some confusion is creeping into this thread. That fact is they are advising us on how many licenses they believe we require to run the software. The answer they have been given all along in 1.

 

Now since it's an End User agreement, it's up to us the End User to make sure we keep within the terms and conditions of the agreement we've accepted. It's not up to any third party to do that for us. If Microsoft do not like our interpretation of the agreement then they have a legal remedy to take against us.

 

As NM's it's up to us to interpret the EULA and not blindly trust the advice of the third party software companies. It may be they are giving correct advice, but we have to make sure for ourselves. This includes Citrix. Citrix advice me on how meny CALs they believe I need to use their product, It's up to me to make sure and buy the correct number of CALs. If I don't Micrsofts problem is with me not Citrix.

 

I also believe that the only 'safe' way of licensing is to air on the side of caution... you cannot assume that these softwares get around the 'device issue'. If you turned around to MS and told them you were running multiple instances of XP in VMs on a single physical host so that multiple users could connect, they wwould simply tell you to buy the correct number of licenses. IMHO this is the same situation to what is being discussed.

 

For Windows XP this is the entire debate. nComputing clearly use a hardware device to communicate with extra RDP session. SoftXPand and BeTwin on the other hand don't. I have 1 computer with 1 extended display and 5 usb keyboards plugged in.

 

SoftXpand would argue, and I am beginning to agree, that no additional device are being connected. In my mind SoftXpand/BeTwin have more in common with a split screen multiplayer game than multiple RDP sessions.

 

The question here is the definition of the word "device". I could find nothing clear in the EULA for XP. And so unless Microsoft make this definition clear, only a court can answer the question.

 

This ambiguity only exits in the XP EULA. The Vista EULA clearly states 'One User' at a time - clause 2b. So without additional licenses using SoftXpand on VISTA is against the terms of the EULA.

 

I think that the only way to resolve this grey area is for Softxpand (or a similar company) to follow the same path as Citrix and become a MS partner. Paying MS for the right to alter their software in this way is the only way to get a definitive answer. I'm not a fan of MS licensing but I do believe that a company building it's product around the MS operating systems should pay for the right.

 

I like this idea. It's certainly one way to start putting this to bed. So Miniframe, you want to lead the way? Go on, apply to become an MS partner and tell us how you get on.

Edited July 4, 2009 by tmcd35

[verygreenpc]

Hey Terry, you are the voice of reason, thanks for your understanding of the solution. I'll update everyone as to what is happening as soon as I can. I'll try and coincide it with the launch of SoftXpand 3 and our rebrand. Anyone on EduGeek who has SoftXpand already will be able to upgrade to the latest version for free.

[drjivago]

Ayup Dave, SoftXpand currently supports Windows Server 2003 and SoftXpand 3 will support Windows 7 and Windows 2008. You're bang on the money about it clarifying the liecnsing, I cannot argue with that, whereas the Windows XP licensing is open to debate.

 

 

I recall the promises of dear Miniframe from three month ago, and wanted to know if they were fulfilled.

 

Checking on MiniFrame's web site, they don't support Windows 7 nor Server 2008 with their new SoftXpand 3. The only OS they do support it's Windows XP Pro 32 bit.

 

On the other hand, Thinsoft supports now fully Windows 7 and Server 2008 (32 & 64 bit) with

their BeTwin and WinConnect products.

 

Colin, What kind of excuse would you give now ?

 

Dr. Jivago

[verygreenpc]

Hello All,

 

Sorry for the lack of response. We had a bout of the pig flu, and also launched SoftXpand in Scotland at the Scottish Learning Festival, and to the Contact Centre Market at the Call Centre Expo. We recently won the Dell Technology Innovation of the Year Award too, and have had to present to the UK Government CIO.

 

Remember SoftXpand is a classic desktop virtualisation solution, often referred to us as Ultra thin, not a server based Thin client computing solution. I regret that the Windows 7 version is in beta and I don't expect a release of this in 2009.

 

As previously stated we posted Microsofts official response that 1 copy of the Operating System was all that was required. However, with many schools, they've been sending accross their volume license codes and activation CDs for licensing which we've been using to build their multiseat computers. This seems to have circumvented the operating system licensing issue to a large extent.

