What I'm talking about is more "client awareness" - client is aware of all "servers" and can see what's scheduled/recorded on any server on the network. Does that make sense?
Yes, it make sense, but ultimately the same comments apply. In the past I think the client would have connected to a "master" server that had zero or more "client" servers connected. The master server would have managed schedule conflicts. The effect would have been similar to having a client that is able to connect to multiple servers and juggle the schedules across them. Schedules are stored on and managed by the server, which is why we say that you'd have to either have servers that talk to eachother (not possible) or a single server with all the cards and schedules...