No they've done it the right way, the problem is the very concept blows. There's an Apple version of Office so they couuld to it there, MS isn't interested in Solaris so even if they went through the web that would be no. Actually the MS implementation is very *portable*, they never optimized for it because there's a very small section of the market interested in it and it wasn't worth the money. Actually it's network generic, just not OS generic, goes fine over TCPIP, if your Windows (or Apple) machine can get to the network share it'll work.
You're not making sense, if the dsktop was driven by the home market, and thin client doesn't take off at home, then it's not going to take off elsewhere. Actually desktops took off because they were cheaper, less need for big iron and more functional if something happened between the user and the core machine. It's the same thing that's been keeping this thin client rebirth from happening, desktops are more generally useful and will continue to be so.
There's an Apple version of Office so they couuld to it there
So its not portable?
MS isn't interested in Solaris so even if they went through the web that would be no.
Umm if they went HTTP the OS would not matter
Actually it's network generic, just not OS generic, goes fine over TCPIP, if your Windows (or Apple) machine can get to the network share it'll work.
The first implementations all ran on networks using WINS and other windows protocols that even Microsoft has abandoned.
Actually the MS implementation is very *portable*
Yea you can port it to any version of windows they tell you that you can use...
You're not making sense, if the desktop was driven by the home market, and thin client doesn't take off at home, then it's not going to take off elsewhere.
There is a desktop and a server market. This will, I think, have some impact on the server market and might change they way offices do business. The savings in terms of maintenance *alone* is huge.