Web based application?

[Hank]

Hello,
Five years of development has us using a very large database (a
couple hundred screens) in one location, which is very managable. Now
our company will be expanding to several distant states and wants a
live database throughout.
What are my options? One suggestion was that we make a
web-based application for ease of updates and availability to remote
sites. That would, of course, involve a complete rewrite of the front
end into some language that I am not as familiar with as I am VBA. I
work by the hour so its not like I'm trying to avoid the work. I would
just hope that there might be an eaiser, more reliable option.
Does anyone have any suggestions?
Thanks,
Hank Reed

[Jack MacDonald]

Would "near-live" be sufficient? If so, then Access replication may be
a viable option.
On 8 Jan 2005 05:54:59 -0800, "Hank" <ha********@aol.com> wrote:

Hello,
Five years of development has us using a very large database (a
couple hundred screens) in one location, which is very managable. Now
our company will be expanding to several distant states and wants a
live database throughout.
What are my options? One suggestion was that we make a
web-based application for ease of updates and availability to remote
sites. That would, of course, involve a complete rewrite of the front
end into some language that I am not as familiar with as I am VBA. I
work by the hour so its not like I'm trying to avoid the work. I would
just hope that there might be an eaiser, more reliable option.
Does anyone have any suggestions?
Thanks,
Hank Reed

**********************
ja**************@telusTELUS.net
remove uppercase letters for true email
http://www.geocities.com/jacksonmacd/ for info on MS Access security

[Hank Reed]

Jack,
Thanks for the input. Could you elaborate on that approach a
little more?
Hank Reed

*** Sent via Developersdex http://www.developersdex.com ***
Don't just participate in USENET...get rewarded for it!

[(Pete Cresswell)]

Per Hank:

Five years of development has us using a very large database (a
couple hundred screens) in one location, which is very managable. Now
our company will be expanding to several distant states and wants a
live database throughout.
What are my options?

The one that comes to my own mind first is some sort of terminal server like PC
Anywhere or Citrix. Seems like that would be as close to seamless as you
could get. "Close to" because I've heard of some directory issues with
Citrix... PC Anywhere, I'd think would be completely seamless.
--
PeteCresswell

[David W. Fenton]

"(Pete Cresswell)" <x@y.z> wrote in
news:ep********************************@4ax.com:

Per Hank:

Five years of development has us using a very large database (a
couple hundred screens) in one location, which is very managable.
Now our company will be expanding to several distant states and
wants a live database throughout.
What are my options?

The one that comes to my own mind first is some sort of terminal
server like PC Anywhere or Citrix. Seems like that would be as
close to seamless as you could get. "Close to" because I've heard
of some directory issues with Citrix... PC Anywhere, I'd think
would be completely seamless.

Windows Terminal Server or Citrix?

If you have done Terminal Server since the release of Win2K Server,
then everything you know about it is out of date. By saying "Citrix"
it looks to me like you haven't been current with TS, since I can't
figure out a single reason to purchase any of the Citrix extensions
now that MS is bundling the WTS functionality in as part of its base
server OS.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc

[David W. Fenton]

"Hank" <ha********@aol.com> wrote in
news:11*********************@c13g2000cwb.googlegro ups.com:

Five years of development has us using a very large database (a
couple hundred screens) in one location, which is very managable.
Now our company will be expanding to several distant states and
wants a live database throughout.
What are my options? One suggestion was that we make a
web-based application for ease of updates and availability to
remote sites. That would, of course, involve a complete rewrite
of the front end into some language that I am not as familiar with
as I am VBA. I work by the hour so its not like I'm trying to
avoid the work. I would just hope that there might be an eaiser,
more reliable option. Does anyone have any suggestions?

Windows Terminal Server is the best option.

If you have a Windows 2K server or a Windows 2K3 Server, you could
try it out, as both of those come with 2 TS session licenses.

WTS is an excellent way to:

1. roll out an application to remote users while

2. keeping all data and administration in a central location.

