We are running 30 users connecting remotely to a Windows 2000 Server Terminal Server to run Navision. We were able to map TCP / IP Printers and we have also used TriCerat Screw Drivers which allows users to see their locally installed printers, and TriCerat Desktop 2001 for security. We have not had any issues that would compel us to move to Citrix. We are considering upgrading to Win 2k Advanced Server, because as I understand, Adv Server will give you load balancing for MTS.
TS is usually more than adequate for people using thin clients on a LAN, or WAN when using the TS Session as their shell, but when you have people wanting to run specific apps that are installed on the TS from their PC, Mac, Linux machine then Citrix is the way to go. A lot of you are comparing TS & Citrix like they’re competing partners, when Citrix MetaFrame is simply a value add-on for Terminal Services. The way to decide which to go with is to say “What do I need to do?”, will Windows Server 2003, Terminal Server do what I need, if not look at different add-on products, one of which is Citrix MetaFrame. Citrix is obviously more expensive to run than TS alone, since to run Citrix you have to also buy licenses for TS, Citrix requires TS.
And don’t forget shadowing…
quote:
And don’t forget shadowing…
Which works fine on both citrix and WTS[;)]
I did not know that Terminal server supported shadowing, please let me know how.
Start->Administrative Tools->Terminal Services Manager->Right click user->Remote Control
Thanks, I’ll try it tomorrow.
Citrix Metaframe XP is your better solution for remote users if they are going to be connected through dial-up connections. ICA client is optimized for low band connections. Citrix is much better but you have to pay it.
I agree with Fernando, once the bandwidth drops, Citrix is the only option. By the way did we have a consensus here, or is it still Citrix:Metaframe 50:50 (Price vs Functionality). My vote is still for Citrix.
I have found that with two citrix Metaframe XP servers on a farm running over frame relay to be unbearably slow, has any one had issues with poor performances with link speed or even to a point when the ICA client clicks or types something they don’t even see the effects until a couple of minutes afterwards? When we use it locally on 100Mbps Cat5 cable through a switch it doesn’t appear to have any issues. Our remote users run on the two servers fine in the morning, but when the local users get on in the morning, the remote users suffers from the performance. Some information is listed for your viewing: WAN link: 128KB Frame Relay from site 1 → site 2 → site 3 10/100Mbps switches internally on all sites Windows 2000 Terminal servers on both servers Two identitical servers with Citrix Metaframe XP 3 Gb of RAM plenty of harddrive space Dual Xeon 2.4Ghz processors on both machines Clients are all Windows 2000/XP Wierd that the transactions are done on the ICA client so no reason for a slow response time due to latency of packets arriving back to the clients perhaps? Any feedback is welcome. Regards, Yoong Luu
Remote Control is not shadowing. This has been available for some time, however it will log off the original login if they are not the same user as the one connecting remotely. I use it here a lot, you must first set up the client machine to allow users to connect remotely and then specify who the users are. It is a useful tool, but is not the same as shadowing a Citrix client.
I think You are tallking about WinXP John. In W2k with Terminal Services it is possible to shadow users just as You do with Citrix. We do it all the time and it’s no problem.
Yeah, sorry about that Lars. You are correct, it had just been a while since I even looked at the TS client options. Since we run Citrix on top of TS, I seldom have a need to do any TS admin work.