Interesting ……
Peachtree’s Software License Agreement, 11th paragraph, found in their new Peachtree 2003 release,
states that "You may not install this product to be used within a Windows Terminal Server
environment. Likewise client machines running this product cannot access it using Windows Terminal
Services."
Hmmmmm ….. Does the Peachtree license agreement prohibits use on any Windows XP operating system
(or in any network that has a WindowsXP machine connected), which incorporates Terminal Services
functionality into it’s "Remote Desktop Connections".
"Remote Desktop Connections" is Windows XP marketing terminology for Microsoft’s incorporated
Terminal Services i.e. – "With Remote Desktop Connection, you can easily connect to a terminal
server or to another computer running Windows."
Is Sage shooting itself in both feet by taking on Microsoft in perhaps a forthcoming showdown over
accounting applications?
This should be interesting to see who blinks first ……….
When replying, please remove {_Spam_Me_Not_} from the email address.
I use PT 2002 via TS to allow sales people in other locations to create
quotes. Most of the work is done in the main office, but it would be a
problem for us to have them use something other than what the rest of the
company uses. My question is why Sage would prevent us from using it this
way. We are completely legal by using a Mutli-User version and are not
trying to violate their licensing. Can anyone provide a reason why they
would be so concerned about Terminal Server?
As it stands, I cannot upgrade. So I must, reluctantly, begin looking for a
replacement. It won’t be from Sage.
Ted, thanks for letting me know. Someone gave me a heads up on this issue
and I searched their web site extensively for such an exclusionary statement
and could not find it.
"Ted" <{_Spam_Me_Not_…@canadianpayroll.com> wrote in message
news:ip19ju4h667ncjk9v69f9d5smq9c5n8iga@4ax.com…
> Interesting ……
> Peachtree’s Software License Agreement, 11th paragraph, found in their new
Peachtree 2003 release,
> states that "You may not install this product to be used within a Windows
Terminal Server
> environment. Likewise client machines running this product cannot access
it using Windows Terminal
> Services."
> Hmmmmm ….. Does the Peachtree license agreement prohibits use on any
Windows XP operating system
> (or in any network that has a WindowsXP machine connected), which
incorporates Terminal Services
> functionality into it’s "Remote Desktop Connections".
> "Remote Desktop Connections" is Windows XP marketing terminology for
Microsoft’s incorporated
> Terminal Services i.e. – "With Remote Desktop Connection, you can easily
connect to a terminal
> server or to another computer running Windows."
> Is Sage shooting itself in both feet by taking on Microsoft in perhaps a
forthcoming showdown over
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> accounting applications?
> This should be interesting to see who blinks first ……….
> When replying, please remove {_Spam_Me_Not_} from the email address.
I think where it gets blurry is the fact that Peachtree’s Multi-User version
is a site license. Peachtree could conceivably argue that a user accessing
a Peachtree multi-user edition installation via a Terminal Services
connection is not legal since the end user is not at the physical site that
the multi-user version is licensed to (even though it is running on hardware
at that site)
Personally, I think the presence of that phrase in the license agreement is
more an effort to eliminate competition for their own Web Accounting
service. Honestly – what small business is going to pay for Peachtree Web
Accounting each month, to only get a limited set of features, and have to
manually download changes back into Peachtree when they can simply set up a
Remote Desktop Connection on their XP machine that is already connected to
the internet via a high speed connection? Not exactly rocket science . . .
Chad
"Doug Wietbrock" <dougw@[NoSpam]dccadd.com> wrote in message
news:Uq0Z8.718$sV7.223573147@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> I use PT 2002 via TS to allow sales people in other locations to create
> quotes. Most of the work is done in the main office, but it would be a
> problem for us to have them use something other than what the rest of the
> company uses. My question is why Sage would prevent us from using it this
> way. We are completely legal by using a Mutli-User version and are not
> trying to violate their licensing. Can anyone provide a reason why they
> would be so concerned about Terminal Server?
