Could someone explain 'Terminal Services' to a thicko?
Discussion
IT company have installed it and it seems to work but I don't have a clue what it is or the capabilities of it 
Our other office 'use' it to do things on our server but I have no idea if it's a physical thing, a piece of software or a something else!
Anyone spare a minute to tell me more about it/them?
eta: I started to google and got confused before you tell me it's my friend
Our other office 'use' it to do things on our server but I have no idea if it's a physical thing, a piece of software or a something else!
Anyone spare a minute to tell me more about it/them?
eta: I started to google and got confused before you tell me it's my friend
Edited by Carrera2 on Tuesday 20th March 21:48
agent006 said:
Terminal services is part of Windows Server. It allows remote access to a server, so they connect to it ans get a full desktop as if they were sat in front of it. It's capable of doing this to multiple people at the same time.
Do they all see the same desktop our can they see different ones?
Carrera2 said:
agent006 said:
Terminal services is part of Windows Server. It allows remote access to a server, so they connect to it ans get a full desktop as if they were sat in front of it. It's capable of doing this to multiple people at the same time.
Do they all see the same desktop our can they see different ones?
Different on Unix machines, it's possible to have any possible window manager running for any user... it depends on what either they or the Admin wants to run/support.
Obviously a Windows TS you'll all be looking at... well... Windows
But different desktops per session is the usual... I'm not actually sure if Win2k/2k3 can share a single session amongst multiple users (ya know? It's never actually been something I've looked at as never needed to), it might be best to use something like...ahh crap... erm... Netmeeting, that's it, if you want a 1-to-many training room type environment. I think some versions of VNC allow multiple watchers, although not overly sure on this as every time I've tried it's booted off the other person.
its too late to go too in detail here but mail me if you want to know the gist. I was involved with it from back in the nsignia ntrigue days/citrix 1.6 so I should be able to cover the basics
or alternately I'll make my professional case and view here. It is a white elephant. It used to offer great TCO returns but today it is a lame duck. It has its places but instead of replacing everyones desktop as expected it is now really a niche tool OR employed where an IT department needs to justify a large budget spend.
The others have given you the gist of what it technically does, I've given you a fairly sound explaination of exctly what it was and what it now isn't.
Potentially great tool tht thanks to the increadibly low seat costs per pc and hardware these days is a bit out of place. The potential for off set costs with hardware upgrades etc is usually overlooked by the back end costs of training of support staff and the woefully poor support most vendors will give unless you pay ££££ for consultancy - a typical deployment of any real scale (where it was designed) usually runs out of cost benefit quite quick.
or alternately I'll make my professional case and view here. It is a white elephant. It used to offer great TCO returns but today it is a lame duck. It has its places but instead of replacing everyones desktop as expected it is now really a niche tool OR employed where an IT department needs to justify a large budget spend.
The others have given you the gist of what it technically does, I've given you a fairly sound explaination of exctly what it was and what it now isn't.
Potentially great tool tht thanks to the increadibly low seat costs per pc and hardware these days is a bit out of place. The potential for off set costs with hardware upgrades etc is usually overlooked by the back end costs of training of support staff and the woefully poor support most vendors will give unless you pay ££££ for consultancy - a typical deployment of any real scale (where it was designed) usually runs out of cost benefit quite quick.
Stigmundfreud said:
its too late to go too in detail here but mail me if you want to know the gist. I was involved with it from back in the nsignia ntrigue days/citrix 1.6 so I should be able to cover the basics
or alternately I'll make my professional case and view here. It is a white elephant. It used to offer great TCO returns but today it is a lame duck. It has its places but instead of replacing everyones desktop as expected it is now really a niche tool OR employed where an IT department needs to justify a large budget spend.
The others have given you the gist of what it technically does, I've given you a fairly sound explaination of exctly what it was and what it now isn't.
Potentially great tool tht thanks to the increadibly low seat costs per pc and hardware these days is a bit out of place. The potential for off set costs with hardware upgrades etc is usually overlooked by the back end costs of training of support staff and the woefully poor support most vendors will give unless you pay ££££ for consultancy - a typical deployment of any real scale (where it was designed) usually runs out of cost benefit quite quick.
or alternately I'll make my professional case and view here. It is a white elephant. It used to offer great TCO returns but today it is a lame duck. It has its places but instead of replacing everyones desktop as expected it is now really a niche tool OR employed where an IT department needs to justify a large budget spend.
