I have just recently purchased Filemaker Server 7 to run on my companies network. I have about 15 workstations that are going to access the databases at a given time. My question is, does each workstation have to have Filemker Pro installed on them, or can I install the Filemaker Pro on the server only and have all the workstation access the datbases through that. Any help on this would be appreciated as I am looking to have this rectified by the middle of the week.

Each workstation must have the client version of FileMaker Pro installed (each with its own license code.)

For 10 or more licenses, look into volume licensing.

Sorry for sounding so dumb, but why? There is no why to share the application on the server for each user to access? I guess I am just looking to get a detailed description of why this is not possible?

That's just the way it works. Maybe instant web publishing would work for you. Then you don't need client licenses, you just need Server 7 Advanced (still expensive.)

For 15 workstations, I would suggest you use FileMaker Server on one computer, and Windows 2000/2003 Server with Terminal Server on a second computer. The Terminal Server would have one copy of FileMaker Pro. The FileMaker Server would have 15 licenses. Each workstation would connect to Terminal Server using Remote Desktop Protocol (RDP) and from there to the FileMaker Server.

Transpower, why do you keep recommending that terminal services stuff? One more thing to worry about. And how does that help with licenses? You still need the right number of client licenses.

neko, I'm afraid I can't tell you exactly why, as I'm not a software engineer, just a FileMaker developer. Basically there is a chance that the OS and FileMaker will run into each other while accessing the file, with bad results.

A little anecdote. I had a client once who, despite everything I said, would not buy more copies of FileMaker. He had a (supposedly) read-only database on a server machine, accessed by only 3 or 4 other people, via OS sharing. It appeared to work fine. I just got a call from them the other day. Database corrupted, will not open. They ran Recover, and luckily were able to import the data into clean clone which I'd provided. I could not imagine a simpler setup than they had, and it still wrecked their file. So, what's your data worth?

I keep recommending Terminal Server because it's much easier to maintain. You can have one (or two) fat server(s) and a group of thin clients. If a thin client fails, I just replace it. Using a thin client keeps users out of trouble. For remote access, Terminal Server is great because only keystrokes and mouse movements are transmitted. Instead of having to install software upgrades on each PC, as in a peer-to-peer network, I just install the upgrade on the Terminal Server; everyone is then updated automatically.