Search the Community

To give you all a head start, what I'm about to describe is basically the exact opposite of VDI. Some of you may have heard of Windows Multipoint server, and even fewer have been lucky enough to see it in action much less get it working for yourself. There's a reason M$ created the Multipoint systems, but I never did understand what they did to make certain features work, as all they did was import and modify other server platforms. (Same thing they do with Windows; how do you think they make the server OSes, am I right?!) This leaves me to question the possibility of backporting these new, unusual features, and the availability of 3rd party software capable of enabling such creative functions. Before I explain my scenario and the purpose of this post, let's get some background on the advantages I seek, and the quizzical array of problems with the MultiPoint OS. According to M$, Wiki, and various windows forums, "Multiple stations can be added to a WMS host computer by connecting a single monitor, USB 2.0 hub, keyboard and mouse for each station. Hardware requirements for MultiPoint stations are non-proprietary, and virtually any multi-monitor video card, mouse, keyboard and monitor that is supported on Windows Server 2008 R2 can be used to build a station." In an ideal application, a "station" is composed of the 3 common components (keyboard, screen, and mouse) all directly connected to a single system with the necessary hardware, having the WMS OS installed to manage and partition resources to each "station". The approach taken by Microsoft and the few companies that followed WMS for the brief time period that it was a promoted solution involves the use of dedicated station devices that operate in a similar fashion to VDI thin clients, but are converged to a USB port rather than ethernet. This approach makes the entire basis of Multipoint pointless, thus being part of the reason for the system's very limited popularity in a growing market of VDI solutions with dedicated graphics technology. From what I've read, there were a few such devices that took advantage of physical graphics ports directly and converged VGA and USB to be delivered to a station across a single line, but other than poorly built proprietary KVM modules there is very little information on these devices-- and in any case their technology was flawed from the start and seem to have quickly become obsolete. As it stands, the #1 reason NOT TO USE MultiPoint Server is the RAM limitation of 32GB, which is a direct result of the system being lazily constructed as a variant of the SBS and WHS platforms. Seriously, 32GB in 2010/2011 ON A SERVER?!? That's just shallow, even for a company whose only real concern is LICENSING profit among other things. Let's see, any OS based on W7 takes 2-4GB of RAM just to start, especially with as many as 20 users (as per the maximum "allowed") you may as well say the base takes 6GB RAM to start and maintain BASIC operation. Next, consider the fact that the primary target was SCHOOL USE! Emphasis on "SCHOOL USE" because, well, think about it; on average students are most likely to have open a web browser with several tabs, and maybe a couple documents at the same time; For the sake of argument, let's say each student uses 2GB of RAM (aside from the base OS requirement) to have the aforementioned windows open... now multiply that number by 20 people (the max. user load) and account for system overhead and resource utilization fluctuations, you would need anywhere from 48-64GB of RAM to maintain BASIC OPERATIONS, requiring the use of multiple WMS machines SPECIALLY BUILT WITHIN LIMITS and capable of handling multiple humans and a fair amount of I/O resource partitioning, not to mention the even greater problem of people who need all the resources they can get for video or photo editing (okay, maybe they'd have a dedicated system for that, but this is a thought experiment, so just go with it) and there's simply not enough power left for others to log on without potentially crashing the system-- all of which contributed to the predictable demise of WMS, rendering it completely pointless as an operating system. Seriously, THIS IS WHY WE HAVE LINUX!!! (too bad everything meaningful only runs on Windows.) And no, virtual machines in my case ARE NOT A SOLUTION! (at least not until VMware Workstation comes standard with DX11 and better GPU integration) The next problem is really a questionable annoyance more than anything, but the fact that M$ had to create WMS 2011 to offset the difference of forking Server 2K8R2 RTM (WMS 2010 base) and 2K8R2 SP1 (WMS 2011 base) does not inspire confidence in the "effort" put forth to create WMS in the first place. What they did in the 2012 version may as well have put the entire idea of WMS through the shredder... Not only did they base WMS 2012 on the extremely flawed Server 2012 (Windows 8 fork) OS and ignore the need to upgrade to account for the difference of what was fixed in 2012 R2 (Win 8.1) probably for the same reason as the lousy export of Server 2K8R2, but as far as I know (and please correct me if I'm wrong) they FAILED to remove the 32GB RAM limitation! Last but not least we observe a downright pathetic attempt to revive the MultiPoint platform as a role service in Server 2016. I'm not even gonna bother trying this one simply because 1. I hate Windows 8/10 and anything of the like, 2. I have no real use for the odd amenities offered by systems newer than W7, and 3. the entire archetype of the server I'm building calls for Server 2K8R2 SP1, and has plenty of room to upgrade IF AND ONLY IF, it becomes necessary. To answer some questions you might be thinking right now, I originally hate Windows 7 and everything newer, but I do appreciate it's 2008 R2 server variant which expands on the