Terminal Server / Winframe etc

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Patrick Dunford, Oct 13, 2004.

  1. By which I mean the one where you can pretend you are running XP on a
    286, or so the story goes.

    If this was the greatest thing since sliced bread, why isn't everyone
    using it? What are the pros and cons, apart from needing a huge server
    with gigabytes of RAM?
     
    Patrick Dunford, Oct 13, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Patrick Dunford

    Collector_NZ Guest

    Patrick Dunford said the following on 14/10/2004 00:46:
    > By which I mean the one where you can pretend you are running XP on a
    > 286, or so the story goes.
    >
    > If this was the greatest thing since sliced bread, why isn't everyone
    > using it? What are the pros and cons, apart from needing a huge server
    > with gigabytes of RAM?

    And sever/client license costs
     
    Collector_NZ, Oct 13, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Patrick Dunford

    Steve Guest

    Collector_NZ wrote:
    > Patrick Dunford said the following on 14/10/2004 00:46:
    >
    >> By which I mean the one where you can pretend you are running XP on a
    >> 286, or so the story goes.
    >>
    >> If this was the greatest thing since sliced bread, why isn't everyone
    >> using it? What are the pros and cons, apart from needing a huge server
    >> with gigabytes of RAM?

    >
    > And sever/client license costs


    Client license costs are zero... 'cos you run linux. Google for ltsp for
    more details. And yes, it works, and well, and is a great use for those
    older pc's.

    Steve
     
    Steve, Oct 13, 2004
    #3
  4. Patrick Dunford

    JohnO Guest

    "Patrick Dunford" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > By which I mean the one where you can pretend you are running XP on a
    > 286, or so the story goes.
    >
    > If this was the greatest thing since sliced bread, why isn't everyone
    > using it? What are the pros and cons, apart from needing a huge server
    > with gigabytes of RAM?


    It's used extensively for running the client software for the ERP package I
    work on. Using actual client PC's to run it would be infeasible as the
    footprint and maintenance overhead would be too high. Why maintain the
    package on a thousand pcs when you can maintain it on ten citrix servers?

    However it may be on the way out in this sphere - it is moving towards
    hosting the application as a web service now.
     
    JohnO, Oct 13, 2004
    #4
  5. In article <> in nz.comp on Thu, 14 Oct 2004
    06:42:47 +1300, Collector_NZ <> says...
    > Patrick Dunford said the following on 14/10/2004 00:46:
    > > By which I mean the one where you can pretend you are running XP on a
    > > 286, or so the story goes.
    > >
    > > If this was the greatest thing since sliced bread, why isn't everyone
    > > using it? What are the pros and cons, apart from needing a huge server
    > > with gigabytes of RAM?

    > And sever/client license costs


    Do you have some numbers please?
     
    Patrick Dunford, Oct 13, 2004
    #5
  6. Patrick Dunford

    Collector_NZ Guest

    Patrick Dunford said the following on 14/10/2004 07:58:
    > In article <> in nz.comp on Thu, 14 Oct 2004
    > 06:42:47 +1300, Collector_NZ <> says...
    >
    >>Patrick Dunford said the following on 14/10/2004 00:46:
    >>
    >>>By which I mean the one where you can pretend you are running XP on a
    >>>286, or so the story goes.
    >>>
    >>>If this was the greatest thing since sliced bread, why isn't everyone
    >>>using it? What are the pros and cons, apart from needing a huge server
    >>>with gigabytes of RAM?

    >>
    >>And sever/client license costs

    >
    >
    > Do you have some numbers please?

    That depends on options and numbers, last time I looked at it it was not
    an economic option for two computer labs at a school, there where not
    very good Edu discounts.

    MS et al are best to talk to since it is not an easy to understand
    license arrangement.
     
    Collector_NZ, Oct 13, 2004
    #6
  7. In article <>, Patrick Dunford <> wrote:
    >By which I mean the one where you can pretend you are running XP on a
    >286, or so the story goes.
    >
    >If this was the greatest thing since sliced bread, why isn't everyone
    >using it? What are the pros and cons, apart from needing a huge server
    >with gigabytes of RAM?


