Remote MAC address on Windows

[J. Landman Gay]

Stephen Barncard wrote:
> Hi, J.
> 
> I assume your clients want to do this like we used to with Hypercard, 
> sharing a single stack. Are they trying to save per-seat charges, by 
> saying that one user at a time is good enough?

No, not like that. The standalone needs to be loaded from the server, 
and there should be no installation of anything required on any client 
machines. The client machines will open the standalone directly from the 
server. This puts a copy in memory on the local machine.

It is more complex than I've explained. There are multiple files on the 
server that have to be managed and they change often. The goal is to 
keep everything in one place and not have to install software anywhere else.

> 
> How about, as  I've mentioned, a splash screen standalone at each seat 
> to do the local authentication? And do something at the remote served 
> stack level that allows only x users at a time... they won't be able to 
> run the stack alone without an IDE and knowing the way in. Is the client 
> having an IDE a concern?

The number of concurrent users is unrestricted so that's not a problem. 
The copy on the server probably won't even be running most of the time; 
it will only be launched remotely by other machines.

What you mention is pretty much the way it runs now. We have a copy of 
the app on every individual machine, and each one has to be separately 
installed because each has a different MAC address. On large 
installations this is a real pain. The goal now is to keep nothing on 
the client machines and have everyone access the software from a central 
location.

I just had another thought. I know Windows allows multiple instances of 
an app to run. Does OS X? I guess I never tried it over a network; I've 
been assuming it will work. Note that the app on the server will almost 
never be running.

-- 
Jacqueline Landman Gay         |     jacque at hyperactivesw.com
HyperActive Software           |     http://www.hyperactivesw.com