And it's *fast*, nothing like what you get with remote control
solutions like PC Anywhere and VNC.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc

[David W. Fenton]

Hank Reed <ha********@aol.com> wrote in news:41**********@127.0.0.1:

Thanks for the input. Could you elaborate on that approach
a
little more?

Replication is a method for sharing data and nowadays is most useful
for salespeople who have to travel with a disconnected laptop but
need to have the data with them (and editable so they can synch it
back with the mother ship when the get back to home base).

It does nothing to solve the problems of administration that come
with installing your application on remote systems.

And the only reliable methods for replication (indirect replication
or Internet replication) are both quite complex to set up and
difficult to administer reliably.

I've been doing replication since 1997, and I now use it only for
clients with laptops that have to be disconnected from the network
(as described above).

For serving clients who need to support remote users, I'm now fully
onboard with Windows Terminal Server, and think it's quite a
wonderful product. It solves all the problems of centralized
administration while requiring you to make no changes in your
application. It also requires only the most minimal client software
installation on the remote end (just the remote desktop client) --
once that's done and configured, it just works. Of course, depending
on your network, you may have VPN issues, but most clients I am
working with nowadays already have a VPN in place, so it's just not
an issue.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc

[(Pete Cresswell)]

Per David W. Fenton:

If you have done Terminal Server since the release of Win2K Server,
then everything you know about it is out of date. By saying "Citrix"
it looks to me like you haven't been current with TS, since I can't
figure out a single reason to purchase any of the Citrix extensions
now that MS is bundling the WTS functionality in as part of its base
server OS.

Good catch. I was on the verge of Citrix at one time, but it didn't pan out -
so I have zero practical experience and was just mouthing the words of people I
know who have. *Old* words....I guess...
--
PeteCresswell

[(Pete Cresswell)]

Per David W. Fenton:

If you have a Windows 2K server or a Windows 2K3 Server, you could
try it out, as both of those come with 2 TS session licenses.

Let's say my W2k Pro developer box starts getting weird (as it seems to once a
year or so....) and I decide to bite the bullet and re-build it.

Can I build a W2k Server box and still use it as I'm using my PC right now (i.e.
mainly as a developer's platform) with daily email/newsgroups thrown in?
--
PeteCresswell

[Albert D. Kallal]

"David W. Fenton" <dX********@bway.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xn**********************************@24.168.1 28.78...

I can't
figure out a single reason to purchase any of the Citrix extensions
now that MS is bundling the WTS functionality in as part of its base
server OS.

Actually, the Citrix systems still have better admin tools, and also have
more control over how the bandwidth is to be allocated.

So, while both in TS and Citrix you can turn off some of the channels,
Citrix allows you to set/control the bandwidth for each cannel.

For example, one channel is for the cut/paste clip board. You can disable
this, as an accident cut/paste across a low bandwidth line could really tie
things up. Also, to sync a 100k clip board might spike the bandwidth
requirements up quite high. So, you can limit the bandwidth used here. Thus,
in stead of the operation taking a few seconds, and spiking to 50kps of
bandwidth, you might limit the bandwidth for the clipboard to 10kps..and the
operation will now take 10 seconds. (overall, you do consume the same
resources 2 seconds at 50kps -= 10 seconds at 10 kps of bandwidth!).).
However, at lest you keep the amount used by one user lower, and keep every
one else on the same connection humming along nicely. Often, that remote
office is far away, and all those remote users do share the same (often very
limited) connection in that office.

So, Citrix actually lets you set (throttle) the maximum bandwidth allowed
for each cannel, and Terminal Server and RDP don't have his feature.