    It is used quite a lot. Citrix is widely deployed in a number of
    companies that're house-hold names in this country. I should know, I
    sweated and cussed at the damn thing for them often enough.
    The lack of SME deployment is due to licence cost, mainly, but also due
    to the expense of getting certified support. The training courses are
    expensive, and people who've been through them command appropriate
    hourly rates.

    --
    Matthew Poole Auckland, New Zealand
    "Veni, vidi, velcro...
    I came, I saw, I stuck around"

    My real e-mail is mattATp00leDOTnet
     
    Matthew Poole, Oct 13, 2004
    #7
  8. Steve wrote:
    >>> If this was the greatest thing since sliced bread, why isn't everyone
    >>> using it? What are the pros and cons, apart from needing a huge
    >>> server with gigabytes of RAM?


    >> And sever/client license costs


    > Client license costs are zero... 'cos you run linux. Google for ltsp for
    > more details. And yes, it works, and well, and is a great use for those
    > older pc's.


    DSE sell something like this for older PC's, running from IDE flash disk
    It had some odd name, seemed easy to remember at the time, but yeah, I
    guess it wasn't.

    PC reviver - XH6852

    Thats not the one I meant, but yeah, it is the same colour, so maybe
    it's changed names now.
     
    Dave - Dave.net.nz, Oct 13, 2004
    #8
  9. Patrick Dunford

    Enkidu Guest

    On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 06:57:02 +1300, Steve <> wrote:

    >Collector_NZ wrote:
    >> Patrick Dunford said the following on 14/10/2004 00:46:
    >>
    >>> By which I mean the one where you can pretend you are running XP on a
    >>> 286, or so the story goes.
    >>>
    >>> If this was the greatest thing since sliced bread, why isn't everyone
    >>> using it? What are the pros and cons, apart from needing a huge server
    >>> with gigabytes of RAM?

    >>
    >> And sever/client license costs

    >
    >Client license costs are zero... 'cos you run linux. Google for ltsp for
    >more details. And yes, it works, and well, and is a great use for those
    >older pc's.
    >

    If you comply with Microsoft's Licensing conditions the cost is NOT
    zero. You need a license for a MS OS on the client - even if the
    client doesn't run a MS OS. (Or a client-side TS license) And you need
    a client license for whatever software you run - even though it is not
    installed on the client.

    This is *in addition* to the Server TS license that you need.

    It is MORE expensive (in terms of licenses) to run a TS setup since
    you also have to buy licenses on the TS box to run TS.

    http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/server/howtobuy/pricing/tsfaq.asp

    Cheers,

    Cliff
     
    Enkidu, Oct 13, 2004
    #9
  10. Patrick Dunford

    thing Guest

    Collector_NZ wrote:
    > Patrick Dunford said the following on 14/10/2004 07:58:
    >
    >> In article <> in nz.comp on Thu, 14 Oct
    >> 2004 06:42:47 +1300, Collector_NZ <> says...
    >>
    >>> Patrick Dunford said the following on 14/10/2004 00:46:
    >>>
    >>>> By which I mean the one where you can pretend you are running XP on
    >>>> a 286, or so the story goes.
    >>>>
    >>>> If this was the greatest thing since sliced bread, why isn't
    >>>> everyone using it? What are the pros and cons, apart from needing a
    >>>> huge server with gigabytes of RAM?
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> And sever/client license costs

    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Do you have some numbers please?

    >
    > That depends on options and numbers, last time I looked at it it was not
    > an economic option for two computer labs at a school, there where not
    > very good Edu discounts.
    >
    > MS et al are best to talk to since it is not an easy to understand
    > license arrangement.


    Other options

    1) Wyse terminal that either runs a linux thin client or a Windows thin
    client to appropriate server.
    2) Sun Sunray terminal (thin client) to Sun server (not cheap, not
    really worth considering)
    3) Sun Sunray terminal (basically a screen, keyboard and mouse) to linux
    server (though I believe Sun are just now selling this software for
    Linux, so this so it may not be commonly available).
    4) "Thin client" via the DSE kit ($250?) fitted into your old pentium
    that boots to a Linux server.
    5) Diskless linux thin client, ie a Pentium or better box with no hdrive
    but a NIC with a bootrom booting to a ltsp linux server.

