Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> c.d.o.server -> Re: Oracle on Windows Server Vs Xp-Pro

Re: Oracle on Windows Server Vs Xp-Pro

From: Newton Bolton <>
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2004 21:05:29 -0600
Message-ID: <>

Howard J. Rogers wrote:
> Randy Harris wrote:

>> "Howard J. Rogers" <> wrote in message
>> news:41c99e08$0$4537$
>> [snip]
>>>>> You'll know already, of course, that workstation-class MS operating
>>>>> systems only permit 10 concurrent users to access the machine from
>>>>> other workstations. Your anticipated load of 8 is already perilously
>>>>> close to that, and the Server O/S might be justified on those grounds
>>>>> alone -plenty more growth room. Besides which, you need to be careful
>>>>> that workstations don't do unintended 'silent' cross-connections,
>>>>> which steal from your number of permitted connections.
>>>> I didn't know of this limit.  Is this a licensing limit, performance
>>>> limit or a limitation enforced by the MS software?   I have departments
>>>> with 14 Oracle "named users"  and they all connect to the server every
>>>> day, even though only 2-4 may be using the application.  The nature of
>>>> this department is such that they interact with the database only a few
>>>> times every hour, so the effective load on the database is negligable.
>>>> However, I have never had a problem with people connecting to the
>>>> 'server'  (Win-NT 4.0 workstation)
>> I was well aware of the PC to PC limit of 10 but was nearly certain 
>> that I
>> had been able to connect more than 10 Oracle clients to a system 
>> running W2K
>> (not server).  Are you certain that the limitation would stop 
>> connections to
>> Oracle?  Please pardon me if I appear to be argumentative.  This is an
>> important matter for a project that I am engaged in currently, but am not
>> set up to test at the moment.

> Just to be absolutely clear on what I'm talking about, at least:
> You cannot have more than 10 *simultaneous* connections from other PCs
> to a non-Server version of Windows. And a "connection" counts as anyone
> making an in-bound request via a network interface to a PC for whatever
> reason. So yes, Oracle would be clobbered by the limit.
> But I was not drawing the distinction between whether more than 10 is
> technically do-able, or whether it is legally permitted, and perhaps I
> should have done so.
> To sort the issue out, I think you might first want to read
> [watch for wrapping there]
> ...and in particular this bit:
> "For Windows XP Professional, the maximum number of other computers that
> are permitted to simultaneously connect over the network is ten. This
> limit includes all transports and resource sharing protocols combined.
> For Windows XP Home Edition, the maximum number of other computers that
> are permitted to simultaneously connect over the network is five. This
> limit is the number of simultaneous sessions from other computers the
> system is permitted to host."
> So, 10 is the limit for XP Pro, and that explicitly covers ALL incoming
> connections -so Oracle is indeed going to be affected. But whether
> that's a technical or "merely" a licensing limit is irrelevant, I would
> have said (assuming you want to stay legal). The last sentence of that
> article makes it actually pretty clear that the limit of 10 is not
> technically applied to TCP/IP connections, but that it's a licensing issue.
> Next, read the EULA (eula.txt in \WINDOWS\system32):
> * Installation and use. You may install, use, access,
> display and run one copy of the Product on a single
> computer, such as a workstation, terminal or other device
> ("Workstation Computer"). The Product may not be used
> by more than two (2) processors at any one time on any
> single Workstation Computer. You may permit a maximum
> of ten (10) computers or other electronic devices (each
> a "Device") to connect to the Workstation Computer to
> utilize the services of the Product solely for File and
> Print services, Internet Information Services, and remote
> access (including connection sharing and telephony
> services). The ten connection maximum includes any
> indirect connections made through "multiplexing" or other
> software or hardware which pools or aggregates
> connections. Except as otherwise permitted by the
> NetMeeting, Remote Assistance, and Remote Desktop
> features described below, you may not use the Product
> to permit any Device to use, access, display or run other
> executable software residing on the Workstation Computer,
> nor may you permit any Device to use, access, display,
> or run the Product or Product's user interface, unless
> the Device has a separate license for the Product.
If another Windows Workstation is running a legal copy of the same version of Windows, ( "the Product"), then it DOES have a separate license for "the Product", and it can connect legally to the workstation. If that is not what this means, then what else would the "unless" clause mean?

If they are trying to forbid using the workstation to serve an Oracle Database to a few users, wouldn't they say so?

Also, what about SQL-Server? Is SQL-Server restricted on workstation class machines?

It is curious that this clause is so general. What is a "Device"? Is a bar-code scanner a "device"? It certainly connects to the PC and uses its resources. What about a palm-pilot attached to the serial port? Or a pen-based tablet, or a device that reads input from a labratory scale or temperature sensor???

> Now, I'm no lawyer, but that certainly reads as though allowing *anyone
> at all* to connect from a remote PC to an XP Pro Workstation for the
> purposes of accessing an Oracle database is outside the scope of
> licensed activity!! A connection to an Oracle database certainly sounds
> to me like it would count as a "Device using, accessing, displaying or
> running other executable software residing on your Workstation".

> So, single-user Oracle only according to that. Which I must say came as
> a bit of a shock, even to me.
> So am I "certain that the limitation would stop connections to Oracle"?
> Absolutely 1000%, provided only that you care about being legal. :-)
> What one manages to get away with, and what one can legally achieve are,
> regrettably, often two completely different things!
> For an even more certain answer, however, I think you should get in
> contact with Microsoft directly.

I don't know that this is so certain. They will naturally give you the answer that is most restrictive. Contracts are always subject to interpretation. Each party to a contract has the right to make good faith interpretations of the meaning of the language.

I did once on a similar issue
> concerning whether a Windows installation into a virtual PC "counted" as
> a licensed installation (and hence required a new purchase). They were
> very friendly, very polite, and very firm that it did. They will be
> equally categorical about this matter, one way or another, if you ask
> them (and letting us know their response would certainly interest others
> here, I think).
> Regards
Received on Wed Dec 22 2004 - 21:05:29 CST

Original text of this message