> As it stands, I cannot upgrade. So I must, reluctantly, begin looking for
a
> replacement. It won’t be from Sage.
> Ted, thanks for letting me know. Someone gave me a heads up on this issue
> and I searched their web site extensively for such an exclusionary
statement
> and could not find it.
> "Ted" <{_Spam_Me_Not_…@canadianpayroll.com> wrote in message
> news:ip19ju4h667ncjk9v69f9d5smq9c5n8iga@4ax.com…
> > Interesting ……
> > Peachtree’s Software License Agreement, 11th paragraph, found in their
new
> Peachtree 2003 release,
> > states that "You may not install this product to be used within a
Windows
> Terminal Server
> > environment. Likewise client machines running this product cannot access
> it using Windows Terminal
> > Services."
> > Hmmmmm ….. Does the Peachtree license agreement prohibits use on any
> Windows XP operating system
> > (or in any network that has a WindowsXP machine connected), which
> incorporates Terminal Services
> > functionality into it’s "Remote Desktop Connections".
> > "Remote Desktop Connections" is Windows XP marketing terminology for
> Microsoft’s incorporated
> > Terminal Services i.e. – "With Remote Desktop Connection, you can easily
> connect to a terminal
> > server or to another computer running Windows."
> > Is Sage shooting itself in both feet by taking on Microsoft in perhaps a
> forthcoming showdown over
> > accounting applications?
> > This should be interesting to see who blinks first ……….
> > When replying, please remove {_Spam_Me_Not_} from the email address.
Peachtree is not owned by Sage anymore, Peachtree is now owned by Best.
Allowing the product to be run in a Terminal Server environment would
alleviate the need to purchase multi-user versions. This is just good
business, in my opinion.
"Ted" <{_Spam_Me_Not_…@canadianpayroll.com> wrote in message
news:ip19ju4h667ncjk9v69f9d5smq9c5n8iga@4ax.com…
> Interesting ……
> Peachtree’s Software License Agreement, 11th paragraph, found in their new
Peachtree 2003 release,
> states that "You may not install this product to be used within a Windows
Terminal Server
> environment. Likewise client machines running this product cannot access
it using Windows Terminal
> Services."
> Hmmmmm ….. Does the Peachtree license agreement prohibits use on any
Windows XP operating system
> (or in any network that has a WindowsXP machine connected), which
incorporates Terminal Services
> functionality into it’s "Remote Desktop Connections".
> "Remote Desktop Connections" is Windows XP marketing terminology for
Microsoft’s incorporated
> Terminal Services i.e. – "With Remote Desktop Connection, you can easily
connect to a terminal
> server or to another computer running Windows."
> Is Sage shooting itself in both feet by taking on Microsoft in perhaps a
forthcoming showdown over
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> accounting applications?
> This should be interesting to see who blinks first ……….
> When replying, please remove {_Spam_Me_Not_} from the email address.
Thanks for the clarification on ownership.
But if it’s all the same company? I can understand how using one program to
run multiple companies would get around the spirit of the licensing, but
these are just remote offices with sales people inputting quotes. We convert
the quotes to invoices in the main office. Oh well!
We tried Peachtree Web, but the limitations were so severe we cancelled
after just a day.
"Michelle Herring" <herr…@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:Gm3Z8.46775$1q2.2815451@e3500-atl2.usenetserver.com…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> Peachtree is not owned by Sage anymore, Peachtree is now owned by Best.
> Allowing the product to be run in a Terminal Server environment would
> alleviate the need to purchase multi-user versions. This is just good
> business, in my opinion.
> "Ted" <{_Spam_Me_Not_…@canadianpayroll.com> wrote in message
> news:ip19ju4h667ncjk9v69f9d5smq9c5n8iga@4ax.com…
> > Interesting ……
> > Peachtree’s Software License Agreement, 11th paragraph, found in their
new
> Peachtree 2003 release,
> > states that "You may not install this product to be used within a
Windows
> Terminal Server
> > environment. Likewise client machines running this product cannot access
> it using Windows Terminal
> > Services."