    If you want to be really cute you could run a Wyse terminal, or Sunray
    Screen or ltsp thin client to a Linux server, run openoffice, netscape
    mozilla, etc for zero cost "then" as needed run a rdesktop linux client
    to a MS server to give you MS applications.

    So you end up with,

    linux thin client===>"linux server"

    and for a few users needing MS applications,

    linux thin client===>"linux server/MS thin client"====>MS server

    regards

    Thing
     
    thing, Oct 14, 2004
    #10
  11. Patrick Dunford

    thing Guest

    Enkidu wrote:
    > On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 06:57:02 +1300, Steve <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Collector_NZ wrote:
    >>
    >>>Patrick Dunford said the following on 14/10/2004 00:46:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>By which I mean the one where you can pretend you are running XP on a
    >>>>286, or so the story goes.
    >>>>
    >>>>If this was the greatest thing since sliced bread, why isn't everyone
    >>>>using it? What are the pros and cons, apart from needing a huge server
    >>>>with gigabytes of RAM?
    >>>
    >>>And sever/client license costs

    >>
    >>Client license costs are zero... 'cos you run linux. Google for ltsp for
    >>more details. And yes, it works, and well, and is a great use for those
    >>older pc's.
    >>

    >
    > If you comply with Microsoft's Licensing conditions the cost is NOT
    > zero. You need a license for a MS OS on the client - even if the
    > client doesn't run a MS OS. (Or a client-side TS license) And you need
    > a client license for whatever software you run - even though it is not
    > installed on the client.
    >
    > This is *in addition* to the Server TS license that you need.
    >
    > It is MORE expensive (in terms of licenses) to run a TS setup since
    > you also have to buy licenses on the TS box to run TS.
    >
    > http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/server/howtobuy/pricing/tsfaq.asp
    >
    > Cheers,
    >
    > Cliff


    If you use rdesktop off a Linux client to a NT server, then your not
    using any MS software except that on the server?

    I am not sure how usable/scalable this is, or the licencing terms but I
    just use rdesktop on Linux to get to MS servers at work and not as a
    functioning client for multiple users.

    regards

    thing
     
    thing, Oct 14, 2004
    #11
  12. Patrick Dunford

    JohnO Guest

    "thing" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Enkidu wrote:
    > > On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 06:57:02 +1300, Steve <> wrote:
    > >
    > >
    > >>Collector_NZ wrote:
    > >>
    > >>>Patrick Dunford said the following on 14/10/2004 00:46:
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >>>>By which I mean the one where you can pretend you are running XP on a
    > >>>>286, or so the story goes.
    > >>>>
    > >>>>If this was the greatest thing since sliced bread, why isn't everyone
    > >>>>using it? What are the pros and cons, apart from needing a huge server
    > >>>>with gigabytes of RAM?
    > >>>
    > >>>And sever/client license costs
    > >>
    > >>Client license costs are zero... 'cos you run linux. Google for ltsp for
    > >>more details. And yes, it works, and well, and is a great use for those
    > >>older pc's.
    > >>

    > >
    > > If you comply with Microsoft's Licensing conditions the cost is NOT
    > > zero. You need a license for a MS OS on the client - even if the
    > > client doesn't run a MS OS. (Or a client-side TS license) And you need
    > > a client license for whatever software you run - even though it is not
    > > installed on the client.
    > >
    > > This is *in addition* to the Server TS license that you need.
    > >
    > > It is MORE expensive (in terms of licenses) to run a TS setup since
    > > you also have to buy licenses on the TS box to run TS.
    > >
    > > http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/server/howtobuy/pricing/tsfaq.asp
    > >
    > > Cheers,
    > >
    > > Cliff

    >
    > If you use rdesktop off a Linux client to a NT server, then your not
    > using any MS software except that on the server?
    >
    > I am not sure how usable/scalable this is, or the licencing terms but I
    > just use rdesktop on Linux to get to MS servers at work and not as a
    > functioning client for multiple users.
    >
    > regards
    >
    > thing
    >

    Yeah, RDP works great but it's really only designed for remote admin, i.e.
    only one user at a time for XP Pro, or 2 users for Windows Server unless
    extra licences are bought.
     