 

Most software products will allow all users to open and edit different documents at the same time, using the same program. Users who intend to run the software products concurrently are advised to review the Software Products' End User License Agreement.

 

We've been checking out the BeTwin products and had them in the office. We are impressed by the product range, just not the performance.

 

Cheers,

Col

[chrbb]

Apart from the licensing issue, is anyone using Softxpand? If so have you experienced any problems with it running our wonderful:) education software, do you need to buy a super expensive pc to run it? With a small budget we can't afford to buy anything that may end up not the value for money and the environment that we thought it was.

 

This is a request for honest feedback as I'm pretty sure I'll be asked about it soon at school:D

[dhicks]

Apart from the licensing issue, is anyone using Softxpand?

 

Nope, we're running an nComputing system in our staffroom. All the software I've tried on it doesn't even seem to notice it's running on anything other than a "normal" Windows PC (although we're running it on Server 2003, which might make a difference). I have just had to re-image the machine as the staff had stuffed it so full of spyware it was spending all its time running conflicting spyware apps, all, I assume, spying on each other. Obviously this isn't nComputing's (or SoftExpand's) fault, but it does make for a single point of failure.

 

--

David Hicks

[tmcd35]

Apart from the licensing issue, is anyone using Softxpand? If so have you experienced any problems with it running our wonderful:) education software, do you need to buy a super expensive pc to run it?

 

Yes, I have it installed on 1 PC in our SEN dept here. Also, another local secondary school have it everywhere - on all machines. I went and viewed their set-up before trialing it here.

 

We've had a few teething problems due to incompatibilities with out student GPO's. But since sorting that out it's been fine. The teacher and students in that room don't realise it's one PC - they think there are four seperate stations - which I class as a success. So far no issues with software.

 

I have two minor reservations. There's a 10 second timer that can be disturbed during PC boot up, this gives you a chance as an admin to boot the PC normally instead of running the SoftXpans system. Or gives students a chance of stopping the boot process, grrr. The previous version booted to a normal logon screen and autostarted SoftXpand if you didn't logon from there within 5-10sec. Which was better.

 

The other question is licensing. Especially with my reading of the Windows 7 EULA. Although I personally feel Enterprise Edition should cover for 4 licenses inc virtualisation, the EULA does seem to suggest only one user at a time.

 

We are seeing how this test PC in SEN works over the next term. We'll see how the land lays come Easter when we are due to do the next suite upgrade.

 

 

Edit: We are also testing nComputing in our Library. So far nComputing, with it's hardware solution, does seem the easier and better to set up. However SoftXpands upgrades, roadmap and generally very good support trump nComputing everytime. nComputing's hardware solution with SoftXpands development and support teams would be ideal!

Edited November 10, 2009 by tmcd35

[verygreenpc]

Hi Chaps;

 

For the hardware solution, a SoftXpand ecoware inside 6 user PC with Windows XP should be around the £1,200 SRP from the VAR network.

 

Terry (aside from Oriel) is the only end user in the world currently running SoftXpand 3.0 RC in a live environment. This was a slip on my part I'm afraid so I'll take the slapped wrists. Terry the full version will be with you next week I'm told by the development team.

 

Liked your comment about the hardware solution, it's something we're examining in real detail (although next week's SoftXpand 3.0 should be plug and play) and hope to make some announcements early Q1 next year.

 

In fact let's put it out there. How would you guys prefer it? An integrated proprietary access device, monitor or complete workstation (monitor, keyboard, mouse) or software only using off the shelf usb hub and components? Or a choice of both?

 

If anyone needs to find a school near them with SoftXpand let me know and I'll see if I can put you in touch.

 

Cheers,

Col

[chrbb]

Sorry same question again a few months on and post Bett trip:)

 

Is anyone using this successfully in a primary school in the ICT suite? We have a suite of 23 computers that will need replacing this year and next, going to have to replace half this year and remaining half next year. The thought of needing 4 new and softxpand or a similar software setup is making me wonder if my plan of replacing current desktops with like is the right idea. However with a very limited budget if I make the wrong choice we have to live with for 4 years:mad:

 

Please can any schools (or any that you know of) that are using the system please give me honest opinions, I've had the sales talk now need the feedback:)

[tmcd35]

Please can any schools (or any that you know of) that are using the system please give me honest opinions, I've had the sales talk now need the feedback:)

 

PM'd

[AliG]

Could you make your opinions on the Softxpand and ncomputing solutions public? If not PM me I too are looking into these solutions and may try to get both on evaluation.

