What's the difference between the difference some of the Microsoft Unified Communication Products? Primarily Microsoft Office Live Meeting and Microsoft Office Communicator? The two seem very similar, but I don't quite know what each one is especially useful for.
Or are they all integrated into one product, but marketed as different products?
Microsoft Office Communicator is a Instant Messaging client, similar to Live Messenger, AIM, or Yahoo! Messenger.
Live Meeting is an application that allows you to conduct presentations. You essentially have a room which people can join, see your desktop, or see powerpoint presentations.
Both of these products require a server install called Office Communications Server. The latest release is called OCS 2007 R2.
Related
I have been looking for a way to put a database like an microsoft access relational database shared among many people. You used to be able to create a web app but that's no longer supported.
I've heard powerapps is a solution but it looks like it is to be used only by phones or tablets?
I already have a office 365 account with access to multiple applications. Is there anything that can be used to create what I am asking using those services?
Or do I need to look into SQL databases?
You are correct that classic Microsoft Access is not web/browser based (after an attempt was stopped by Microsoft).
A browser based web database requires a back end database that supports the front end web server. In the Microsoft family that would be SQL Server behind IIS. This is all mainstream stuff - but an order of magnitude more complicated than classic Access. There are of course competing brands besides Microsoft - the most well known being the LAMP stack.
There exists a group of web database services, as an alternative: Knack, QuickBase, Zoho, etc. With these one must live with the User Interface and feature set they offer.
For a windows application (i.e. Access) with geographically separated users one would rely on the terminal services technology by deploying a Remote Desktop Server. This is primarily oriented towards internal users - not public facing.
I've just found something quite strange while talking with a Microsoft Licencing representative and I wanted to run this past the community to see if this is something that anyone is aware of a change.
I was asking a question around licencing SQL Server/ Windows Server which led to me being recommended an External Connector licence for a Website that does not use Windows Users.
I boiled this down to the basic scenario of:
Server 1:
Windows Server 2008 R2, running IIS 7.5, using a custom public facing Website using an home grown authentication mechanism (i.e. not Local Windows Users, or AD users) where the number of users (authenticated or not) is indeterminate.
Server 2:
Windows Server 2008 R2, running SQL Server 2008 R2.
The Website on Server 1 connects to SQL Server on Server 2 using a SQL authenticated login.
The licencing that is required is:
Windows Server Licence for Server 1
Windows Server Licence for Server 2
SQL Server "Per Processor" Licence
AND
An External Connector Licence for Server 2.
This seems preposterous as it triples the cost of the windows licence for Server 2. Also, as far as SQL Server is concerned, there are no multiple Clients connecting, only 1 "device" that then provides a massive "Value-add" on top of just the data from SQL Server.
My question, has anyone come across this before? It seems like this is wrong as the above, I would imagine, is the most common scenario for most .NET software houses that create web sites, and, having worked for a few, I've never heard of this!
I've seen this question:
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/3072044/external-connector-licensing-with-website-hosted-on-windows
However, it's not really got enough information on the scenario etc. and also doesn't quote any proper resources.
I would appreciate it if someone could actually point to a section within a reputable site about this, rather than just a link to the generic "Client licences" page.
Just a few additions to the otherwise excellent previous answer:
each individual license covers 2 cores:
This is wrong. Each core license covers one core, as you may expect. The fact is that the SKU, the product reference you may purchase, is a pack of 2 core licenses. This pack can be divided into 2 single core licenses if you need to when assigning your licenses to your servers. As a side note, I would be glad to know the name of the "brilliant" guy who created this SKU at Microsoft, as it adds a lot of confusion and generates a lot more work to my industry, the Software Asset Management (SAM).
I would go with Microsoft on this since they are the ones that would do the software audit:
This is wrong as well. Microsoft never does software audit on their own. They always delegate this to third parties. As a consequence, the inside knowledge of licensing rules is usually very poor at Microsoft and I strongly advice to ask licensing professionals instead, such as SAM consultants.