    JohnO, Oct 14, 2004
    #12
  13. Patrick Dunford

    thing Guest

    JohnO wrote:
    > "thing" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >
    >>Enkidu wrote:
    >>
    >>>On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 06:57:02 +1300, Steve <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>Collector_NZ wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>Patrick Dunford said the following on 14/10/2004 00:46:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>By which I mean the one where you can pretend you are running XP on a
    >>>>>>286, or so the story goes.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>If this was the greatest thing since sliced bread, why isn't everyone
    >>>>>>using it? What are the pros and cons, apart from needing a huge server
    >>>>>>with gigabytes of RAM?
    >>>>>
    >>>>>And sever/client license costs
    >>>>
    >>>>Client license costs are zero... 'cos you run linux. Google for ltsp for
    >>>>more details. And yes, it works, and well, and is a great use for those
    >>>>older pc's.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>If you comply with Microsoft's Licensing conditions the cost is NOT
    >>>zero. You need a license for a MS OS on the client - even if the
    >>>client doesn't run a MS OS. (Or a client-side TS license) And you need
    >>>a client license for whatever software you run - even though it is not
    >>>installed on the client.
    >>>
    >>>This is *in addition* to the Server TS license that you need.
    >>>
    >>>It is MORE expensive (in terms of licenses) to run a TS setup since
    >>>you also have to buy licenses on the TS box to run TS.
    >>>
    >>>http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/server/howtobuy/pricing/tsfaq.asp
    >>>
    >>>Cheers,
    >>>
    >>>Cliff

    >>
    >>If you use rdesktop off a Linux client to a NT server, then your not
    >>using any MS software except that on the server?
    >>
    >>I am not sure how usable/scalable this is, or the licencing terms but I
    >>just use rdesktop on Linux to get to MS servers at work and not as a
    >>functioning client for multiple users.
    >>
    >>regards
    >>
    >>thing
    >>

    >
    > Yeah, RDP works great but it's really only designed for remote admin, i.e.
    > only one user at a time for XP Pro, or 2 users for Windows Server unless
    > extra licences are bought.
    >


    but where are the licences for? ie CALs on just the server?

    regards

    Thing
     
    thing, Oct 14, 2004
    #13
  14. Patrick Dunford

    thing Guest

    Enkidu wrote:
    8><---

    > If you comply with Microsoft's Licensing conditions the cost is NOT
    > zero. You need a license for a MS OS on the client - even if the
    > client doesn't run a MS OS. (Or a client-side TS license) And you need
    > a client license for whatever software you run - even though it is not
    > installed on the client.
    >
    > This is *in addition* to the Server TS license that you need.
    >
    > It is MORE expensive (in terms of licenses) to run a TS setup since
    > you also have to buy licenses on the TS box to run TS.
    >
    > http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/server/howtobuy/pricing/tsfaq.asp
    >
    > Cheers,
    >
    > Cliff


    yeah, the pricing for this is just looonnnyyyyyyy.

    I am not sure if its because MS has stitched itself up so badly with
    licencing that this is how it works out, or if they are actively
    discouraging thin clients..

    or both.....

    I certainly like my Linux thin client...you dont even know where you
    are, and there is no need to care.

