QB-Desktop multi-users

Hello ashburnconsulting,

The details you've mentioned are one if the options when setting up a multi-user network for QuickBooks Desktop.

Your first and second questions entirely depend on your internet speed and the hosting provider's servers. If they don't have any ongoing website maintenance, then you're going to operate QuickBooks that meets your expectations.

Concerns regarding the third-party hosting would require their support. I'd recommend reaching out to your third-party hosting providers so they can give you more details.

You can browse these links to know more about process:

• What hosting providers are authorized by Intuit?
• How to host a QuickBooks Desktop company file

Aside from that, we can also do a wired setup for multi-user network. This is only applicable if the workstations are within the building. You can use this link for additional reference: Set up and install a multi-user network for QuickBooks Desktop.

We'll always be right here if you need anything else.

---

@ashburnconsulting wrote:

Hi,

We have around 20-QB files, and prefer QB-Desktop vs QB-Online due to cost. Will be purchasing QB-Desktop-Premier (one-time payment, https://quickbooks.intuit.com/desktop/premier/). We have 2 users who will work simultaneously, and both users are located in different office locations.

 

Requirements:

- Cost effective with ease of use solution for non-technical users (bookkeepers)

 

Options:

Our research shows that there are 2 options:

1. Remote Desktop:

Set up in-house OR 3rd party (https://partners.myquickcloud.com/?pc=fiatlux). This would allow to create multiple remote desktop instances (each instance would be a separate QB user license), with each user having their own separate session and no screen sharing. QB-Desktop will be installed in the remote machine and not in the users computers.

 

2. Host server:

Set up in-house OR 3rd party (https://aws.amazon.com/lightsail/pricing/). QB-Desktop will be installed in server and both users machines.

 

Questions, concerns:

1. Speed, performance issues (like latency)

>>> Both options are fine

 

2. Ease of use: Remote Desktop VS Hosting server

3. Other concerns: Remote Desktop VS Hosting server

>>> If you deployed a private cloud, the host computer should be always on. Your host user doesn't need to access the company file by internet and he/she may connect to the host computer by internet connection if required.

 

4. Comments, suggestions from people on above, especially people who have experience in this set up

>>> If the host user is very mobile, better pick to put your license and company file(s) on a QB cloud hosting. Both user will access the company file(s) by internet and you don't have to maintain anything technical.

 

You may purchase the license of QBD Premier for 2 users thru a partner/reseller. It costs < $525

 

One of authorized QB cloud hosting provider. They will install the license and manage it for you.

http://www. apps4rent.com/#a_aid=quickbooks

 

Hello,

Thank You for your message.

As I stated that there are 2 options:

1. Application hosting (i.e. remote desktop), pay monthly per user (in addition to the license cost)

2. Server hosting (i.e. QB-files are stored on the server) and QB-Desktop is installed in every workstation. Pay monthly to host server (in addition to the license cost)

In both cases, my internet speed is same: 25 down, 10 up.

I think server hosting is cheaper, but it comes with the headache of server maintenance, which truly if using AWS or Google cloud should not be an issue.

Questions, comments:

- Which offers better performance, speed (latency)?

- Which offers better ease of use for non-technical staff?

- Please comment on why would you choose one over the other

Thanks.

I won't recommend using VPS solution at any hosting provider (i.e Google Cloud, AWS, Alibaba Cloud). You have to troubleshoot by yourself and they won't help you. Pick the authorized QB Cloud hosting instead as I mentioned earlier.

Hello,

We can help with this. Please contact me..

[email address removed]

Thanks

Tom