Regarding Martin's comment, the Microsoft Licensing people we deal with (an LAR) think differently:
A LAR, or LSP as it is now their new name, is usually a pure reseller and its licensing knowledge is usually very poor also. Their goal is to sell the most, not to make sure their customers are compliant, and optimized even less. I am not surprised they think differently. Again, ask SAM professionals instead.
Best regards,
Gilles
An External Connector License is in place of a Windows Server User/Device CAL:
http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/about-licensing/client-access-license.aspx
http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/about-licensing/product-licensing.aspx
An External Connector is defined as:
"An External Connector (EC) license is an alternative to CALs for each server that external users will access. External users are users who are not employees or onsite contractors. An EC license assigned to a server permits access by any number of external users, as long as that access is for the benefit of the licensee and not the external user. Each physical server that external users access requires only one EC license regardless of the number of instances running. The right to run instances of the server software is licensed separately; the EC, like the CAL, simply permits access. EC licenses, like CALs, are version and functionality specific. They must be the same version or later than the server software being accessed. The decision on whether to acquire CALs or an EC for external users is primarily a financial one."
A Server Processor/Core License allows unlimited connections - whether internal or external (as long as you cover all the cores in your machine). For the SQL Core license (separate from Server : times the number by 1 for Intel, and .75 for certain models of AMD): http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=230678 (page 7-9).
Server 1: If it is a workload webserver, IIS does not require CAL's for external connectors - IIS is exempted ( http://microsoftlicensereview.com/category/external-connectors/ ). The Windows Server does require User/Device Server CALs (if it is licensed that way) for employees or onsite contractors. For offsite users who authenticate to the server, not only for website related information, if it makes more sense to purchase the external connector license rather than User/Device CALs for these users, then you would want to do that.
Server 2: In addition to similar license as above for this server, the SQL Server would require either: Per Core License (each individual license covers 2 cores, you need as many licenses as the core factor for your machine); OR 1 SQL Server license + User/Device Cals for all users who connect to the website on Site which is pulling SQL data.
This keeps you from doing multiplexing, which is described here:
http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/about-licensing/briefs/multiplexing.aspx
http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=230678 (page 17).
Here is an article that explains it further (she mentions offsite contractors, which is different than onsite contractors - which would need a User/Device CAL):
http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/microsoft-cals-and-external-connector-license
So, it would appear that since the user is connecting to the SQL server via the web application on Server 1, and not authenticating to Server 2 (if Server 1 connects to SQL directly with string rather than authentication), it would not seem like the External Connector license is not needed on Server 2 (but I would go with Microsoft on this since they are the ones that would do the software audit).
Hope that helps.
I'm in a position of evaluating products / approaches to build Business Intelligence Dashboards on top of Sharepoint WSS (no MOSS at this stage). Does anyone have any suggestions where would be a good place to start?
The BI platform is currently built on SQL Server 2005 / SSIS / SSRS and we're currently investigating adding SSAS to the mix so we're very Microsoft centric at the moment.
Thanks,
Steve
Perhaps this article on how to build dashboards with SSRS/Sharepoint: Building a Dashboard in SQL Server Reporting Services.
In my experience building a dashoard with SSRS/SharePoint is mostly a function of the quality of the talent involved, not the tools. SSRS and Sharepoint are both quircky, but they can get the job done out-of-the-box.
We succesfully built a WSS based BI tool for our product. The biggest challenge for us was to get delegation of security to pass through from the browser to WSS to SSAS to utilise SSAS role security to make sure the one client could'nt possibly see another's.
I'd agree with the previous comment about quirckyness; we have had to develop a fair amount of technique / supporting code for things like casading parameters behaviour's in the report viewer etc.
Best of luck - it does work if you stick with it; our customers love the portal and it will get better with the advances in Sharepoint foundation 2010.