    regards

    Thing
     
    thing, Oct 14, 2004
    #14
  15. Patrick Dunford

    JohnO Guest

    "thing" <> wrote in message
    news:RNobd.7942$...
    > JohnO wrote:
    >> "thing" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>
    >>>Enkidu wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 06:57:02 +1300, Steve <> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>Collector_NZ wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>Patrick Dunford said the following on 14/10/2004 00:46:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>>By which I mean the one where you can pretend you are running XP on a
    >>>>>>>286, or so the story goes.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>If this was the greatest thing since sliced bread, why isn't everyone
    >>>>>>>using it? What are the pros and cons, apart from needing a huge
    >>>>>>>server
    >>>>>>>with gigabytes of RAM?
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>And sever/client license costs
    >>>>>
    >>>>>Client license costs are zero... 'cos you run linux. Google for ltsp
    >>>>>for
    >>>>>more details. And yes, it works, and well, and is a great use for those
    >>>>>older pc's.
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>If you comply with Microsoft's Licensing conditions the cost is NOT
    >>>>zero. You need a license for a MS OS on the client - even if the
    >>>>client doesn't run a MS OS. (Or a client-side TS license) And you need
    >>>>a client license for whatever software you run - even though it is not
    >>>>installed on the client.
    >>>>
    >>>>This is *in addition* to the Server TS license that you need.
    >>>>
    >>>>It is MORE expensive (in terms of licenses) to run a TS setup since
    >>>>you also have to buy licenses on the TS box to run TS.
    >>>>
    >>>>http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/server/howtobuy/pricing/tsfaq.asp
    >>>>
    >>>>Cheers,
    >>>>
    >>>>Cliff
    >>>
    >>>If you use rdesktop off a Linux client to a NT server, then your not
    >>>using any MS software except that on the server?
    >>>
    >>>I am not sure how usable/scalable this is, or the licencing terms but I
    >>>just use rdesktop on Linux to get to MS servers at work and not as a
    >>>functioning client for multiple users.
    >>>
    >>>regards
    >>>
    >>>thing
    >>>

    >>
    >> Yeah, RDP works great but it's really only designed for remote admin,
    >> i.e.
    >> only one user at a time for XP Pro, or 2 users for Windows Server unless
    >> extra licences are bought.
    >>

    >
    > but where are the licences for? ie CALs on just the server?
    >
    > regards
    >
    > Thing
    >


    Yeah - the RDP client s/w is free to download from MS. The licences are on
    the server,
     
    JohnO, Oct 14, 2004
    #15
  16. Patrick Dunford

    Matt B Guest

    In news:NPpbd.517$,
    JohnO <> wrote:
    > "thing" <> wrote in message
    > news:RNobd.7942$...
    >> JohnO wrote:
    >>> "thing" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:...
    >>>
    >>>> Enkidu wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 06:57:02 +1300, Steve <>
    >>>>> wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> Collector_NZ wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Patrick Dunford said the following on 14/10/2004 00:46:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> By which I mean the one where you can pretend you are running
    >>>>>>>> XP on a 286, or so the story goes.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> If this was the greatest thing since sliced bread, why isn't
    >>>>>>>> everyone using it? What are the pros and cons, apart from
    >>>>>>>> needing a huge server
    >>>>>>>> with gigabytes of RAM?
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> And sever/client license costs
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Client license costs are zero... 'cos you run linux. Google for
    >>>>>> ltsp for
    >>>>>> more details. And yes, it works, and well, and is a great use
    >>>>>> for those older pc's.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> If you comply with Microsoft's Licensing conditions the cost is
    >>>>> NOT zero. You need a license for a MS OS on the client - even if
    >>>>> the
    >>>>> client doesn't run a MS OS. (Or a client-side TS license) And you
    >>>>> need a client license for whatever software you run - even though
    >>>>> it is not installed on the client.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> This is *in addition* to the Server TS license that you need.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> It is MORE expensive (in terms of licenses) to run a TS setup
    >>>>> since
    >>>>> you also have to buy licenses on the TS box to run TS.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/server/howtobuy/pricing/tsfaq.asp
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Cheers,
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Cliff
    >>>>
    >>>> If you use rdesktop off a Linux client to a NT server, then your
    >>>> not using any MS software except that on the server?
    >>>>
    >>>> I am not sure how usable/scalable this is, or the licencing terms
    >>>> but I just use rdesktop on Linux to get to MS servers at work and
    >>>> not as a functioning client for multiple users.
    >>>>
    >>>> regards
    >>>>
    >>>> thing
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> Yeah, RDP works great but it's really only designed for remote
    >>> admin, i.e.
    >>> only one user at a time for XP Pro, or 2 users for Windows Server
    >>> unless extra licences are bought.
    >>>

    >>
    >> but where are the licences for? ie CALs on just the server?
    >>
    >> regards
    >>
    >> Thing
    >>

    >
    > Yeah - the RDP client s/w is free to download from MS. The licences
    > are on the server,