[dhicks]

Could you make your opinions on the Softxpand and ncomputing solutions public?

 

Both are neatly superseded by this:

 

Poor Man's Multi-Touch: using multiple mice with Xorg | en bug | ao2.it

 

No need to bother with multiple desktops, just have one big desktop on multiple monitors (as many as you can get dual-head video cards into a PC - 8 seems a realistic target) and multiple mice pointers and keyboard focuses. Then just open RDP sessions to a terminal server machine (which can even be a VM on the same machine, if you like) and now pupils can open and edit their own files and pass windows between screens. It's a really cool feature for collaberative working, and it's handily also the cheapest option.

 

NComputing: our two-year-old system still chugs away okay in the staffroom. I saw the latest version on LG's stand at BETT, including an NComputing terminal snazzily integrated into an LG monitor, so I'd think those are worth a look.

 

Licensing: Windows Multipoint Server out this summer, solves all those tedious licensing problems:

 

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/multipoint/default.aspx

 

--

David Hicks

[tmcd35]

Could you make your opinions on the Softxpand and ncomputing solutions public? If not PM me I too are looking into these solutions and may try to get both on evaluation.

 

My opinions are pretty much detailed in this thread. It's a good system. It works. Not to sure on the licensing requirement. I found SoftXpand to be a better fit than nComputing.

 

Licensing: Windows Multipoint Server out this summer, solves all those tedious licensing problems:

 

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/mul...t/default.aspx

 

This is the one to watch. Solves all the licensing problems of the other systems without any overhanging questions. I hear the relase date is more this side of Easter

[RogerAnscombe]

Hi All,

 

I am the MD of MiniFrameUK and am happy to make this clear as I have nothing to hide. Any of you can "Google" SoftXpand and find my direct phone number if you need clarification on any item. I have recently read this forum and would like to clarify a few points. Ric suggested that sellers should tell end users what licences are required. This we have done consistently since first selling SoftXpand over two years ago, the answer is one copy of XP Pro. Also in answer to Rics post we do not alter the XP operating system, SoftXpand is an application which runs on XP like any other application.

 

XP Pro OEM is a device license and a SoftXpand system has only one device. Like all of you I would love to have a definitive answer from Microsoft but unfortunately this is not forthcoming. There was a quote in this forum that Michaela Wardle from Microsoft stated that she was in touch with MiniFrame but unfortunately this was not true.

 

We at MiniFrame have looked into this issue in great detail and taken extensive legal advice and are 100% convinced that one licence is all that is required. Due to the market penetration of Microsoft, they are considered in law to be in a monopoly situation, and as such are bound by anti trust laws, which state that they must treat the competition in the same way that they would treat their own products. You may remember that they have already paid very large fines in both US and Europe for this very reason. I can however, understand why Microsoft refuse to answer the question, as I believe the only correct answer would not be to their advantage. It may not be a well known application but do look at Microsoft MultiPoint Mouse where 25 students each with their own mouse simultaneously engage on a single PC.

 

Microsoft should not be concerned with SoftXpand, as we have chosen to develop the application based on their operating system rather than on Linux. It is also interesting that they are not losing out. Let me give you an example. We recently installed 6 x 6 user SoftXpand systems into a school in Leeds. As we were leaving, the ICT coordinator informed us that, had they not chosen SoftXpand, they would only have been able to afford PC's for 20 students. In this instance Microsoft have lost the sale of 14 copies of XP, but by supplying 36 copies of Office, instead of the 20 they would have bought Microsoft have gained an extra 16 copies of Office. Microsoft have gained, we have gained, the school has gained and more importantly the pupils have gained. Also because a SoftXpand system saves 83% of the carbon footprint of typical stand alone desktops the whole world has also gained. A number of the head teachers at schools using SoftXpand have commented to me, that due to a more efficient use of ICT within their school this has also improved their Ofsted report.

