Re: Deciding weather to go for terminal server?

Thanks,
we are upgrading RAM to 512 on all computers and bought a spare core 2
duo - 1.8 ghz - 2gb ram as workgroup computer to run as server.
we will see how it goes first.


Josh Rosenberg [MSFT] wrote:
Upgrading the RAM from 256 MB to 1 GB will make huge difference,
particularly if you are in the habit of multi-tasking. While XP will run
just fine on 256 MB of RAM, running too many memory intensive applications
(Word, Outlook, a user's personal nifty looking desktop theme, etc.) quickly
chews through 256 MB. At 1 GB, most common workstation tasks will speed up
and have an increased responsiveness due to a reduced reliance on the page
file. Even an upgrade from 256 to 512 MB should produce a significant gain;
1 GB helps future proof the machines.

As far as performance goes, XP Home and XP Pro should have nearly identical
performance characteristics; XP Pro adds some extra functionality but it
shares the same kernel.

Terminal Services will still help out by off-loading some work to the
central server, centralizing user information and reducing technical support
costs, reducing your total cost of ownership all around.

As such, I agree with your hybrid approach of widening the top bottleneck
(RAM) and going for a central Terminal Server.

If you have any other questions, please let me know.

Josh Rosenberg [MSFT]
SDE - Terminal Services


"Mike" <darshakusa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1165336404.979295.142470@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Corrado:
Thanks for your reply. after researching little bit, v have decided to
do the same. get a spare computer with 2gb ram as server with xp pro
and upgrade rest to 1gb. but question still remains as to what extend
it will increase speed? as this is still work group v/s running 2003
server and maybe xp pro as work stations? is there any big difference?
v will first see with workgroup and still if there are speed issues, v
can go for 2003 server and i guess might have to upgrade workstations
to xp pro?
one question though, if v don't have any user security issue, and
incase v go for 2003 server - work station scenario, does xp home v/s
pro makes any difference in speed?
Let me know,
Thanks,
Mike.

Corrado Labinaz wrote:
As a rule of thumb, I dont like the "buy a terminal server to avoid
upgrading PC" approach.

Yes, you can save some money, but you still have your old PC.

You'll get the perfomance gain only for applications running on the
server,
and there are applications you are not going to run there, like:
- applications which "move away" with your notebook
- applications with specific hardware requirement (hardware key, high end
graphic cards)
- application to interface hardware (palmtops, cameras, scanners)
- that new application you are testing / evaluating

I also dont think you would use a terminal client to browse the internet
or
check you email.

Last but not least, why did you need to upgrade to XP Pro?
Despite I would suggest you to do it and migrate to a small domain, it
seems
not a requirement.
If it already works with Home Edition, just add some RAM and /or replace
the
oldest PCs.

Kind regards,
Corrado


"Mike" <darshakusa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1164732899.226597.172770@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Hello everyone:
we are a small company with 15 users/ desktops - one p3 and rest p4 2.2

- all with 256 mb ram and 40/80 gb hdd - single location - on a
workgroup with one xp pro and rest xp home machines. v were ok till we
upgrade our accounting software to peachtree quantum 2007 which is our
main application which has runtime sql server database. new peachtree
slows down our system to a good extent but still works :)
we have been adviced to go for new server with 4 gb ram and raid 5 with

3 hard disk - install windows 2003 and terminal server - so that v just

have to buy terminal server licenses for users and not to invest in
upgrading from xp home to pro and 256 mb ram to 512 or a gig on all pc.

our main concern is we need to know the experience of someone with
similar setup and also how much difference it will make in speed and
maintenance? are there any technical issues?
we thank you in advance for your feedback.
Mike.



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Linux or BSD alternative to Windows Home Server
    ... but RAM is a limiting factor for a lot of systems. ... upgrade: possibility to upgrade to numerous HD, multiple CPUs, ... The biggest problem with backups is that the backup media size is now ... would be possible if restoring the server from absolute scratch. ...
    (comp.os.linux.misc)
  • Re: Deciding weather to go for terminal server?
    ... Upgrading the RAM from 256 MB to 1 GB will make huge difference, ... Even an upgrade from 256 to 512 MB should produce a significant gain; ... XP Home and XP Pro should have nearly identical ... and going for a central Terminal Server. ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.terminal_services)
  • Re: Windows 2000 server with 4gb ram and Exchange 2000 server
    ... This problems was not around before the RAM upgrade. ... All machines are fully Service packed up and are Running Windows XP. ... I have a Windows 2000 Server which has just been upgraded to 4gb, ...
    (microsoft.public.exchange.admin)
  • Re: x64 bit version of MCE 2006?
    ... and run server on it, or take a dell 4-way and run Pro on it. ... Microsoft could focus on testing 1,001 different upgrade scenarios, or add ... >> path than Windows 9X to XP - which is quite possibly the most complicated ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.mediacenter)
  • Re: Deciding which way to go - terminal server or client/server??
    ... workgroup with one xp pro and rest xp home machines. ... main application which has runtime sql server database. ... services, but for the licenses and the cost of the server upgrade, it may be ... It is FREE and requires NO ISP's Usenet account. ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.networking)