Decision time....Citrix or just Terminal Services?

[multiband8303]

Migrating over from SBS2k3 going to a "true" forest perhaps, (3 seperate boxes, our DC, Exchange Server, might be 07, and a TS box)

Anyways - about 50 users, thinking about going citrix perhaps (for client created devices, which I know TS can do, but also ease of management) what are some valid points or good questions to bring up of which way we should go?

 

[PELarson]

Originally posted by: multiband8303
Migrating over from SBS2k3 going to a "true" forest perhaps, (3 seperate boxes, our DC, Exchange Server, might be 07, and a TS box)

Anyways - about 50 users, thinking about going citrix perhaps (for client created devices, which I know TS can do, but also ease of management) what are some valid points or good questions to bring up of which way we should go?

As you no doubt know Citrix is a addon to TS not a seperate package so at a minimum I would initially test using just TS. I would try and determine what applications you need to install on the server and whether they would benefit from the added layer of Citrix. Printer compatablity is supposed to be better in the newest version of Citrix verses TS so evaluating the users printing needs and the printers they have, assuming they are connecting from home/outside, would be a sensible step.

 

[multiband8303]

yes I understand Citrix is an addon, but I'm trying to find out some good questions to ask to determine of which step we should take.

Amount of remote users, printing, etc, applications. Amount of simultaneous users

 

[cross6]

Citrix sits on top of TS, it adds nothing to the management really. I run citrix and TS servers here. You only need citrix if you need some of the features it has to offer. Which with the newer RDP protocol in server 2003, it doesn't add much.


# of users is a moot point, citrix won't help your performance.

 

[cross6]

Originally posted by: PELarson

Originally posted by: multiband8303
Migrating over from SBS2k3 going to a "true" forest perhaps, (3 seperate boxes, our DC, Exchange Server, might be 07, and a TS box)

Anyways - about 50 users, thinking about going citrix perhaps (for client created devices, which I know TS can do, but also ease of management) what are some valid points or good questions to bring up of which way we should go?

As you no doubt know Citrix is a addon to TS not a seperate package so at a minimum I would initially test using just TS. I would try and determine what applications you need to install on the server and whether they would benefit from the added layer of Citrix. Printer compatablity is supposed to be better in the newest version of Citrix verses TS so evaluating the users printing needs and the printers they have, assuming they are connecting from home/outside, would be a sensible step.

IMHO Citrix only adds more printer driver/spooler problems. Especially with HP drivers...ugh.


If you need better printer support, I would go with thinprint and not bother adding another layer with citrix. http://www.thinprint.com/

Basically the terminal server users use thin print to render regardless of the printer, then the thinprint engine renders it for the printer.

 

[dphantom]

First, I don't think you should consider number of users as a factor. Rather, identify those features/functions you need to use in a terminal server environment regardless of whether it is pure TS or Citrix.

Below are some considerations to use Citrix if you need any or all of the below.

Application Publishing
Seamless Windows
Intelligent Load Balancing
SSL Gateway / Proxy
Intelligent Web Interface
Smart Access
Workspace Control

Citrix does the above, TS does not or at least not well.

If you will not use any of the above, then a pure TS environent will meet your needs especially with the new RDP client. For printing, I would recommend a third party solution. Printing is often an issue in a TS/Citrix environment.

I have found HP printers to be easiest to manage especially if the admin of the Citrix or TS farm knows what they are doing. Otherwise, printing can be difficult for those with little or no experience in a Citrix or TS environment.

 

[RebateMonger]

An interesting approach that's being used in the SBS 2003 world is to install Virtual Server on an SBS box, and then install as many copies of XP as you need. Each "virtual XP" can be set up as a Domain member, with GPOs, etc. Using XP also avoids the TS licensing process and its "messiness", you can buy single copies of XP, and the price is about the same as a TS license.

I haven't purchased Citrix before, but from what I could see, it has some nice extra features beyond TS, and is about the same price as purchasing MS Terminal Server licenses. Citrix provides the TS licenses, so no need for a separate purchase.

 

[cross6]

Originally posted by: RebateMonger
An interesting approach that's being used in the SBS 2003 world is to install Virtual Server on an SBS box, and then install as many copies of XP as you need. Each "virtual XP" can be set up as a Domain member, with GPOs, etc. Using XP also avoids the TS licensing process and its "messiness", you can buy single copies of XP, and the price is about the same as a TS license.

I haven't purchased Citrix before, but from what I could see, it has some nice extra features beyond TS, and is about the same price as purchasing MS Terminal Server licenses. Citrix provides the TS licenses, so no need for a separate purchase.

That's incorrect. We need a TScal + Citrix Cal for each citrix user.


The XP machines actually works really well. I run VMWARE server and have about 10 virtual xp machines running for our remote branch managers. They connect to them via rdp using wyse thin clients. High color, sound, usb, local printers, it's just like they have a pc, but the bandwidth from our database apps stays local.