familiar design of Server 2003 by offering more dynamic features for management and overall operation. I am a die hard user of the now cult classic Windows XP system, and THE ONLY REASON I even bother with windows 7 is because it offers an enormous advantage for GPU acceleration of common video and image processing, and especially advanced graphical design software. Server 2008 R2 was more or less windfall in my case-- an incidental find that demonstrated the same feature set of Windows 7 with an expanded console of the XP-based Server 2003 OS. I started to like the ease of use of server 2003 that came with advanced features only a server would have, and when I came to understand the 2008 R2 had the same graphics capabilities of Windows 7, I started to experiment with various possible uses of the system. From this, I began to learn what I actually had, and decided to make use this software in a more realistic application to determine the direction of my systems research. Why am I explaining all this, you ask? Because, my scenario is the need for a hybrid workstation server configuration to have at least 2 people (myself and an associate) able to access and operate in the system locally. For this setup, USB is no problem at all, and I can add a second GPU if necessary, but I don't understand the software aspect of multiple local physical logons. I've heard rumors that it can technically be done with any 2008 or newer server system, but there's almost no information outside of MulltiPoint installations as to how this is possible, and very few people have even tried it. There may have been at least 1 report of a successful mod of this sort, but that was forever ago... GPU integration is paramount in my system, and not even the best hypervisor software is remotely capable (no pun intended) of delivering the grade of experience I need without expensive hardware from 1 of the 2 GPU giants... worst of all, NVidia GRID requires some lousy BS license to function, and AMD is just plain weird. Additionally, virtualization software offers a LIMITED amount of GPU integration AT BEST. VMware has the "vmware graphics adapter" or something, and Microsoft similarly has "Microsoft virtual additions driver" (okay, I don't remember the exact device names, but you get the idea). The point is, I need GPU integration much closer to the metal, and the only way to do that without using ESXi and some proprietary GPU that may require some prickly LICENSE, is to do all GPU-intense work locally on my system, hence why I refer to it as either a machine or a workstation/server hybrid. To answer the question that's really burning inside your mind, YES, I CAN RUN AUTOCAD, SOLIDWORKS, ETC. in a virtual machine, BUT the performance will be degraded due to the lack of a PROPER GPU. And, like I said, VMware Workstation won't have DX11 for several more years, and even then they probably won't fix the driver integration issue (I need to pass through a GPU directly to the VM, and I can add hardware to make that work, IF THIS WAS POSSIBLE) because they have ESXi for that. The entire reason I didn't use ESXi as my base OS is that I need the very specific talent, for lack of a better word, of a proper bare metal server (in addition to the GPU thing). For my... unique (to say the least) operating scenario, it is clear to me that graphics intense virtual machines are a lost cause. Oh, and don't forget how the real WMS works-- the last thing I need is to suddenly find that the "stations" feature implies the required use of strange zero-client devices, which are not only impossible to find the right model of, but they completely destroy the entire purpose of WMS in the first place! Again, correct me if I'm wrong since I've only effectively tested WMS 2011 and 2012, but my research indicates that for the most part I'm spot on here. I've actually successfully done something very similar to what I'm describing without modifying the OS. We all know how teamviewer works, but on a server it's very different as it uses the TS function to support multiple logons on a server. I bring this up because TeamViewer mocks RDP by practically masquerading as an entire physical user, allowing full remote use of GPU resources! Proof in the pudding, when you remotely connect from... let's say W10 to W7, you may not be able to play your favorite video game due to the occasional lag in a remote link, but you have full access to all GPU resources, allowing the use of video and still image editing software IN FULL CAPACITY! I have even personally tested this capability with Autocad on the target host, and successfully took advantage of GPU resources through a remote connection. There are some minor drawbacks using TeamViewer, which is why I've decided to take it a step further and scale up my capabilities to transcend those of WMS. It's a simple concept, really; if I could do this with teamviewer, and WMS introduced the "stations" feature on a server 2K8R2 base, why now do it with a regular 2K8R2 server? Historically, all Microsoft ever did to accomplish these things is add a few components. I just need to know how to use what I already have. So tell me people, strictly from a software standpoint, how can I get the multi-"station" feature from WMS to work in a regular 2K8R2 machine? I understand USB splitting, but GPU resource partitioning to have 2 or more different workspaces for more than 1 physical local logon is beyond me. Is it even possible to backport (or in this case sideport) this feature to get it working the way I need? Does anyone know of other software companies that have developed their own program to solve this problem? On the side, I did discover 1 program that might help; SoftXpand... but I haven't been able to test it yet. I still like what WMS did, so M$ first, and 3rd party as last resort.