> > Hmmmmm ….. Does the Peachtree license agreement prohibits use on any
> Windows XP operating system
> > (or in any network that has a WindowsXP machine connected), which
> incorporates Terminal Services
> > functionality into it’s "Remote Desktop Connections".
> > "Remote Desktop Connections" is Windows XP marketing terminology for
> Microsoft’s incorporated
> > Terminal Services i.e. – "With Remote Desktop Connection, you can easily
> connect to a terminal
> > server or to another computer running Windows."
> > Is Sage shooting itself in both feet by taking on Microsoft in perhaps a
> forthcoming showdown over
> > accounting applications?
> > This should be interesting to see who blinks first ……….
> > When replying, please remove {_Spam_Me_Not_} from the email address.
Michelle –
I disagree that allowing Peachtree to run under Terminal Server would
alleviate the need to purchase multi-user versions. I have a few clients
who run Terminal Servers, and you still have to have the same number of
licenses whether the software is installed on a Terminal Server or on each
individual desktop. For example, one customer has approx 30 PCs on their
network – however all applications are ran off of a Terminal Server (as
there are several benefits both in ease of maintenance and lowering TCO by
moving to a TS). They still have to have 30 licenses for Microsoft Office,
etc. to remain in compliance.
Let’s look at this a little differently. Let’s say that instead of
purchasing a Multi-User version, I purchased 8 separate copies of Peachtree
Complete Accounting. I only have 4 employees plus myself using Peachtree at
the office. However, I want to be able to access my XP desktop from my
laptop while on the road while working with customers for the latest data,
from my PC in my home office, and my accountant would like to access the
system directly – especially during year end. That is a total of 7 distinct
machines – 4 in the office, my laptop, my home PC and my accountant’s PC,
and I have 8 licenses. Peachtree (Best) would still insist that I was
violating their EULA by accessing my system via Terminal Server (or RDC).
The INTERESTING item here is that as businesses become more and more mobile,
and remote access is becoming standard with DSL and VPN technologies, more
and more smaller businesses are incorporating Terminal Server (or Citrix) to
run all of their software – so even PCs in the building are accessing all of
their programs via Terminal Server, with no software installed on each
workstation. What if I want to run Terminal Server locally for all of my
workstations, and have absolutely no remote access whatsoever? Best still
says it is against the EULA.
Don’t get me wrong – I am a die-hard Peachtree user. I’ve been using it for
almost 10 years now, and have suggested & implemented it for many clients.
However, working in the IT sector, remote access and connectivity is only
going to become more and more important, to the point where having remote
access that performs just as if you were on site is going to be as important
as an internet connection is today. I think Best is taking a gamble
restricting the use of their product from a Terminal Server environment. It
will be one more aspect that helps QuickBooks keep their market share. The
only logical conclusion here is that Best is hoping to promote Peachtree Web
Access by limiting the ability to use Peachtree via Terminal Services. If
you have to have the same number of licenses regardless of whether or not
the software is run locally or via Terminal Services, why restrict it?
Unless of course you are trying to push a pay-by-month remote access service
. . . .
Chad
"Michelle Herring" <herr…@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:Gm3Z8.46775$1q2.2815451@e3500-atl2.usenetserver.com…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> Peachtree is not owned by Sage anymore, Peachtree is now owned by Best.
> Allowing the product to be run in a Terminal Server environment would
> alleviate the need to purchase multi-user versions. This is just good
> business, in my opinion.
> "Ted" <{_Spam_Me_Not_…@canadianpayroll.com> wrote in message
> news:ip19ju4h667ncjk9v69f9d5smq9c5n8iga@4ax.com…
> > Interesting ……
> > Peachtree’s Software License Agreement, 11th paragraph, found in their
new
> Peachtree 2003 release,
> > states that "You may not install this product to be used within a
Windows
> Terminal Server
> > environment. Likewise client machines running this product cannot access
> it using Windows Terminal
> > Services."