 

[RebateMonger]

Originally posted by: cross6
That's incorrect. We need a TScal + Citrix Cal for each citrix user.

Hmmm....that's not what the Citrix rep told me. But a UseNet search shows that you DO need to get TS licenses, in addition to the Citrix licenses. Are there different Citrix TS-like products that might have different licensing rules? The Citrix guy seemed pretty definite about this.

 

[cross6]

Originally posted by: RebateMonger

Originally posted by: cross6
That's incorrect. We need a TScal + Citrix Cal for each citrix user.

Hmmm....that's not what the Citrix rep told me. Are there different Citrix TS-like products that might have different licensing rules?

We are running metaframe XP, maybe presentation server is different. I dunno.

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: cross6

Originally posted by: RebateMonger

Originally posted by: cross6
That's incorrect. We need a TScal + Citrix Cal for each citrix user.

Hmmm....that's not what the Citrix rep told me. Are there different Citrix TS-like products that might have different licensing rules?

We are running metaframe XP, maybe presentation server is different. I dunno.

MS licensing changed with Windows 2003 and XP. USed to be TS CALs were "built in" (free actually) to Windows 2000 PCs. So you did not need a separate CAL for those PCs running Windows 2000 accessing a Windows 2000 TS server.

But MS in its wisdom decided it needed more revenue so the change with Windows 2003 server no longer recognizes the built-in CAL and you now have to buy the TS CAL separately.

TS CALs explained

 

[cross6]

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: cross6

Originally posted by: RebateMonger

Originally posted by: cross6
That's incorrect. We need a TScal + Citrix Cal for each citrix user.

Hmmm....that's not what the Citrix rep told me. Are there different Citrix TS-like products that might have different licensing rules?

We are running metaframe XP, maybe presentation server is different. I dunno.

MS licensing changed with Windows 2003 and XP. USed to be TS CALs were "built in" (free actually) to Windows 2000 PCs. So you did not need a separate CAL for those PCs running Windows 2000 accessing a Windows 2000 TS server.

But MS in its wisdom decided it needed more revenue so the change with Windows 2003 server no longer recognizes the built-in CAL and you now have to buy the TS CAL separately.

TS CALs explained

Yeah, but I don't think that's the case here. He's not using win2k.

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: cross6

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: cross6

Originally posted by: RebateMonger

Originally posted by: cross6
That's incorrect. We need a TScal + Citrix Cal for each citrix user.

Hmmm....that's not what the Citrix rep told me. Are there different Citrix TS-like products that might have different licensing rules?

We are running metaframe XP, maybe presentation server is different. I dunno.

MS licensing changed with Windows 2003 and XP. USed to be TS CALs were "built in" (free actually) to Windows 2000 PCs. So you did not need a separate CAL for those PCs running Windows 2000 accessing a Windows 2000 TS server.

But MS in its wisdom decided it needed more revenue so the change with Windows 2003 server no longer recognizes the built-in CAL and you now have to buy the TS CAL separately.

TS CALs explained

Yeah, but I don't think that's the case here. He's not using win2k.

I was answering rebatemonger, not the OP. The OP will be using Windows 2003 if he moves off SBS. There was misunderstanding on whether CALs were needed or not.

rebatemonger's Citrix rep said they are not needed, but in fact they are with Windows 2003. That is what I was correcting.

 

[cross6]

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: cross6

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: cross6

Originally posted by: RebateMonger

Originally posted by: cross6
That's incorrect. We need a TScal + Citrix Cal for each citrix user.

Hmmm....that's not what the Citrix rep told me. Are there different Citrix TS-like products that might have different licensing rules?

We are running metaframe XP, maybe presentation server is different. I dunno.

MS licensing changed with Windows 2003 and XP. USed to be TS CALs were "built in" (free actually) to Windows 2000 PCs. So you did not need a separate CAL for those PCs running Windows 2000 accessing a Windows 2000 TS server.

But MS in its wisdom decided it needed more revenue so the change with Windows 2003 server no longer recognizes the built-in CAL and you now have to buy the TS CAL separately.

TS CALs explained

Yeah, but I don't think that's the case here. He's not using win2k.

I was answering rebatemonger, not the OP. The OP will be using Windows 2003 if he moves off SBS. There was misunderstanding on whether CALs were needed or not.

rebatemonger's Citrix rep said they are not needed, but in fact they are with Windows 2003. That is what I was correcting.

You realize CALS and TSCALS are two different things. But yes they are needed.

 

[stash]

But MS in its wisdom decided it needed more revenue so the change with Windows 2003 server no longer recognizes the built-in CAL and you now have to buy the TS CAL separately

It should be pointed out that 2000 and XP clients (not sure about Vista) that connect to a 2000 terminal server will still work as before. The 2003 TS licensing server works with both 2000 and 2003 terminal servers, and contains the built in TSCALs for clients connecting to 2000 terminal servers.

No client comes with a TSCAL, which is a common misconception.