The others have given you the gist of what it technically does, I've given you a fairly sound explaination of exctly what it was and what it now isn't.
Potentially great tool tht thanks to the increadibly low seat costs per pc and hardware these days is a bit out of place. The potential for off set costs with hardware upgrades etc is usually overlooked by the back end costs of training of support staff and the woefully poor support most vendors will give unless you pay ££££ for consultancy - a typical deployment of any real scale (where it was designed) usually runs out of cost benefit quite quick.
Been saying that for years, and refuse to deploy it to customers, unless its for a specific app thats too damn complex to have on the desktop.
Used to be worth it with a £2000 PC, and a £300 thin client, but when the thin client costs more than the PC, and you have to add in big servers, plus training, plus app support it gets a bit silly.
On the same topic, can someone please please please explain blade desktops in the datacentre as anything other than a blade manufacturer trying to shift tin?
I use this every day.
open Remote desktop connection (start - accessories - communications) built in to windows XP/vista. Type in the IP address (Or name) of the Pc/server you want to connect to, log in, and thats it.. Simple as - it then looks like you are sitting in front of a different PC!
Handy for us as all our servers are locked away in cages, in very cold rooms. Also good for assisting people in other buildings with problems.
(Although Remote assistance is better for that but that is probably another post!!)
open Remote desktop connection (start - accessories - communications) built in to windows XP/vista. Type in the IP address (Or name) of the Pc/server you want to connect to, log in, and thats it.. Simple as - it then looks like you are sitting in front of a different PC!
Handy for us as all our servers are locked away in cages, in very cold rooms. Also good for assisting people in other buildings with problems.
(Although Remote assistance is better for that but that is probably another post!!)
carrera2 said:
I wondering if this is the right tool for the job based on what you guys have said.
We have another office (only 4 users) that access our server here using TS - is that a sensible usage of it?
We have another office (only 4 users) that access our server here using TS - is that a sensible usage of it?
The most common use. It is fantastic in situations when you haven't got sufficient bandwidth for a fat client. Although designing company apps to work correctly on limited bandwidth is ultimately a better way forward if you've got the budget.
C2,
There are two sorts of Terminal Services - mcarrick69 uses it as a remote administration tool to connect to servers where the keyboard etc isnt right next to you, so its a great tool for that. That's free, can do up to 2 connections to a server, and works quite nicely for servers locked away (as long as you also have an iLO or similar connection for when it goes bang).
Your installation is designed to support desktop usage, and avoid the necessity of building 4 desktops on the remote site and configuring them to use filestore in your central office etc. This may be because there's no IT support in the remote office, and the IT guy in the central office knows Terminal Services and can diagnose/fix better that way, because you dont have the budget for other solutions, and this keeps everything on one box, or because you have either a very reliable connection or no uptime requirements at the far end.
Personal opinion is that Terminal Services dont scale well to low budget hardware, potentially offer worse value than normal desktops, and the solution is a LOT more difficult to cost justify to decentralised budget holders, and there are better ways of doing pretty much everything that TS can do, that allow greater flexibility for working practices, especially if the 4 poor sods on the other end are using DSL (with no SLAs) to connect as when the line goes pop, they stop being able to work. I can see the attraction from the IT departments viewpoint, but hey, that's because I'm a consultant, and have an uncanny ability to agree with everyone
There are two sorts of Terminal Services - mcarrick69 uses it as a remote administration tool to connect to servers where the keyboard etc isnt right next to you, so its a great tool for that. That's free, can do up to 2 connections to a server, and works quite nicely for servers locked away (as long as you also have an iLO or similar connection for when it goes bang).
Your installation is designed to support desktop usage, and avoid the necessity of building 4 desktops on the remote site and configuring them to use filestore in your central office etc. This may be because there's no IT support in the remote office, and the IT guy in the central office knows Terminal Services and can diagnose/fix better that way, because you dont have the budget for other solutions, and this keeps everything on one box, or because you have either a very reliable connection or no uptime requirements at the far end.
Personal opinion is that Terminal Services dont scale well to low budget hardware, potentially offer worse value than normal desktops, and the solution is a LOT more difficult to cost justify to decentralised budget holders, and there are better ways of doing pretty much everything that TS can do, that allow greater flexibility for working practices, especially if the 4 poor sods on the other end are using DSL (with no SLAs) to connect as when the line goes pop, they stop being able to work. I can see the attraction from the IT departments viewpoint, but hey, that's because I'm a consultant, and have an uncanny ability to agree with everyone
BliarOut said:
carrera2 said:
I wondering if this is the right tool for the job based on what you guys have said.