    For Win2K and XPP clients a TS CAL isn't required on W2K server (they're
    "inbuilt"), just a server CAL. IOW TS CALs are required for all other
    clients. For Server 2003, XP TS CALs can be got for "free" - until IIRC the
    end of this year

    --
    Regards,

    Matt B
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    There are 10 types of people.
    Those who get binary...
    And those who don't.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
     
    Matt B, Oct 14, 2004
    #16
  17. Patrick Dunford

    JohnO Guest

    "Matt B" <> wrote in message
    news:btqbd.530$...
    > In news:NPpbd.517$,
    > JohnO <> wrote:
    >> "thing" <> wrote in message
    >> news:RNobd.7942$...
    >>> JohnO wrote:
    >>>> "thing" <> wrote in message
    >>>> news:...
    >>>>
    >>>>> Enkidu wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 06:57:02 +1300, Steve <>
    >>>>>> wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Collector_NZ wrote:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Patrick Dunford said the following on 14/10/2004 00:46:
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> By which I mean the one where you can pretend you are running
    >>>>>>>>> XP on a 286, or so the story goes.
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> If this was the greatest thing since sliced bread, why isn't
    >>>>>>>>> everyone using it? What are the pros and cons, apart from
    >>>>>>>>> needing a huge server
    >>>>>>>>> with gigabytes of RAM?
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> And sever/client license costs
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Client license costs are zero... 'cos you run linux. Google for
    >>>>>>> ltsp for
    >>>>>>> more details. And yes, it works, and well, and is a great use
    >>>>>>> for those older pc's.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> If you comply with Microsoft's Licensing conditions the cost is
    >>>>>> NOT zero. You need a license for a MS OS on the client - even if
    >>>>>> the
    >>>>>> client doesn't run a MS OS. (Or a client-side TS license) And you
    >>>>>> need a client license for whatever software you run - even though
    >>>>>> it is not installed on the client.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> This is *in addition* to the Server TS license that you need.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> It is MORE expensive (in terms of licenses) to run a TS setup
    >>>>>> since
    >>>>>> you also have to buy licenses on the TS box to run TS.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/server/howtobuy/pricing/tsfaq.asp
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Cheers,
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Cliff
    >>>>>
    >>>>> If you use rdesktop off a Linux client to a NT server, then your
    >>>>> not using any MS software except that on the server?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I am not sure how usable/scalable this is, or the licencing terms
    >>>>> but I just use rdesktop on Linux to get to MS servers at work and
    >>>>> not as a functioning client for multiple users.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> regards
    >>>>>
    >>>>> thing
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Yeah, RDP works great but it's really only designed for remote
    >>>> admin, i.e.
    >>>> only one user at a time for XP Pro, or 2 users for Windows Server
    >>>> unless extra licences are bought.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> but where are the licences for? ie CALs on just the server?
    >>>
    >>> regards
    >>>
    >>> Thing
    >>>

    >>
    >> Yeah - the RDP client s/w is free to download from MS. The licences
    >> are on the server,

    >
    > For Win2K and XPP clients a TS CAL isn't required on W2K server (they're
    > "inbuilt"), just a server CAL. IOW TS CALs are required for all other
    > clients. For Server 2003, XP TS CALs can be got for "free" - until IIRC
    > the
    > end of this year
    >


    I think all recent server editions of Win come with a minimum of 2 CALs
    built in, no?
     
    JohnO, Oct 14, 2004
    #17
  18. Patrick Dunford

    David Preece Guest

    Patrick Dunford wrote:
    > If this was the greatest thing since sliced bread, why isn't everyone
    > using it?


    Cost. The need for a reliable network connection.

    > What are the pros and cons, apart from needing a huge server
    > with gigabytes of RAM?


    The pros are that you can put an application that rarely gets used onto
    a server, but as a technique it got eclipsed (unfairly IMHO) by web
    applications. I also know one organisation that has just spent $huge
    putting in a terminal services rig instead of organising backup for
    their (one) remote office. I guess it reduces the quantity of server
    admin work.

    I've heard of some people doing Linux and/or OSX development where their
    brain dead organisations insist on them using
    Outlook/Exchange/MSSpecificThing and they do it by RDP'ing into a
    machine somewhere.