There is a number of other features that are also different. For example,
Citrix has SpeedScreen Latency Reduction. What this means is that the client
can show a keystroke on the screen BEFORE it is returned from the server.
So, you press a key, it goes to the server, and then comes back..and then is
displayed on the screen. With speedscreen that keystroke is displayed
immediately. (TS and RDP does not have that feature). Ironically, enabling
SpeedScreen actually can increase network load by 20%, but latency is often
the enemy here,and speedscreen allows smooth as silk typing even when you
have large 400ms type latencies in the network. So, you might have enough
speed, but you latency might be killing usability here. Citrix also has a
feature that when you click on the screen, the mouse cursor shows a
hourglass. This again is a latency feature..as users often click on
something, wait...don't see anything..and click again (this can happen quite
fast with impatient users...as they often think they "missed" the
click...when in fact they got it the first time!...you then get two of
whatever it was you clicked on!). With "mouse click feedback", the instant
you click on something, a hourglass appears. A simple feature..but again
something that TS don't have.

I know very little about these technologies, but in talking to admins and
people who use this stuff, they still maintain there is a considerable
(worthwhile) difference in using Citrix over TS. This is especially so for
"large" numbers of users. I would think it is safe bet to say that for 5,or
10 remote desktops, Citrix likely don't offer a whole lot more (but, it
still is more configurable then TS). So, there still is a good number of
feature differences between the two products.

--
Albert D. Kallal (Access MVP)
Edmonton, Alberta Canada
pl*****************@msn.com
http://www.attcanada.net/~kallal.msn

[Rick Brandt]

Albert D. Kallal wrote:

"David W. Fenton" <dX********@bway.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xn**********************************@24.168.1 28.78...

I can't
figure out a single reason to purchase any of the Citrix extensions
now that MS is bundling the WTS functionality in as part of its base
server OS.

Actually, the Citrix systems still have better admin tools, and also
have more control over how the bandwidth is to be allocated.

We use Citrix over win2003 server as well. Doesn't it also deal with local
printing better than straight WTS?

--
I don't check the Email account attached
to this message. Send instead to...
RBrandt at Hunter dot com

[Albert D. Kallal]

"Rick Brandt" <ri*********@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:34*************@individual.net...

We use Citrix over win2003 server as well. Doesn't it also deal with
local printing better than straight WTS?

Apparently I herd the above also, not sure exactly what the differences
are....

--
Albert D. Kallal (Access MVP)
Edmonton, Alberta Canada
pl*****************@msn.com
http://www.attcanada.net/~kallal.msn

[Trevor Best]

Albert D. Kallal wrote:

"Rick Brandt" <ri*********@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:34*************@individual.net...

We use Citrix over win2003 server as well. Doesn't it also deal with
local printing better than straight WTS?

Apparently I herd the above also, not sure exactly what the differences
are....

All I know is the printer actually works in W2K3 TS, but was a bitch in W2K.

I've only used TS for remote admin of servers so this hasn't really
affected me. I do see logs on servers filling up with unable to install
printer driver for Epson Stylus 680 (my home printer). I may just
install the print driver on the servers at work just to shut it up.
After that I may try printing just as a test.

In W2K3 you can also map your local drives so they're visible to the
server session, al a peskyAnywhere. I wouldn't recommend trying to copy
movies and CD/DVD ISOs across it though <g>

--
This sig left intentionally blank

[Trevor Best]

David W. Fenton wrote:

If you have a Windows 2K server or a Windows 2K3 Server, you could
try it out, as both of those come with 2 TS session licenses.

The 2 freebie licenses are for remote administration and as such, only
an admin can connect. You need to bare that in mind when setting up
users for a TS connection.

--
This sig left intentionally blank

[Jack MacDonald]

I agree with David's points. Many experienced developers recommend WTS
as a remote solution, although I have had no personal experience using
it.

Replication is not trivial to set up and adminster properly.
"Out-of-the-box" Access does not have the complete set of tools that
you need for proper remote connection using replication. The missing
part (Replication Manager) is part of the Developer's Edition
(variable name depending on the version of Access that you are
running)

On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 23:08:00 GMT, "David W. Fenton"
<dX********@bway.net.invalid> wrote:

Hank Reed <ha********@aol.com> wrote in news:41**********@127.0.0.1:

Thanks for the input. Could you elaborate on that approach
a
little more?