We have another office (only 4 users) that access our server here using TS - is that a sensible usage of it?
We have another office (only 4 users) that access our server here using TS - is that a sensible usage of it?
The most common use. It is fantastic in situations when you haven't got sufficient bandwidth for a fat client. Although designing company apps to work correctly on limited bandwidth is ultimately a better way forward if you've got the budget.
Oh ok - I'm having to put my trust in a small IT support company to tell me what's best here as I have no clue what possible alternatives there are. It's good to be able to double check. Ta.
There is a case for ease of app deployment and upgrades.
Generally easier to upgrade a few TS/Citrix/AP boxes that 500++ desktops...
Assuming the places doesnt have a decent desktop management policy.
There are pros and cons for both approaches, anyone that states that one way is wrong is just spouting their own opinion rather that understanding the specific client needs in any situation.
Generally easier to upgrade a few TS/Citrix/AP boxes that 500++ desktops...
Assuming the places doesnt have a decent desktop management policy.
There are pros and cons for both approaches, anyone that states that one way is wrong is just spouting their own opinion rather that understanding the specific client needs in any situation.
rich1231 said:
There is a case for ease of app deployment and upgrades.
Generally easier to upgrade a few TS/Citrix/AP boxes that 500++ desktops...
Assuming the places doesnt have a decent desktop management policy.
There are pros and cons for both approaches, anyone that states that one way is wrong is just spouting their own opinion rather that understanding the specific client needs in any situation.
Generally easier to upgrade a few TS/Citrix/AP boxes that 500++ desktops...
Assuming the places doesnt have a decent desktop management policy.
There are pros and cons for both approaches, anyone that states that one way is wrong is just spouting their own opinion rather that understanding the specific client needs in any situation.
It isnt that TC is wrong it is just a business model that is now coming on for ten years out of date.
If you are starting from scratch on a greenfield site then it can be a great way forward but for many it is to replace an already working environment. Having been involved in it from the very start I think, personally, its a dead duck trying to keep afloat.
Desktop management, software policy upgrades, hardware costs have dramatically improved/fallen over the past 7 years to a point where it is now cheaper to roll out 300 desktops than TC
TC does work well for remote satelite offices though and users on the road where they might only have access to dial up but with dsl available pretty much anywhere it kind of looses somewhat to that argument too. One place where TC really does shine above the traditional is where security matters.
I was involved with Citrix Metaframe service introduction into a certain well known Pharma (circa 150,000 seats worldwide) where it made and continues to make quantifiable cost savings due to the application publication functionality.
Never seen the point of serving an entire desktop and we've never done that but for individual apps that are configuration sensitive/don't "play" well with others or that have very serious/specific regulatory or compliance burden it's a god send.
However, it has to be said that is we move more and more to web architectures the need to provide the traditional "thick" or "heavy" client supporting infrastructures is diminishing and with it some of the drivers for TS.
Never seen the point of serving an entire desktop and we've never done that but for individual apps that are configuration sensitive/don't "play" well with others or that have very serious/specific regulatory or compliance burden it's a god send.
However, it has to be said that is we move more and more to web architectures the need to provide the traditional "thick" or "heavy" client supporting infrastructures is diminishing and with it some of the drivers for TS.
Stigmundfreud said:
c2 it would sound to me like the small IT company in question is flogging you their best mark up poduct.
Are they based in reading by any chance?
for 150,000 seat roll outs it does have benefits but we're not talking that size (btw did you work for vistorm?)
Are they based in reading by any chance?
for 150,000 seat roll outs it does have benefits but we're not talking that size (btw did you work for vistorm?)
For four remote users I would say it's a sensible deployment of RDP type technologies depending on what the remote users actually use it for of course.
BliarOut said:
Stigmundfreud said:
c2 it would sound to me like the small IT company in question is flogging you their best mark up poduct.
Are they based in reading by any chance?
for 150,000 seat roll outs it does have benefits but we're not talking that size (btw did you work for vistorm?)
Are they based in reading by any chance?
for 150,000 seat roll outs it does have benefits but we're not talking that size (btw did you work for vistorm?)
For four remote users I would say it's a sensible deployment of RDP type technologies depending on what the remote users actually use it for of course.
definitely and there it can reduced costs and compliations - also makes much more sense as data etc is stored/secured a the main branch raher than out on a limb
Gassing Station | Computers, Gadgets & Stuff | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff