[BULK] More Remote Access Questions & Citrix Vs

You need to load the drivers for her home computer on your terminal
server. Just add the printer and delete.


From: vantage@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of Brian Stenglein
Sent: Friday, November 17, 2006 5:42 AM
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [BULK] [Vantage] Re: More Remote Access Questions & Citrix Vs.
Importance: Low

Since there is a nice lively discussion on TS I'm going to pose a

Our Treasurer is out on medical leave and we set her up with a laptop
at home with a terminal server connection which gets her to
everything she wants to see. She is unable to print what she see's
in TS to her local printer, for obvious reasons. We have Windows
Server 2000 on our Terminal Server. I've been told it is easy to fix
with Windows Server 2003. Does anyone know if it is possible with


Brian Stenglein
Clow Stamping Co.

--- In vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> ,
"Todd Hofert" <todd@...> wrote:
> Todd,
> If I understand what you are saying, there is nothing being said
> cannot be done over Terminal Services. I have no problem with
> I map shares via log in script and I can remotely control user
> sessions(I cannot access the desktop of the remote PC, however I
can do
> this via remote desktop or via a webex session). I read a lot
of 'flack'
> toward TS on this list, but personally, it works very well for us
and I
> rarely have to pay any attention to supporting that environment. The
> only cost is the TS CALs. I pay about $75.00 each for packs of 10,
> it sounds like they want you to buy anyway.
> Todd
> From: vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> ] On
> Of Todd Caughey
> Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2006 12:33 PM
> To: Vantage@...
> Subject: [Vantage] More Remote Access Questions & Citrix Vs. TS
> Having just reviewed the threads last June about Citrix versus
> Terminal Services I have a few more questions...
> Background: We've expanded our "need" for remote access (which has
> been set up yet) beyond one small office using Vantage to be 15-20
> people using maybe 5 connections at one time (with more later) and
> running a variety of applications (Vantage, Access, Outlook, CRM,
> network shares, etc...). Most of these would be from home using
> broadband (cable or DSL) but perhaps two connections would be from a
> small remote operation. Later we might have 3-4 connections from
> Most immediately need is for our sales people and our exec staff to
> access from at home.
> I have put this out for a proposal from our local consultants who
> done a lot of work for us over the past few years and they are
> a Citrix setup. At first it was a small business version with
5 "named"
> users and had Windows TS CALs built in. But in order to allow
growth the
> proposal has switched to 5 Citrix "shareable" connections and TS 15
> CALs. Their pitch for Citrix has been enhanced printer support,
> mapping network shares on remote PC and allowing shadowed control of
> remote sessions (for support). But since this also is requiring all
> components of Windows 2003 Server TS it leaves me wondering "why
> with Citrix?"
> What does Citrix add to the equation that makes it worh the extra
> for 5 users? Since 2003 Server does anyone use Citrix anymore? Are
> any advantages in one over the other for Vantage 8.0? I know from
> previous thread there are a lot of people running just TS for
Vantage at
> remote sites but if you had to run other applications or support
> users (or travelers at hotels) would Citrix be beneficial? Some how
I am
> getting the feeling I am being over sold.
> Thanks,
> Todd Caughey
> Harvey Vogel Mfg. Co.
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and
> information. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify
> sender immediately by return e-mail, delete this e-mail and destroy
> copies. Any dissemination or use of this information by a person
> than the intended recipient is unauthorized and may be illegal.
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]