Replication is a method for sharing data and nowadays is most useful
for salespeople who have to travel with a disconnected laptop but
need to have the data with them (and editable so they can synch it
back with the mother ship when the get back to home base).

It does nothing to solve the problems of administration that come
with installing your application on remote systems.

And the only reliable methods for replication (indirect replication
or Internet replication) are both quite complex to set up and
difficult to administer reliably.

I've been doing replication since 1997, and I now use it only for
clients with laptops that have to be disconnected from the network
(as described above).

For serving clients who need to support remote users, I'm now fully
onboard with Windows Terminal Server, and think it's quite a
wonderful product. It solves all the problems of centralized
administration while requiring you to make no changes in your
application. It also requires only the most minimal client software
installation on the remote end (just the remote desktop client) --
once that's done and configured, it just works. Of course, depending
on your network, you may have VPN issues, but most clients I am
working with nowadays already have a VPN in place, so it's just not
an issue.

**********************
ja**************@telusTELUS.net
remove uppercase letters for true email
http://www.geocities.com/jacksonmacd/ for info on MS Access security

[David W. Fenton]

"Albert D. Kallal" <Pl*******************@msn.com> wrote in
news:4h1Ed.24029$Xk.23603@pd7tw3no:

I know very little about these technologies, but in talking to
admins and people who use this stuff, they still maintain there is
a considerable (worthwhile) difference in using Citrix over TS.
This is especially so for "large" numbers of users. I would think
it is safe bet to say that for 5,or 10 remote desktops, Citrix
likely don't offer a whole lot more (but, it still is more
configurable then TS). So, there still is a good number of feature
differences between the two products.

What's the price per user for the Citrix extensions? If it's
anything more than $50, it's clearly not worth it, even for
low-bandwidth connections.

I have not seen any problems whatsoever in my uses of vanilla WTS,
with cable broadband on my end (1.5Mbps down, 384K up) and any
number of connection speeds on the other end.

I'm rolling out an app this month for a client with a T1 in their
main office and 384K DSL at their branch offices. There's going to
be only one user at each branch, so the bandwidth should be more
than enough. Indeed, until the end of November, there were a half
dozen users at each of the branches running Outlook connected to the
Exchange server in the home office across these 384K connections
(via VPN), and it was simply not a problem.

I suspect that the Citrix extensions are really only a big help for
dialup users (which was the case back in the early days, too, where
dialup was just not usable without Citrix), and if I were
contemplating supporting significant numbers of dialup users, I'd
consider them.

But what you've described certainly doesn't amount to a hill of
beans, in my opinion.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc

[David W. Fenton]

"(Pete Cresswell)" <x@y.z> wrote in
news:g8********************************@4ax.com:

Per David W. Fenton:

If you have a Windows 2K server or a Windows 2K3 Server, you could
try it out, as both of those come with 2 TS session licenses.

Let's say my W2k Pro developer box starts getting weird (as it
seems to once a year or so....) and I decide to bite the bullet
and re-build it.

Can I build a W2k Server box and still use it as I'm using my PC
right now (i.e. mainly as a developer's platform) with daily
email/newsgroups thrown in?

MichKa has always run the server versions of Windows on his
workstations, if I'm not mistaken.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc

[David W. Fenton]

Trevor Best <no****@besty.org.uk> wrote in
news:41***********************@news.zen.co.uk:

David W. Fenton wrote:

If you have a Windows 2K server or a Windows 2K3 Server, you
could try it out, as both of those come with 2 TS session
licenses.

The 2 freebie licenses are for remote administration and as such,
only an admin can connect. You need to bare that in mind when
setting up users for a TS connection.

I understand that, but I was suggesting that for testing, all you
need is already there and available for trying out.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc

[Rick Brandt]

David W. Fenton wrote:

"Albert D. Kallal" <Pl*******************@msn.com> wrote in
news:4h1Ed.24029$Xk.23603@pd7tw3no:

I know very little about these technologies, but in talking to
admins and people who use this stuff, they still maintain there is
a considerable (worthwhile) difference in using Citrix over TS.
This is especially so for "large" numbers of users. I would think
it is safe bet to say that for 5,or 10 remote desktops, Citrix
likely don't offer a whole lot more (but, it still is more
configurable then TS). So, there still is a good number of feature
differences between the two products.

What's the price per user for the Citrix extensions? If it's
anything more than $50, it's clearly not worth it, even for
low-bandwidth connections.

I have not seen any problems whatsoever in my uses of vanilla WTS,
with cable broadband on my end (1.5Mbps down, 384K up) and any
number of connection speeds on the other end.

I'm rolling out an app this month for a client with a T1 in their
main office and 384K DSL at their branch offices. There's going to
be only one user at each branch, so the bandwidth should be more
than enough. Indeed, until the end of November, there were a half
dozen users at each of the branches running Outlook connected to the
Exchange server in the home office across these 384K connections
(via VPN), and it was simply not a problem.

I suspect that the Citrix extensions are really only a big help for
dialup users (which was the case back in the early days, too, where
dialup was just not usable without Citrix), and if I were
contemplating supporting significant numbers of dialup users, I'd
consider them.

But what you've described certainly doesn't amount to a hill of
beans, in my opinion.

Can straight WTS be used only to run an app and not allow a desktop? I know
that you can tell it to automatically open an app, but don't know if you can
restrict it to only that app.

--
I don't check the Email account attached
to this message. Send instead to...
RBrandt at Hunter dot com

[Albert D. Kallal]

"Rick Brandt" <ri*********@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:34*************@individual.net...

Can straight WTS be used only to run an app and not allow a desktop? I
know that you can tell it to automatically open an app, but don't know if
you can restrict it to only that app.

I SOOOO much wish you could allocate just and send output from an
application to another desktop (no, WTS does not allow this!!). I would love
to be able to launch an application on your pc, but have the windows
output/connection to my desktop! X-windows on Unix/Linux has worked this way
from day one. Even before a GUI days of Unix, your "output" redirection to
another workstation was possible. This type of architecture really enables
remote procedure calling, and also allows you to VERY easily share
processing tasks (and software) on a network.

It also means you can launch any application on any machine on the network
and use the program as if it was on your desktop, but not install the
software!! So, to use that year end accounting software on your pc without
installing it would be possible. It essentially gives a web like model to
rich GUI interfaces on computers. If you are looking for a great software
idea that would force some of these big players to buy out your small
company (and you make a fortune), then creating a software system that
re-directs windows output is a great idea.

You can hear me complain about this lack of feature here in the following
article of mine:
Why bother with .net when you have Thin Client?

By Albert D. Kallal
Monday, September 02, 2002
http://www.members.shaw.ca/AlbertKal...tsand.net.html
--
Albert D. Kallal (Access MVP)
Edmonton, Alberta Canada
pl*****************@msn.com
http://www.members.shaw.ca/AlbertKallal

[Albert D. Kallal]

"David W. Fenton" <dX********@bway.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xn**********************************@24.168.1 28.78...

What's the price per user for the Citrix extensions? If it's
anything more than $50, it's clearly not worth it, even for
low-bandwidth connections.
No idea!!!

I have not seen any problems whatsoever in my uses of vanilla WTS,
with cable broadband on my end (1.5Mbps down, 384K up) and any
number of connection speeds on the other end.
Yes, it works very well on a high speed net connection.
I suspect that the Citrix extensions are really only a big help for
dialup users (which was the case back in the early days, too, where
dialup was just not usable without Citrix), and if I were
contemplating supporting significant numbers of dialup users, I'd
consider them.

But what you've described certainly doesn't amount to a hill of
beans, in my opinion.

Well, that branch office likely might be sharing ONE high speed line, and
you have to put 20 users on that connection, and with that limited upload
speed, you might gain benefits from Ctirix features (so, we would be taking
about some useful stuff here). However, I tend to agree with you (despite
what those admins all tell me).