> > Hmmmmm ….. Does the Peachtree license agreement prohibits use on any
> Windows XP operating system
> > (or in any network that has a WindowsXP machine connected), which
> incorporates Terminal Services
> > functionality into it’s "Remote Desktop Connections".
> > "Remote Desktop Connections" is Windows XP marketing terminology for
> Microsoft’s incorporated
> > Terminal Services i.e. – "With Remote Desktop Connection, you can easily
> connect to a terminal
> > server or to another computer running Windows."
> > Is Sage shooting itself in both feet by taking on Microsoft in perhaps a
> forthcoming showdown over
> > accounting applications?
> > This should be interesting to see who blinks first ……….
> > When replying, please remove {_Spam_Me_Not_} from the email address.
I agree with Chad… I think they are limiting they own product without a
good reason. You can’t run a single user version in TS and allow several
users and more importantly… if you wouldn’t run 10 users concurrently
normally, you wouldn’t do it in TS too. IMHO they did that for the purpose
of not supporting the issue and disencourage anyone using it. Also, can
somebody check if the 2002 version allows it? As Chad said… the license
agreement is fuzzy in that particular point, it may not say it explicitly,
but I believe it’s there.
Anyway… Going back to the first question. Ted wrote:
>> Hmmmmm ….. Does the Peachtree license agreement prohibits use on any
>> Windows XP operating system
>> (or in any network that has a WindowsXP machine connected), which
>> incorporates Terminal Services
>> functionality into it’s "Remote Desktop Connections".
Reading this a couple of times… I still don’t know if he is referring to
*any* Windows XP machine or any WinXP that’s using TS. Maybe it’s a dumb
question to ask… but there’s a big difference between those two questions
(and I’m inclined to say that he meant the first one… which in that case
is not correct).
–
Javier A. Gomez-Durand
javier_go…@engineer.com
San Juan, Puerto Rico
"Chad A Gross" <b1shop@NO_hotmail_SPAM.com> wrote in message
news:xY3Z8.5474$Mp3.497@news2.central.cox.net…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> Michelle –
> I disagree that allowing Peachtree to run under Terminal Server would
> alleviate the need to purchase multi-user versions. I have a few clients
> who run Terminal Servers, and you still have to have the same number of
> licenses whether the software is installed on a Terminal Server or on each
> individual desktop. For example, one customer has approx 30 PCs on their
> network – however all applications are ran off of a Terminal Server (as
> there are several benefits both in ease of maintenance and lowering TCO by
> moving to a TS). They still have to have 30 licenses for Microsoft
Office,
> etc. to remain in compliance.
> Let’s look at this a little differently. Let’s say that instead of
> purchasing a Multi-User version, I purchased 8 separate copies of
Peachtree
> Complete Accounting. I only have 4 employees plus myself using Peachtree
at
> the office. However, I want to be able to access my XP desktop from my
> laptop while on the road while working with customers for the latest data,
> from my PC in my home office, and my accountant would like to access the
> system directly – especially during year end. That is a total of 7
distinct
> machines – 4 in the office, my laptop, my home PC and my accountant’s PC,
> and I have 8 licenses. Peachtree (Best) would still insist that I was
> violating their EULA by accessing my system via Terminal Server (or RDC).
> The INTERESTING item here is that as businesses become more and more
mobile,
> and remote access is becoming standard with DSL and VPN technologies, more
> and more smaller businesses are incorporating Terminal Server (or Citrix)
to
> run all of their software – so even PCs in the building are accessing all
of
> their programs via Terminal Server, with no software installed on each
> workstation. What if I want to run Terminal Server locally for all of my
> workstations, and have absolutely no remote access whatsoever? Best still
> says it is against the EULA.