There is a company in Chicago ( DMC - www.dmcinfo.com/sharepoint ) who has SharePoint Dashboard solution that integrates with a variety of data sources (e.g. Dynamics, CRM, Goldmine, QuickBooks, SharePoint Lists, etc.). It works with both WSS (free SharePoint) and MOSS (premium SharePoint). You may want to try asking them.
This is not a technical question, but thought I'd throw it out anyway.
I am in need of a rough size of the End-User Database Application market. Specifically, I'm talking about products like Microsoft Access and Filemaker Pro.
Does anyone know where I could find such information (preferably without paying $5000 for a market research report...)?
microsoft annual report should talk about ms access, and have info about market size, penetration, forcase, etc.
Could the SQL Server IDE ever become an application development platform for enterprise applications? In a similar way to the old xBase applications, but, you know, better?
The main reason is that the Management Studio is one of the best “data centric” application I’ve ever used. It has most of the main ingredients for the proposed solutions:
powerful data manipulation language (SQL :o) )
good security
distributed architecture
The main features that it lacks:
a GUI toolkit: something simple and standard, enterprise applications usually don’t require fancy UIs
some form of automation (.Net, COM, I really don’t care as long as it works)
MS Office integration (especially Excel)
So…?
UPDATE:
The question above is a request for feedback on an idea. I'm not planning to use SSMS to build an interactive application in the near future. I would really like to hear what do you think about it and what other suggestions you might have (maybe there is already a product which does exactly that).
A shorter text for the question would be "If SSMS and MS Access could marry, how would their child look like?"
2nd UPDATE:
"Microsoft announces its new product codename 'Frankenstein'. The new product tries to combine the ease of development of database applications from the old Fox Pro and Access times, with the brand new SQL Server 2012 suite. As 'Frankenstein's Product Manager, Jim Bob, stated "[Frankenstein] will enable the developers to shut the f*#k up, and just build that thing already. Not spend their (highly remunerated) time arguing what's the best ORM, or AJAX toolkit, or should they use SOA etc... (btw, since 2009, SOA is dead)"
Well it depends on what way you look at it.
You can extend and build plugins for management studio but you can also use the visual studio shell as the base for new applications (altho I don't think this is what you want?)
However re-reading your question it looks like you actually want to build applications for SQL server. In that case you might want to check out Visual Studio Team Systems Database Edition
There's two risks involved with building applications on top of SQL Server Management Studio.
First, SQL Server Management Studio has been fairly consistent from 2005 to 2008, but that's only three years of release time. SQL Server 2000's tools were dramatically different, and there's no reason to expect SQL Server management tools to always remain the same.
For example, at the Professional Association for SQL Server (PASS) Summit in Seattle in 2008, Microsoft demoed a new management framework for SQL Server. The databases will be packaged and managed in a way quite different from what we're used to in SSMS. Project Kilimanjaro (think of it as SQL 2008 R2) will be the "down payment" on that management, with the rest of the tools coming in later versions. SSMS will look, feel and work differently in order to accomodate this new way of building database-driven applications.
Second, Microsoft's architecture for SSMS is not pluggable, and they haven't encouraged any third party development inside SSMS that I'm aware of. You can build some level of interactivity by using RDLC reports - standalone SQL Server Reporting Services applications that run inside SSMS - but for the most part, you're not encouraged to build atop SSMS because they do want the right to change it when they need to improve it.
I've got good news, though - you mentioned that you'd want some kind of Office tie-in. Keep your eye out for Project Gemini announcements. Donald Farmer did demos of it at PASS, and there's probably some video circulating around. It uses Excel as a front end for BI analytics, and they used million-row-spreadsheets that were storing data back in SQL. There's not much out out yet for the public, but keep your eyes peeled.
To answer the shorter question - Have you seen the various Frankenstein films?
The longer question - why would you want it to, you already have Visual Studio? SSMS is an excellent environment for developing stored procedures, queries, views and the like, lets leave it that way. And anyhow, the only good XBase environment was FoxPro and look where that ended up.