    The cons are ... well, if the network connection craps itself the lights
    go out everywhere. You need quite a low latency connection, although the
    actual bandwidth used is not that bad (I'd say to factor in 256kbit +
    another 64kbit per client). Certain applications hate it - anything
    involving pictures, forget movies totally, forget 3d, forget anything
    that doesn't just use GDI calls basically. Splash screens are painful
    too. There are some potentially nasty admin hassles with things like
    printers although these are basically now solved apparently. Mega
    dollars in licensing costs. And, yes, you need a huge server with gigs
    and gigs of RAM, but that's nearly free now. Certainly compared to
    licensing and setup costs it is.

    I've seen it done a couple of times recently, and I'm actually kinda
    impressed. Not as cool as a laptop though.

    Cheers,
    Dave
     
    David Preece, Oct 14, 2004
    #18
  19. It seems like Thu, 14 Oct 2004 00:46:03 +1300 was when Patrick Dunford
    <> said Blah blah blah...

    >By which I mean the one where you can pretend you are running XP on a
    >286, or so the story goes.
    >
    >If this was the greatest thing since sliced bread, why isn't everyone
    >using it? What are the pros and cons, apart from needing a huge server
    >with gigabytes of RAM?


    I've been doing a bit of research into this. I've just scratched the
    surface, but here are my observations.

    Pros:
    Lower cost for clients
    Central point of administration
    (Sometimes) less administration needed (no working on clients
    essentially)
    Easy to fix if clients die
    Can scale well (K12LTSP + Openmosix may push out processes to other
    terminal servers if the server they're running on gets bogged down,
    but depends on the amount of I/O i'd think, I don't know, I've got
    more research to go there)
    Consistent interface for clients

    Cons:
    Higher cost for servers
    Central point of failure
    (Sometimes) more administration needed (a problem may affect all
    clients, not just one)
    If server has problems, all desktops go down
    Need a reliable network
    If three users open Tuxpaint or something bandwidth hogging, watch all
    other user's performance go downhill.

    Ultimately, it's like putting all your eggs in one basket. Easier to
    work with, but possibly more risky. Stateless computing seems like an
    interesting concept, see
    http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1666122,00.asp or
    http://people.redhat.com/~hp/stateless/StatelessLinux.pdf
    --
    Regards,
    Waylon Kenning.

    1st Year B.I.T. WelTec
     
    Waylon Kenning, Oct 14, 2004
    #19
  20. It seems like Thu, 14 Oct 2004 08:17:05 +1300 was when Collector_NZ
    <> said Blah blah blah...

    >That depends on options and numbers, last time I looked at it it was not
    >an economic option for two computer labs at a school, there where not
    >very good Edu discounts.


    Funny you say that, I was thinking of setting up some schools with
    K12LTSP pods, having their normal desktop computers (2400XPs with 1GB
    of RAM) hooked up to say 5 pentium clients. Easy way for schools to
    get more bang for buck, however, more work needs to be done to make it
    easier for non-technical people to work with and administer.
    --
    Regards,
    Waylon Kenning.

    1st Year B.I.T. WelTec
     
    Waylon Kenning, Oct 14, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. =?Utf-8?B?SGFha29u?=

    Windows Server 2003 Terminal Server - Different themes

    =?Utf-8?B?SGFha29u?=, Jan 15, 2004, in forum: Microsoft Certification
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    688
    =?Utf-8?B?SGFha29u?=
    Jan 15, 2004
  2. Subhodini Fernandes

    Terminal Server

    Subhodini Fernandes, Sep 3, 2003, in forum: Cisco
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    461
    Jan Elliger
    Sep 8, 2003
  3. Tony
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    392
    Walter Roberson
    Dec 19, 2003
  4. CHANGE USERNAME TO westes
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    1,451
    Tracy
    Jan 28, 2004
  5. =?Utf-8?B?RG9u?=

    Running Terminal Server 2003 farm on Virtual Server 2005R2

    =?Utf-8?B?RG9u?=, Aug 3, 2007, in forum: Windows 64bit
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    915
    =?Utf-8?B?VG9ueSBNUw==?=
    Sep 11, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page