Further, Microsoft and Citrix *just* signed a new cross licensing deal, and
that means MS and citrix folks will continue to share and cross license
their technologies for the foreseeable future. This means that likely TS
folks will get some upgraded features in the next release of TS anyway.

For most stuff, TS really rocks..and in my experience (like yours) TS gets
the job done very well indeed. I just don't have the experience to say when
you have 10 or more users, then Citrix is the ticket here! I suppose if you
do have 10, or more users in that branch office, either they would have to
get a 2nd high speed line, or get more bandwidth on the one existing line
(or, maybe that one high speed line is plenty for 20 users!!) So, perhaps
paying more for Citrix would be a cost effective solution in some of these
cases, but as I mentioned, I am not experienced enough to make that judgment
at all.

--
Albert D. Kallal (Access MVP)
Edmonton, Alberta Canada
pl*****************@msn.com
http://www.members.shaw.ca/AlbertKallal

[Tony Toews]

"Albert D. Kallal" <Pl*******************@msn.com> wrote:

For example, <snip>There is a number of other features that are also different.

<snip>

Albert

Thanks for the detailed explanation of Citrix enhancements to TS. As I'm currently
maintaining my webserver via a dialup connection I can see how some of the Citrix
enhancements you mention can be quite useful. <smile>

Tony
--
Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP
Please respond only in the newsgroups so that others can
read the entire thread of messages.
Microsoft Access Links, Hints, Tips & Accounting Systems at
http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm

[Trevor Best]

Rick Brandt wrote:

Can straight WTS be used only to run an app and not allow a desktop? I know
that you can tell it to automatically open an app, but don't know if you can
restrict it to only that app.

Not AFAIK. We use WTS for remote demos to prospective clients and I set
up WTS to run a batch file upon login for that user, a simple affair
with about 3 commands in, 1 to send a network message to alert us they
finally sorted out the firewall on their end <g>, then run the
powerpoint demo, then run the software for real.

In one instance, my pointy haired boss was testing this from home, he
ended up exiting the software, this would normally log out at this point
but instead left him with a full desktop as though explorer.exe had been
executed. I haven't been able to reproduce this myself as yet but I
believe him as 1) he has no reason to make up such a story, 2) he's
trustworthy and 3) he's really not that imaginative :-)

4) he doesn't read this ng either <g>

--
This sig left intentionally blank

[Rick Brandt]

Trevor Best wrote:

Rick Brandt wrote:

Can straight WTS be used only to run an app and not allow a desktop?
I know that you can tell it to automatically open an app, but don't
know if you can restrict it to only that app.

Not AFAIK. We use WTS for remote demos to prospective clients and I
set up WTS to run a batch file upon login for that user, a simple
affair with about 3 commands in, 1 to send a network message to alert
us they finally sorted out the firewall on their end <g>, then run the
powerpoint demo, then run the software for real.

In one instance, my pointy haired boss was testing this from home, he
ended up exiting the software, this would normally log out at this
point but instead left him with a full desktop as though explorer.exe
had been executed. I haven't been able to reproduce this myself as
yet but I believe him as 1) he has no reason to make up such a story,
2) he's trustworthy and 3) he's really not that imaginative :-)

4) he doesn't read this ng either <g>

Ok then, that would rule out straight WTS for a LOT of people. With Citrix we
strictly publish apps. Remote users have no ability to get to the desktop or
any other program that is not launched from the published app.

--
I don't check the Email account attached
to this message. Send instead to...
RBrandt at Hunter dot com

[David W. Fenton]

"Albert D. Kallal" <Pl*******************@msn.com> wrote in
news:Q%oEd.40907$Xk.7927@pd7tw3no:

"David W. Fenton" <dX********@bway.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xn**********************************@24.168.1 28.78...

What's the price per user for the Citrix extensions? If it's
anything more than $50, it's clearly not worth it, even for
low-bandwidth connections.
No idea!!!

I have never quite understood why Citrix licensed their core
technology to MS.

I have not seen any problems whatsoever in my uses of vanilla
WTS, with cable broadband on my end (1.5Mbps down, 384K up) and
any number of connection speeds on the other end.