> Don’t get me wrong – I am a die-hard Peachtree user. I’ve been using it
for
> almost 10 years now, and have suggested & implemented it for many clients.
> However, working in the IT sector, remote access and connectivity is only
> going to become more and more important, to the point where having remote
> access that performs just as if you were on site is going to be as
important
> as an internet connection is today. I think Best is taking a gamble
> restricting the use of their product from a Terminal Server environment.
It
> will be one more aspect that helps QuickBooks keep their market share.
The
> only logical conclusion here is that Best is hoping to promote Peachtree
Web
> Access by limiting the ability to use Peachtree via Terminal Services. If
> you have to have the same number of licenses regardless of whether or not
> the software is run locally or via Terminal Services, why restrict it?
> Unless of course you are trying to push a pay-by-month remote access
service
> . . . .
> Chad
> "Michelle Herring" <herr…@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:Gm3Z8.46775$1q2.2815451@e3500-atl2.usenetserver.com…
> > Peachtree is not owned by Sage anymore, Peachtree is now owned by Best.
> > Allowing the product to be run in a Terminal Server environment would
> > alleviate the need to purchase multi-user versions. This is just good
> > business, in my opinion.
> > "Ted" <{_Spam_Me_Not_…@canadianpayroll.com> wrote in message
> > news:ip19ju4h667ncjk9v69f9d5smq9c5n8iga@4ax.com…
> > > Interesting ……
> > > Peachtree’s Software License Agreement, 11th paragraph, found in their
> new
> > Peachtree 2003 release,
> > > states that "You may not install this product to be used within a
> Windows
> > Terminal Server
> > > environment. Likewise client machines running this product cannot
access
> > it using Windows Terminal
> > > Services."
> > > Hmmmmm ….. Does the Peachtree license agreement prohibits use on any
> > Windows XP operating system
> > > (or in any network that has a WindowsXP machine connected), which
> > incorporates Terminal Services
> > > functionality into it’s "Remote Desktop Connections".
> > > "Remote Desktop Connections" is Windows XP marketing terminology for
> > Microsoft’s incorporated
> > > Terminal Services i.e. – "With Remote Desktop Connection, you can
easily
> > connect to a terminal
> > > server or to another computer running Windows."
> > > Is Sage shooting itself in both feet by taking on Microsoft in perhaps
a
> > forthcoming showdown over
> > > accounting applications?
> > > This should be interesting to see who blinks first ……….
> > > When replying, please remove {_Spam_Me_Not_} from the email address.
I agree . . .
I don’t think the license agreement says that you cannot run Peachtree on
XP, or a network that has XP machines on it. It is saying that you cannot
use TS or RDC to connect to a machine and run Peachtree on the remote
machine.
>Hmmmmm ….. Does the Peachtree license agreement prohibits use on any
Windows XP >operating system
>(or in any network that has a WindowsXP machine connected), which
incorporates >Terminal Services
>functionality into it’s "Remote Desktop Connections".
To read that I can’t use Peachtree on a network that has XP machines or is
using Terminal Services (even if they are not being used with Peachtree in
any way) would be like Microsoft saying you can’t run Office on a machine
that uses Netscape as a web browser or has a Linux machine on the network .
. .
Chad
P.S. – off-topic, but how’s the weather (and the view) down in your neck of
the woods, Javier? ;^)
On Tue, 16 Jul 2002 22:19:54 -0400, "Javier A. Gomez-Durand" <javier_go…@engineer.com> wrote:
-snipped
->Anyway… Going back to the first question. Ted wrote:
->
->>> Hmmmmm ….. Does the Peachtree license agreement prohibits use on any
->>> Windows XP operating system
->>> (or in any network that has a WindowsXP machine connected), which
->>> incorporates Terminal Services
->>> functionality into it’s "Remote Desktop Connections".
