Re: Looking for a Microsoft License expert to help...

[Tom Jedrzejewicz <tomjedrz@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 11/30/05, Roger Vicker, CCP <rv-lists@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Actually I want to replace the two routers with
> firewalls and VPN between the sites first so I can lock down the
> Terminal Services to strictly inside the network.

Sounds wise.  Lots of good, easy options to do this.

> >- I wouldn't be comfortable with a user remote controlling to the
> >server for day-to-day business.  Keep the server that is being
> >replaced, take off SQL and have the user to continue to remote control
> >to it instead of the new server.
> >
> Agreed and thought of that. The issue still remains if the remote site
> expands. When I looked at using regular Server 2003 and adding SQL the
> cost was so much higher than using SBS 2003 I even thought of putting a
> minimum to do the application PC local and having the remote use
> UltraVNC to control it. But there is a point where a server running
> Remote Desktops is cheaper than a bank of cheap PCs.

If expansion at the remote site is likely it is more important to get
the RAS off of the main server.  Using the replaced server for
terminal services you should be able to support several sessions at
the same time, although there may be licensing issues.

> >- there is a lot of other stuff available with SBS, including an
> >Active Directory domain, Exchange email, ISA for firewall, web proxy
> >and internet access control, and IIS to serve an internal or external
> >web site.
> >
> All of which they don't need. Can't hurt to have. Well actually the last
> 2003 SP caused another system to go soooo slooow because it had Exchange
> running (by Microsloth's default) even though they didn't use it.

One of my thoughts is that there may be more options available to
solve the problems.  ISA might be able to proxy the application and
then it could run remotely.  Perhaps ISA could secure the connection
between locations.  Perhaps the application has a web interface that
could be run on IIS.

As to Exchange left running by default .. that is the installer's
fault, not Microsoft.  SBS is sold as an easy, all-in-one solution, so
having the standard services all running by default is how it should
work.  Whoever installed it kept pressing Next rather than reading the
screens, even though they wanted a non-standard installation.

Good luck!

--
Tom Jedrzejewicz
tomjedrz@xxxxxxxxx