Yes, it works very well on a high speed net connection.

But the norm for small businesses where I work is to have what you
call "high speed" connections (they are mid-range connections here
-- high speed would be gigabit connections, and one of my clients
has an internal network that's got massive pipes).

I suspect that the Citrix extensions are really only a big help
for dialup users (which was the case back in the early days, too,
where dialup was just not usable without Citrix), and if I were
contemplating supporting significant numbers of dialup users, I'd
consider them.

But what you've described certainly doesn't amount to a hill of
beans, in my opinion.

Well, that branch office likely might be sharing ONE high speed
line, and you have to put 20 users on that connection, and with
that limited upload speed, you might gain benefits from Ctirix
features (so, we would be taking about some useful stuff here).

Well, if I ever end up with that kind of situation, I'll look into
it. Of course, I'd have to balance the Citrix cost against the cost
of upgrading the bandwidth (which would be an ongoing cost, but one
with benefits beyond TS itself).
However, I tend to agree with you (despite what those admins all
tell me).
Citrix seems to me to not be doing a good job defining its product
in the market.
Further, Microsoft and Citrix *just* signed a new cross licensing
deal, and that means MS and citrix folks will continue to share
and cross license their technologies for the foreseeable future.
This means that likely TS folks will get some upgraded features in
the next release of TS anyway.
That's great, but it doesn't tell my why I should give any money to
Citrix.
For most stuff, TS really rocks..and in my experience (like yours)
TS gets the job done very well indeed. I just don't have the
experience to say when you have 10 or more users, then Citrix is
the ticket here! I suppose if you do have 10, or more users in
that branch office, either they would have to get a 2nd high speed
line, or get more bandwidth on the one existing line (or, maybe
that one high speed line is plenty for 20 users!!) So, perhaps
paying more for Citrix would be a cost effective solution in some
of these cases, but as I mentioned, I am not experienced enough to
make that judgment at all.

It seems telling to me that none of the enthusiastic WTS users in
this newsgroup seem to have much knowledge of what Citrix has to
offer.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc

[David W. Fenton]

"Rick Brandt" <ri*********@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:34*************@individual.net:

Ok then, that would rule out straight WTS for a LOT of people.
With Citrix we strictly publish apps. Remote users have no
ability to get to the desktop or any other program that is not
launched from the published app.

My bet is that it's doable with policies, but I'm no policy expert
(every time I start working with them, I get more and more
confused).

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc

[Steve]

With policies, you can lock up the TS sessions pretty well, including
providing no access to the start menu, etc ...

And, you better lock up the TS sessions to prevent a user from
shutting down the TS box from a user session.

We use TS in our office to support several remote users, and
established a Demo Guest User for very limited access, including
network.

Steven
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 00:04:15 GMT, "David W. Fenton"
<dX********@bway.net.invalid> wrote:

"Rick Brandt" <ri*********@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:34*************@individual.net:

Ok then, that would rule out straight WTS for a LOT of people.
With Citrix we strictly publish apps. Remote users have no
ability to get to the desktop or any other program that is not
launched from the published app.

My bet is that it's doable with policies, but I'm no policy expert
(every time I start working with them, I get more and more
confused).

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc

[Steve]

On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 23:08:00 GMT, "David W. Fenton"
<dX********@bway.net.invalid> wrote:

<snip>

For serving clients who need to support remote users, I'm now fully
onboard with Windows Terminal Server, and think it's quite a
wonderful product. It solves all the problems of centralized
administration while requiring you to make no changes in your
application. It also requires only the most minimal client software
installation on the remote end (just the remote desktop client) --
once that's done and configured, it just works. Of course, depending
on your network, you may have VPN issues, but most clients I am
working with nowadays already have a VPN in place, so it's just not
an issue.

Agreed, especially if the number of users are limited.

If you want your Access app to be used by more than 20 or so users,
you need a TS server farm, and/or Citrix. It comes to a point that
converting the app or a portion of the app to the Web makes sense.
But for 20 or less users, go with TS.