Hi, guys! This is my first post on the LinusTechTips forum and I was hoping some of you in the community could help me out. This is going to be a rather long post so I hope you don't mind. I'm thinking about moving up from my laptop and building/buying a nice desktop to use for my heavy-duty applications. My trouble is that I cannot decide what system to buy. I've told my friend who is as technologically literate as me about my situation, but I'd like other people's opinions. Maybe there are good points that neither of us could come up with. Before you keep on reading, I'm begging you to not respond with a bias response (i.e. preferring Windows over Mac just because you don't like the company). Think objectively. I really need good points from people's responses. BACKGROUND AND NEEDS (for your consideration) I'm a 15-year old student. Despite my young age i have a part-time job as a professional video-editor for an American based multimedia company. Furthermore, I also work as a freelancer, taking on assignments from clients worldwide. I'm in need of something that could pass as workstation/professional grade in order to keep up with the demands for my services and have the least amount of downtime/waiting time as possible. I'm very concerned not only on reliability, but also excellent performance. I'm not very interested in gaming but leaning towards serious work. Something to add into consideration is that in a few years, I'll be moving away from home to attend college. This means that I'll have to leave whatever system I have behind to my parents, who are more comfortable with Macs. I need something that they'll be able to use as well, not having to worry about any parts breaking down. PROGRAMS For my work, I use the Adobe Creative Cloud, specifically Adobe Premiere Pro, After Effects, and Audition. Furthermore, I've been recently using Cinema4D more often as I am venturing into more complicated 3D renders, using models created in Cinema4D in After Effects. I also work on musical compositions and complex audio sessions using Pro Tools 11. Through a lot of research I had done, I've narrowed my choices down to two options. Side note: I'm not very concerned about storage space for that topic is a very easy one to solve, no matter what system I decide on buying. OPTION 1: MAC PRO SYSTEM SPECS: Processor - 3.5 GHz 6-Core Intel Xeon E5 Memory - 16GB 1866MHz DDR3 ECC Memory Graphics Card - Dual AMD FirePro D500 with 3GB DDR5 VRAM each (6GB VRAM TOTAL) *planned upgrade to 40GB total a few months later Storage - 256GB PCIe Flash Storage ACCESSORIES: Monitor - ASUS PA248QJ Keyboard and Mouse - Apple Wired Keyboard with Number Pad and Wireless Magic Mouse (I personally like the Apple mouse and keyboard) TOTAL PRICE (w/ accessories): 228,189.55 PHP / Approx. 5071 USD Reasons why I might choose this system: ECC Memory and Intel Xeon Series Processors are reliable and workstation grade - low chance of failing and will last longer than most consumer grade parts I've used Mac OSX for over six years as of now, used to it Most of my documents are dependent on Pages, Numbers, and Keynote (although I know iCloud is available) Small form factor Good cooling reputation, thermal throttling not present (BIG UPSIDE) When I leave for college, this computer may be used as a theater/security system for my parents. It's easier for them to operate and I can fix it remotely. Reasons why I might not choose this system: Price (duh) Less flexibility/expandability OPTION 2: CUSTOM PC BUILD SYSTEM SPECS (that is relevant): Motherboard - ASUS X-99 Deluxe Processor - Intel Core i7 5930K (3.5GHz - Turbo Boost to 3.7GHz) Memory - 32GB of GSkill F4-2400C15Q-32GRK Graphics Card - ASUS (NVIDIA) TITAN X (12 GB VRAM) Storage - Boot Drive: Crucial BX100 (250GB) / Storage: Western Digital Caviar Black 500GB (7200rpm) Accessories include chasis, power supply, extra fans, thermal paste, CPU cooler, webcam, keyboard, UPS, and mouse. If you have any suggestions for any of the accessories, please feel free to include it in your response. *full specs and price breakdowns (in PHP) are attached to this forum. TOTAL PRICE (w/ peripherals and accessories not listed here): 194,103 PHP / Approx. 4313.40 USD Reasons why I might choose this system: Better graphics performance (doubled) Slightly better processor performance thanks to Turbo Boost Graphics card has CUDA support Expandability is present Cheaper than the Mac Pro Reason why I might not choose this system: No direct support, have to solve problems on my own through research Experience with Windows, but prefer the Apple ecosystem Parents aren't very familiar with the Windows ecosystem and wouldn't know how to fix problems when I'm gone Processor and memory aren't classified as workstation grade (not ECC) which means that they may wear out faster Have to figure out a good cooling solution to avoid thermal throttling (although I'll be only performing heavy-duty tasks in an air-conditioned environment) Note: I cannot find any Xeon processors for sale in my area. I also do not trust international shipping to my country. Furthermore, I am NOT willing to buy recently used parts. Remember, this is a system for seriously intensive work. CONCLUSION Looking at the specs of each system and my reasons, they both have they're ups and downs. The Mac Pro is fully workstation grade with excellent customer support from Apple and reliable parts, despite it's typical high cost (an Apple trademark). As for the PC, it's somewhat more powerful but do not allow me to have direct technical support, forcing me to leave the Mac ecosystem, and using non-workstation grade parts. I'm posting this to see if you guys can give me more opinions or introduce me to points I have yet to consider. Hope you guys could give me a hand! Computer Build.pdf

I need help i got a laptop witch is very slow on power saving mode and when i set it to high performance mode it will be much faster but when i reboot it on high performance mode it wil boot up in 30 seconds but the next time i boot it up it wil take 600 seconds because it it set back to power saving mode and the performance wil get way worse i looked on the internet and i couldn't find how to keep my laptop on high performance mode, can someone help me out?

My stock cooler is strughling with my cpu (FX-8320e) and it runs at 45c to 50c idle, and i need i high-performance cooler, what one should i buy, preferably less than 60$.