->
->Reading this a couple of times… I still don’t know if he is referring to
->*any* Windows XP machine or any WinXP that’s using TS. Maybe it’s a dumb
->question to ask… but there’s a big difference between those two questions
->(and I’m inclined to say that he meant the first one… which in that case
->is not correct).
Peachtree’s Software License Agreement, 2003 release, 11th paragraph, found in states that "You may
not install this product to be used within a Windows Terminal Server environment. …."
I was reading that literally, and perhaps stretching the meaning of "environment", and it’s my
understanding that WindowsXP is a "Windows Terminal Server environment" in that it incorporates
their new "Remote Desktop Connections." I didn’t read in the license agreement any distinction as
to whether usage of the Terminal Server environment was considered. Thus, if it’s there, whether
used or not, it would seem to violate the License agreement. And if lawyers are litigious, ……..
??
Meanwhile, v9 aka 2002 doesn’t mention Terminal Server at all, so using v9 is okay, v10 would be in
violation.
When replying, please remove {_Spam_Me_Not_} from the email address.
On Tue, 16 Jul 2002 21:06:23 -0400, "Michelle Herring" <herr…@bellsouth.net> wrote:
->Peachtree is not owned by Sage anymore, Peachtree is now owned by Best.
Sage UK owns Best USA, which owns Peachtree USA
Best was just a name change in the US, in that another US corporation had the Sage name first.
When replying, please remove {_Spam_Me_Not_} from the email address.
Ted –
I would interpret "Terminal Server Environment" as the user environment when
logged into a Terminal Server . . . not whether or not a TS is present on
site. If you install on XP but never use RDC, then technically it is not
being used in a Terminal Server environment, but rather the Windows Desktop
environment . . . but, as you mention, we are talking about lawyers, so I
guess it all comes down to how we (or high-ranking officials) define "is" .
. . :^)
Chad
In the meantime – just one more reason for me to stick with v8 – it works
great via RDC and nothing about it in the EULA . . . :^)
"Ted" <{_Spam_Me_Not_…@canadianpayroll.com> wrote in message
news:12s9juk88ov3tlijiikcilp8blgm4cj76c@4ax.com…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> On Tue, 16 Jul 2002 22:19:54 -0400, "Javier A. Gomez-Durand"
<javier_go…@engineer.com> wrote:
> -snipped
> ->Anyway… Going back to the first question. Ted wrote:
> ->
> ->>> Hmmmmm ….. Does the Peachtree license agreement prohibits use on
any
> ->>> Windows XP operating system
> ->>> (or in any network that has a WindowsXP machine connected), which
> ->>> incorporates Terminal Services
> ->>> functionality into it’s "Remote Desktop Connections".
> ->
> ->Reading this a couple of times… I still don’t know if he is referring
to
> ->*any* Windows XP machine or any WinXP that’s using TS. Maybe it’s a dumb
> ->question to ask… but there’s a big difference between those two
questions
> ->(and I’m inclined to say that he meant the first one… which in that
case
> ->is not correct).
> Peachtree’s Software License Agreement, 2003 release, 11th paragraph,
found in states that "You may
> not install this product to be used within a Windows Terminal Server
environment. …."
> I was reading that literally, and perhaps stretching the meaning of
"environment", and it’s my
> understanding that WindowsXP is a "Windows Terminal Server environment" in
that it incorporates
> their new "Remote Desktop Connections." I didn’t read in the license
agreement any distinction as
> to whether usage of the Terminal Server environment was considered. Thus,
if it’s there, whether
> used or not, it would seem to violate the License agreement. And if
lawyers are litigious, ……..
> ??
> Meanwhile, v9 aka 2002 doesn’t mention Terminal Server at all, so using v9
is okay, v10 would be in
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> violation.
> When replying, please remove {_Spam_Me_Not_} from the email address.
Has anyone asked Peachtree how they interpret this?