If one is getting into Jet performance issues because of LAN traffic;
using TS vs converting to SQL Server may a more efficient (ROI)
option. In the case that some reporting may require accessing a large
percentage of the transactions stored, TS would outperfrom SQL Server.

You don't need VPN to access a TS box. You can assign the server a
routable IP address, or use NAT to redirect theTS port to a specific
box. Once logged on to TS, the user can get any file server rights as
needed.

When a remote user logs on via VPN, their station is now part of the
LAN. This does not thrill me, especially when the user is running off
a PC that is not protected by our anti virus/spyware software.

TS has a lot of neat options; when I use it I also allow my local
drive to be part of the resources, along with my local printer. My
only real problem has been with users having these all-in one local
printers, which require all types of special software loaded on their
local PC. You need the driver on the TS box, and I don't want to load
50megs of junk so they can use all the features of these printers.

And finally, with group policies you really can lock down the TS box,
and provide for remote control (an administration can view any
session), forced log offs, preventing users to log on to multipled
sessions at a time, etc. You will need to establish some basic
policies so a user can't shut down the server while others are
working.

Steven Zuch

[David W. Fenton]

st***@nospam.com (Steve) wrote in
news:41****************@news.westnet.com:

You don't need VPN to access a TS box.

What planet do you live on?

No, you don't need it, just as you don't need a firewall to have
Internet access.

But anyone who is working without it is as fool.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc

[Tony Toews]

"David W. Fenton" <dX********@bway.net.invalid> wrote:

You don't need VPN to access a TS box.

What planet do you live on?

No, you don't need it, just as you don't need a firewall to have
Internet access.

But anyone who is working without it is as fool.

Guess you can include me in that category. I've been administering my web server box
for several years using TS without a VPN.

Tony
--
Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP
Please respond only in the newsgroups so that others can
read the entire thread of messages.
Microsoft Access Links, Hints, Tips & Accounting Systems at
http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm

[David W. Fenton]

Tony Toews <tt****@telusplanet.net> wrote in
news:tj********************************@4ax.com:

"David W. Fenton" <dX********@bway.net.invalid> wrote:

You don't need VPN to access a TS box.

What planet do you live on?

No, you don't need it, just as you don't need a firewall to have
Internet access.

But anyone who is working without it is as fool.

Guess you can include me in that category. I've been
administering my web server box for several years using TS without
a VPN.

A standard port open to the Internet? What are you thinking?

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc

[Tony Toews]

"David W. Fenton" <dX********@bway.net.invalid> wrote:

You don't need VPN to access a TS box.

What planet do you live on?

No, you don't need it, just as you don't need a firewall to have
Internet access.

But anyone who is working without it is as fool.

Guess you can include me in that category. I've been
administering my web server box for several years using TS without
a VPN.

A standard port open to the Internet? What are you thinking?

<shrug> It's a web server. It's gotta have ports open to the Internet.

Tony
--
Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP
Please respond only in the newsgroups so that others can
read the entire thread of messages.
Microsoft Access Links, Hints, Tips & Accounting Systems at
http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm

[David W. Fenton]

Tony Toews <tt****@telusplanet.net> wrote in
news:9p********************************@4ax.com:

"David W. Fenton" <dX********@bway.net.invalid> wrote:

> You don't need VPN to access a TS box.

What planet do you live on?

No, you don't need it, just as you don't need a firewall to have
Internet access.

But anyone who is working without it is as fool.

Guess you can include me in that category. I've been
administering my web server box for several years using TS
without a VPN.

A standard port open to the Internet? What are you thinking?

<shrug> It's a web server. It's gotta have ports open to the
Internet.

Port 80 is somewhat difficult to exploit.

TS is subject to password crackers.

All I can say is if you're going to put TS right out there on the
Internet, open to everyone, then you'd better have a very small
number of accounts authorized to log onto TS and those accounts had
better have very unusual names and very strong passwords.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc