Photoshop question

I was the person originally referenced in the first post. This thread is really turning out to be a good one. I would like to clear up a few things about licensing though, before this turns really off topic.The problem is that this will be installed on a Terminal Server, so there will be only one installation. What about in the licensing does it say about multiple Terminal Sessions using Photoshop? Will a single instance binary of Photoshop allow multiple users read permission??I've dealt with this exact situation myself. With the single-user version of QuickBooks, you can install it over an entire company and every one of those computers can be inside it at once, but only *one* may have the DB open for read/write access. This is the key part you left out: QuickBooks, single-user, is /designed/ to be just that -- single user. There is no way you can have two separate QuickBook installations sharing a single DB on the network unless you opt for the multi-user version.It's not $50 more expensive, it allows you to have 5 people simultaneously accessing the same DB and making changes to it, this cannot be accomplished with single-user version. Period. The $1316 compared to $1359 are two completely different things.Incorrect. Most commercial licenses work by per-CPU or on a volume user basis. You can buy one copy of WindowsXP and install it on 50 computers. If only one out of the 50 is ever on, does that mean you're still in good terms of the contract (the EULA)? No. You *must* have a unique OEM key for each installation. The reason Intuit didn't mind was because their software just won't /allow/ multiple users on a single-user DB.

Please read your EULAs a little more carefully, especially if you're in charge of making these decisions for a company. The BSA just loves to get their hands on this sort of behavior.I've used Gimp, I'm actually quite good at it. The problem is that anybody you talk to in the GD business has never heard of it. There's a reason why the so-called "Photoshop clone that's free" isn't heard of among the professionals: It's **years** behind in functionality, efficiency, and features. I've used Gimp for years and used Photoshop since its 1.0 days and can honestly say that it's extremely lacking. I would not risk my job/career by daring to suggest we bank our company's image on Gimp.

I'm all for OSS but believe me, if you want to do professional graphics in a timely manor, the grossly over-priced, industry standard, Photoshop is your only solution. The money saved on the OSS solution GIMP is quickly lost in the amount of man hours spent in creating the same image in Photoshop due to its mastery of the subject.

I've had this argument a million times with everyone at my office, including some rather heated ones with our Sys Admin. Never mind that Gimp isn't playing the same game as Photoshop, it's not even in the same ballpark.

My main goal here is to try and convince the Powers That Be that installing Photoshop on a Terminal Server, running sessions at 1280x960 at 24-bit is going to be a killer; the network latency alone will make using Photoshop almost unbearable (think of a VNC session over dialup). I'm trying my best here to get a stand-alone box but we have to keep in mind I'm trying to convince a systems integration and programming company -- a GD has little voice when it comes to hardware/installation decisions

The Binary won't know (or how) to stop it, so it can be done, but legally, no, you wouldn't be able to make a single install and legally share it across a network to run on several machines simultaneously. Licenses are for a single running copy. Even if accessed over a network, if another user wanted to load it, they would have to check that no other users on the network were running it.


Well, I didn't leave it out, I said "single user license of Quickbooks", I thought that would be implication enough that it were designed to be used by a single user at any one time. It's a LICENSE for a single user to be using it. Not that it's a version of software that can ONLY be used in single-user mode.


Not quite. You can have two separate QuickBooks installations using the same serial number sharing a single DB, however only a single user can have the application loaded at any one time.


4 different copies of the single user license, with 4 different license, can function in multi-user mode. I've installed 3 single license versions of Quickbooks on 3 separate PCs just 2 weeks ago. They are all still running right now, and all 3 copies can access the database in multi-user mode as they all have different serial numbers.

The same would be true of 4 single user license copies. They all have different serial numbers, and all can access the same database at the same time in multi-user mode.

So, the fact that it's only $50 more expensive to go straight for a 5 user license version, than to buy 4 separate single user license copies, and that's a valid point.


My clients or I call the software vendors directly on the phone to confirm licensing issues. MOST of the EULA's I've seen will allow you to install on multiple PCs, but only run said software with a single serial number on a single PC at any one time. The Fair Use section of the copyright laws cover this. Nobody would expect you to buy a separate copy of an audio CD for each CD player in your house, car, etc. would they? It's no different with software. Audio & Software, you're still buying a license for use.

Micro$oft may have a per-CPU limitation in the EULA, but I doubt it would stand up in court against Fair Use rights. But please, if you have evidence, feel free to prove me wrong



That's their loss... Most of them have never heard of using a PC for graphics either, but that doesn't mean they can't stand up to the job as well as, or better than, a Mac


Well, that all depends upon the individual using it, and the amount of work required.