 

I agree with the Green Organisation that SoftXpand is the ultimate green PC, and this has now been recognised by the Carbon Trust, so that purchases of SoftXpand are now eligible for a Carbon Trust 0% loan. As a grandfather, I would like to leave the world a better place, and I honestly believe that SoftXpand is an IT technological advancement that will help to save the planet from further destruction.

[nut-ed]

Licencing is like income tax - we all hate paying it - but there is an "sort of" fairness about it

 

I suppose the reason why this licencing issue won't go away for you until you get get a definitive response from MS is that it just does not 'feel' correct - that is attaching 6 users to one version of XP....

 

And your failure to get a satisfactory response from MS just confirms this unease...

[RogerAnscombe]

Hi Nut-Ed,

 

There is no confusion or un-ease. Microsoft have been aware of SoftXpand for a long time as shown by the quote from Michala Wardle. They know there is no problem with SoftXpand but they are in business for one reason only and that is to make money. Why should they make a statement to say it is ok? I completely understand their silence. Also why do you feel uneasy having multiple users connected to one PC. Microsoft do it with 25 users in MS Multipoint Mouse so if they are happy with this situation, I am happy to be saving a lot of schools a lot of their budget or allowing them to improve their PC to student ratio. Microsoft's job is to maximise their profits just as mine is to maximise the profits of MiniFrame. Schools should not need to be concerned about Microsoft or us; they should be providing the best value for money solutions that will improve the IT teaching in their schools.

 

One head teacher in Derbyshire recently sent the following. "We have now been using SoftXpand for over 2 years. The skills of the children have improved significantly; teachers now plan to use ICT more frequently and we have saved money in so much as we need the ICT technician a lot less. We would recommend people look at this system as we have seen huge benefits in such a short amount of time." This is typical of the comments we receive from our clients.

[DMcCoy]

Is there not already the multiplexing guidance from Microsoft clearly stating that if you combine multiple requests through a single device you still need the same number of licenses as users or an applicable per processor license?

 

You would still need something like a TS license, server CALs and multiple office license for each system to be covered. I don't know how this is going to be affected by multipoint server though.

 

With something like multipoint mouse are the users not still all sharing the *same* windows session though, so there is still only a single authenticated user.

[RogerAnscombe]

Hi DMcCoy and everyone else,

 

I have the feeling that this discussion will go on for ever. Why would anyone want to consider server CALs and multiprocessor licenses when there are no servers involved and there is ony one processor? SoftXpand is not a server. It is a PC, but unlike most PCs where the majority of the electrical power is used to heat up the environment so we can whack up the air conditioning to cool us down again, SoftXpand directs its energy into processing. Unless you have seen softXpand in action and understand how it works it is difficult to understand the reasoning for the single XP license. If you want to find out more you can download a free trial. I think this would answer many of your questions.

 

When I was at school, which is a long time ago, if a teacher asked a pupil a direct question and they refused to answer, it was normally assumed that the student knew he/she was wrong and did not want to admit it. I think Microsoft have been quite vocal by their silence.

[Ric_]

@RogerAnscombe: Thanks for the PM and your valuable input so far. Perhaps you could clarify a couple of things...

 

Firstly, you mention Microsoft Multipoint Mouse - I think you mean Microsoft Multipoint Server 2010 as that is the MS product with similar funcitionality to yours. However, it clearly states the following on the documentation for this product (see here):

 

Under Microsoft Volume Licensing Academic Programs, Windows MultiPoint Server 2010 Academic is required on the host computer, and both a Windows Server CAL

and Windows MultiPoint 2010 CAL are required for each user station.

 

That quote suggests to me that each 'station' is treated as a separate device (hence the multiple CALs).

 

Secondly, you mention that you have many happy customers who are running these systems with a single XP Pro license and that MS should be happy that they have bought more copies of Office than they would have normally. Both Windows XP Pro and Microsoft Office are 'per device' licenses. Surely if you only need one Windows license, you will only then need one Office license? Similarly by using device CALs for Windows Server you will only need a single CAL (in contradiction to the MS quote above). I believe this is what sits uneasy with many EduGeek members.

 

From a 'common sense' point of view, the fact that Windows will only allow you one user session out the box (i.e. it locks out the console when you remote in) should indicate that it's something that isn't meant to be done.

[tmcd35]

The unfortunate phrase in the EULA

 

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.

 

 

Read into it what you will.