Windows Server 2003 terminal server Vs. remote desktop

Tech Tip: Click here to run a free scan for Windows Errors and optimize PC performance

From: Duane (nothanks_at_aol.com)
Date: 02/18/05 

Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 18:37:37 -0800

I will be setting up my SBS 2003 server in the near future and the data
*** for the primary software application that I will be using in my
business is requesting that I use a Windows server 2003 terminal server for
remote connectivity. It seems to me that my remote connectivity needs could
be met with either Remote Desktop or VPN and that a dedicated terminal
server would be an unnecessary cost (and possibly security risk?).

The application that I will be using is a management program for my dental
practice that keeps track of patient information, scheduling, charting, etc.
with a SQL server 2000 database.

Remote connectivity would be used for two purposes. One, if I wanted to
check my schedule from home or elsewhere. It seems Remote Desktop would be
adequate for that. Two, if I have a satellite office and wanted the
computers in the satellite office to have access to the server in my primary
office. It seems that VPN would be adequate for that scenario.

What advantages would using a terminal server provide that I couldn't
accomplish with RD or VPN?

(btw, the software/hardware requirements can be viewed at
http://dolphinimaging.com/new_site/management_requirements.pdf).

-----------
Dave

Quantcast