Bill Couture
I agree with Chad again. If you use Windows XP you aren’t using TS
necessarily. As I understand it: Windows XP is not a "Windows Terminal
Server environment"… but it can be used in one… just like any other
windows version.
Adding more to the point…
-Windows 2000 comes with a TS client just as Windows XP does (is just that
WinXP has a more flashy one).
-Nearly every Windows version comes with Netmeeting which can be used to do
TS too.
So if that were true… you can’t run Peachtree in any Windows version.
Also, I would find unbelievable that they would put WinXP as a one of
supported OS version, but will be illegal to run under it. That makes no
sense to me !!!
Just my $0.02 !!
–
Javier A. Gomez-Durand
javier_go…@engineer.com
San Juan, Puerto Rico
"Chad A Gross" <b1shop@NO_hotmail_SPAM.com> wrote in message
news:3C6Z8.5527$Mp3.138@news2.central.cox.net…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> Ted –
> I would interpret "Terminal Server Environment" as the user environment
when
> logged into a Terminal Server . . . not whether or not a TS is present on
> site. If you install on XP but never use RDC, then technically it is not
> being used in a Terminal Server environment, but rather the Windows
Desktop
> environment . . . but, as you mention, we are talking about lawyers, so I
> guess it all comes down to how we (or high-ranking officials) define "is"
.
> . . :^)
> Chad
> In the meantime – just one more reason for me to stick with v8 – it works
> great via RDC and nothing about it in the EULA . . . :^)
> "Ted" <{_Spam_Me_Not_…@canadianpayroll.com> wrote in message
> news:12s9juk88ov3tlijiikcilp8blgm4cj76c@4ax.com…
> > On Tue, 16 Jul 2002 22:19:54 -0400, "Javier A. Gomez-Durand"
> <javier_go…@engineer.com> wrote:
> > -snipped
> > ->Anyway… Going back to the first question. Ted wrote:
> > ->
> > ->>> Hmmmmm ….. Does the Peachtree license agreement prohibits use on
> any
> > ->>> Windows XP operating system
> > ->>> (or in any network that has a WindowsXP machine connected), which
> > ->>> incorporates Terminal Services
> > ->>> functionality into it’s "Remote Desktop Connections".
> > ->
> > ->Reading this a couple of times… I still don’t know if he is
referring
> to
> > ->*any* Windows XP machine or any WinXP that’s using TS. Maybe it’s a
dumb
> > ->question to ask… but there’s a big difference between those two
> questions
> > ->(and I’m inclined to say that he meant the first one… which in that
> case
> > ->is not correct).
> > Peachtree’s Software License Agreement, 2003 release, 11th paragraph,
> found in states that "You may
> > not install this product to be used within a Windows Terminal Server
> environment. …."
> > I was reading that literally, and perhaps stretching the meaning of
> "environment", and it’s my
> > understanding that WindowsXP is a "Windows Terminal Server environment"
in
> that it incorporates
> > their new "Remote Desktop Connections." I didn’t read in the license
> agreement any distinction as
> > to whether usage of the Terminal Server environment was considered.
Thus,
> if it’s there, whether
> > used or not, it would seem to violate the License agreement. And if
> lawyers are litigious, ……..
> > ??
> > Meanwhile, v9 aka 2002 doesn’t mention Terminal Server at all, so using
v9
> is okay, v10 would be in
> > violation.
> > When replying, please remove {_Spam_Me_Not_} from the email address.
Point well taken Chad, I guess I really had not thought this one all the way
through. Thanks for the clarification.
"Chad A Gross" <b1shop@NO_hotmail_SPAM.com> wrote in message
news:xY3Z8.5474$Mp3.497@news2.central.cox.net…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> Michelle –
> I disagree that allowing Peachtree to run under Terminal Server would
> alleviate the need to purchase multi-user versions. I have a few clients
> who run Terminal Servers, and you still have to have the same number of
> licenses whether the software is installed on a Terminal Server or on each
> individual desktop. For example, one customer has approx 30 PCs on their
> network – however all applications are ran off of a Terminal Server (as
> there are several benefits both in ease of maintenance and lowering TCO by
> moving to a TS). They still have to have 30 licenses for Microsoft
Office,
> etc. to remain in compliance.