For an organization whose sole purpose is creating graphics, they've got 20 designers all used to using Photoshop and they use it constantly from the second they walk into work until right before they put on their coats and leave, then yes, it doesn't make sense to use GIMP.

For a company who's considering playing around with graphics software, has no experience of anything, and it's a non-essential part of the business, and saving money is the key issue, then GIMP can be a very viable option. I know many designers who use GIMP as their primary image processing software.

But, I do agree with your actual point

Running Photoshop on a terminal server like that is gonna eat bandwidth - especially if the scratch disk is remotely located too, heh.

There are *many* applications that will not allow two instances of itself to be run on the OS. For example, launch Photoshop (any version greater than I'd say at least 4). Now, minimize it and try to launch another Photoshop. See how the minimized one restored? Will Photoshop on Terminal Server be aware??

I think I need to clarify exactly what Windows Terminal Server is before this thread turns into a "running Photoshop from a file server over network" deal.

The Terminal Services component of the Windows 2000 Server can deliver the Windows 2000 desktop, as well as the latest Windows-based applications, to virtually any desktop computing device, including those that cannot run Windows. This lets more people in an organization take advantage of the resources provided by a distributed computing environment.

When a user runs an application on Terminal Server, all of the application execution takes place on the server and only the keyboard, mouse and display information are transmitted over the network. Each user sees only their individual session, which is managed transparently by the server operating system and is independent of any other client session.

Have you ever used VNC? It's pretty much like that.

So, one Terminal Server in the office will have multiple people connected to it all with their own display, desktop, settings, and so forth. If user A launches Photoshop, Photoshop thinks someone is sitting in front of the computer. If user B launches Photoshop, it still thinks someone is sitting in front of the computer. It has absoluetely no awareness that it's being used in a Terminal Session environment -- or does it? These are the sort of questions that I'm most interested in.

I'm really not trying to pick nits -- really -- I'm just trying to get a headsup about Photoshop on a 2000 Terminal Server environment because I've never heard of anyone doing it.

That's different. When you double click one of those executables, it looks in the local system's processes to see if it's already running. If it is, don't load a second copy.

If you have 2 PCs, and they are both accessing the same copy of a piece of software with such checks, you can still load a single copy the software into memory (by double clicking on the icon) on both systems from a single shared installation.

Even with QuickBooks, it has to load it in order to be able to look across the network to see if it's already in use. The Executable itself doesn't know that it's already in use before you've clicked it and told it to run.

If the terminal services are indeed something like VNC, and they're all actually running on a single PC and only the display output is transferred, then you'd only be able to run a single copy if such software checks are in place.

If it's running on the local processor, you would be able to run a single copy on each machine (although not legally).

BUT, VNC in windows runs as the user who's logged in and loaded the application right?

With Linux, each individual user can run their own copy of VNC from their own user account. Which means under Linux, if you have software that looks to see if it's already loaded, and doesn't load a second copy if it is, is only capable of looking to see if the current user is running it. Not every user on the system.

So, Let's just say Application X is a program that, when loading, looks to see if it's already loaded.

User 1 loads Application X, it isn't already running, so it loads up fully. User 1 attempts to load Application X whilst there's already a copy loading. The second instance of Applciation X sees this and quits.

Now, User 1 still has Application X running, but now User 2 comes along, connects via BNC, and decides he wants to run ApplicationX. Even though User 1 is still running it, it will allow User 2 to run his own copy of it.

As to whether or not Terminal Server works the same way as VNC does for Linux in this example or not, I've absolutely no idea.

Though most of this thread is now beyond me, I actually read the EULA for Adobe PS 7.0. It states that it can be installed on only 1 computer. You can also install on 1 portable computer providing the portable and desktop are not running at the same time. It can be installed on a server, provided only one computer per license is running the software.


[Going back to my little dark corner now.]

That part we will adhere to without a problem, it will be installed on a 2000 Terminal Server. The iffy part is that multiple people will be using it via terminal sessions. Most EULAs don't say anything about that part (MS Office actually has a clause prohibiting the installation of itself on a Terminal Server unless you purchase a multi-user version of Office). Is there such thing as a 5-user license of Photoshop?

Axe, I could debate with you all day (it's actually enlightening), but we're both wrong on something: Knowing how Photoshop deals with a Terminal Server environment. We can both guess how it might react, but someone who's installed it in a Terminal Server environment would know the answer ^^;

(Not to be pushed off topic but I can't resist. A Terminal Session is only like VNC in that the user can sit anywhere and get a session on the remote computer -- that's all. VNC, on Windows, all connected users share the desktop. VNC in a Linux box would allow you to get a unique desktop under the window manager. Terminal Server is a lot more like the VNC for Linux, except it does a better job of it.)