> Let’s look at this a little differently. Let’s say that instead of
> purchasing a Multi-User version, I purchased 8 separate copies of
Peachtree
> Complete Accounting. I only have 4 employees plus myself using Peachtree
at
> the office. However, I want to be able to access my XP desktop from my
> laptop while on the road while working with customers for the latest data,
> from my PC in my home office, and my accountant would like to access the
> system directly – especially during year end. That is a total of 7
distinct
> machines – 4 in the office, my laptop, my home PC and my accountant’s PC,
> and I have 8 licenses. Peachtree (Best) would still insist that I was
> violating their EULA by accessing my system via Terminal Server (or RDC).
> The INTERESTING item here is that as businesses become more and more
mobile,
> and remote access is becoming standard with DSL and VPN technologies, more
> and more smaller businesses are incorporating Terminal Server (or Citrix)
to
> run all of their software – so even PCs in the building are accessing all
of
> their programs via Terminal Server, with no software installed on each
> workstation. What if I want to run Terminal Server locally for all of my
> workstations, and have absolutely no remote access whatsoever? Best still
> says it is against the EULA.
> Don’t get me wrong – I am a die-hard Peachtree user. I’ve been using it
for
> almost 10 years now, and have suggested & implemented it for many clients.
> However, working in the IT sector, remote access and connectivity is only
> going to become more and more important, to the point where having remote
> access that performs just as if you were on site is going to be as
important
> as an internet connection is today. I think Best is taking a gamble
> restricting the use of their product from a Terminal Server environment.
It
> will be one more aspect that helps QuickBooks keep their market share.
The
> only logical conclusion here is that Best is hoping to promote Peachtree
Web
> Access by limiting the ability to use Peachtree via Terminal Services. If
> you have to have the same number of licenses regardless of whether or not
> the software is run locally or via Terminal Services, why restrict it?
> Unless of course you are trying to push a pay-by-month remote access
service
> . . . .
> Chad
> "Michelle Herring" <herr…@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:Gm3Z8.46775$1q2.2815451@e3500-atl2.usenetserver.com…
> > Peachtree is not owned by Sage anymore, Peachtree is now owned by Best.
> > Allowing the product to be run in a Terminal Server environment would
> > alleviate the need to purchase multi-user versions. This is just good
> > business, in my opinion.
> > "Ted" <{_Spam_Me_Not_…@canadianpayroll.com> wrote in message
> > news:ip19ju4h667ncjk9v69f9d5smq9c5n8iga@4ax.com…
> > > Interesting ……
> > > Peachtree’s Software License Agreement, 11th paragraph, found in their
> new
> > Peachtree 2003 release,
> > > states that "You may not install this product to be used within a
> Windows
> > Terminal Server
> > > environment. Likewise client machines running this product cannot
access
> > it using Windows Terminal
> > > Services."
> > > Hmmmmm ….. Does the Peachtree license agreement prohibits use on any
> > Windows XP operating system
> > > (or in any network that has a WindowsXP machine connected), which
> > incorporates Terminal Services
> > > functionality into it’s "Remote Desktop Connections".
> > > "Remote Desktop Connections" is Windows XP marketing terminology for
> > Microsoft’s incorporated
> > > Terminal Services i.e. – "With Remote Desktop Connection, you can
easily
> > connect to a terminal
> > > server or to another computer running Windows."
> > > Is Sage shooting itself in both feet by taking on Microsoft in perhaps
a
> > forthcoming showdown over
> > > accounting applications?
> > > This should be interesting to see who blinks first ……….
> > > When replying, please remove {_Spam_Me_Not_} from the email address.