Putting SBS 2003 Terminal Server in application mode?!

Hi,

Allthough Microsoft says application mode has been removed from SBS
2003 Terminal Services I read something on

http://www.bagsolutions.orcon.net.nz

Does this work, has anyone got experiences (or other solutions) with
putting SBS 2003 TS in application mode?


Thanks, Bas.

Jim
Wed Dec 10 04:29:52 CST 2003

It is not a SBS design thing but a Server 2003 security and stability
design.

Bas <Bas@[RemoveThis]Bestdeals.info> wrote:

>Hi,
>
>Allthough Microsoft says application mode has been removed from SBS
>2003 Terminal Services I read something on
>
> http://www.bagsolutions.orcon.net.nz
>
>Does this work, has anyone got experiences (or other solutions) with
>putting SBS 2003 TS in application mode?
>
>
>Thanks, Bas.

Jim B. SBS MVP
remove the mvp to send email

Mal
Wed Dec 10 08:57:05 CST 2003

It would probably work, but I would advise against it. The best solution
really is to have a second server set up as a dedicated terminal server.
Running a busy server as a TS box has never been a good idea, & SBS is busy.

Mal Osborne
MCSE MVP Mensa

"Bas" <Bas@[RemoveThis]Bestdeals.info> wrote in message
news:br6qml$o2h$1@reader11.wxs.nl...
> Hi,
>
> Allthough Microsoft says application mode has been removed from SBS
> 2003 Terminal Services I read something on
>
> http://www.bagsolutions.orcon.net.nz
>
> Does this work, has anyone got experiences (or other solutions) with
> putting SBS 2003 TS in application mode?
>
>
> Thanks, Bas.
>

Cris
Wed Dec 10 11:34:39 CST 2003

And just to add to what my fellow MVPs have already said...if you did do it,
you would be configured in an unsupported mode and likely not to get too
much support from Microsoft if you required it.

--
Cris Hanna [SBS-MVP]
-------------------------
Please do not directly to me but rather reply to the newsgroup so that all
may benefit from the information.
"Bas" <Bas@[RemoveThis]Bestdeals.info> wrote in message
news:br6qml$o2h$1@reader11.wxs.nl...
> Hi,
>
> Allthough Microsoft says application mode has been removed from SBS
> 2003 Terminal Services I read something on
>
> http://www.bagsolutions.orcon.net.nz
>
> Does this work, has anyone got experiences (or other solutions) with
> putting SBS 2003 TS in application mode?
>
>
> Thanks, Bas.
>

Mark
Wed Dec 10 12:29:35 CST 2003

The ONLY reason MS removed it was b/c TS does tax a server, not b/c it will
not work.,.....look at SBS2000. Now, if you have a half dozen users TSing
in and a beefy server.....no big deal. 30 users on an SBS box is another
issue. MS threw in remote desktop to the workstations to shut people up but
this is a valid workaround provided you respect the overhead.

--
Sincerely,
Mark Mancini, CCA, CCNA, Master CIW&CI, CNE 4&5, MCSE+I 4&2000
www.MCSE2000.com
www.AppLauncher.com



"Bas" <Bas@[RemoveThis]Bestdeals.info> wrote in message
news:br6qml$o2h$1@reader11.wxs.nl...
> Hi,
>
> Allthough Microsoft says application mode has been removed from SBS
> 2003 Terminal Services I read something on
>
> http://www.bagsolutions.orcon.net.nz
>
> Does this work, has anyone got experiences (or other solutions) with
> putting SBS 2003 TS in application mode?
>
>
> Thanks, Bas.
>

Per
Wed Dec 10 12:43:42 CST 2003


"Bas" <Bas@[RemoveThis]Bestdeals.info> skrev i melding
news:br6qml$o2h$1@reader11.wxs.nl...
> Hi,
>
> Allthough Microsoft says application mode has been removed from SBS
> 2003 Terminal Services I read something on
>
> http://www.bagsolutions.orcon.net.nz
>
> Does this work, has anyone got experiences (or other solutions) with
> putting SBS 2003 TS in application mode?
>
>

Thanks, i will also try this. The limitation is the most stupid thing MS
ever have done. The SBS is for a small firm and with 5-25 in the office and
maybe 2-10 in the field (max 2-3 at the same time) the server dont have any
problem. But i see the security issue, but why in the hell is there TS in
SBS2000? is the security better in SBS2000? I think they want more mony,
becuse the SBS2003 cost a lot less than SBS2000 they want to get the mony on
other things. If this thing works i can say to my customer that they can
upgrade from SBS2000 to SBS2003, if it dont work, they dont upgrade becuse
WHY in the fuck should i samll business have more than one -1- server? and
with a small number of employes the security issue is not a big problem. One
more qustion, some here said "30 users on an SBS box is another issue", why
is that a issue? if there are more than 10-15 TS users at the same time,
they proberly even dont run a SBS server.

/Per W

Susan
Wed Dec 10 14:00:16 CST 2003

Because dear sir, SBS2000 was build BEFORE the Security push. That was
back in the days that we put in stuff without thought to Security. Code
Red/Nimda and all that was AFTER SBS2k was released.

And please, watch the 4 letter words. This is a family community out
here. Use #$%$ but not the actual words okay?

Typically at about 35 to 40 users you really should be looking to a
member server to offload file and printing.

Again, we ASKED, we DEMANDED security. Doing TS on a domain controller
is like sitting someone down on that server and using it as a
workstation. Now you are wacking security right back out.

Don't complain about Microsoft's security when you are chosing insecurity.

Susan

Per W. wrote:
> "Bas" <Bas@[RemoveThis]Bestdeals.info> skrev i melding
> news:br6qml$o2h$1@reader11.wxs.nl...
>
>>Hi,
>>
>>Allthough Microsoft says application mode has been removed from SBS
>>2003 Terminal Services I read something on
>>
>> http://www.bagsolutions.orcon.net.nz
>>
>>Does this work, has anyone got experiences (or other solutions) with
>>putting SBS 2003 TS in application mode?
>>
>>
>
>
> Thanks, i will also try this. The limitation is the most stupid thing MS
> ever have done. The SBS is for a small firm and with 5-25 in the office and
> maybe 2-10 in the field (max 2-3 at the same time) the server dont have any
> problem. But i see the security issue, but why in the hell is there TS in
> SBS2000? is the security better in SBS2000? I think they want more mony,
> becuse the SBS2003 cost a lot less than SBS2000 they want to get the mony on
> other things. If this thing works i can say to my customer that they can
> upgrade from SBS2000 to SBS2003, if it dont work, they dont upgrade becuse
> WHY in the fuck should i samll business have more than one -1- server? and
> with a small number of employes the security issue is not a big problem. One
> more qustion, some here said "30 users on an SBS box is another issue", why
> is that a issue? if there are more than 10-15 TS users at the same time,
> they proberly even dont run a SBS server.
>
> /Per W
>
>

--
http://www.sbslinks.com/really.htm

Per
Wed Dec 10 14:33:55 CST 2003


"Susan Bradley, CPA aka Ebitz - SBS Rocks [MVP]" <sbradcpa@pacbell.net>
skrev i melding news:eHInxi1vDHA.2000@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Because dear sir, SBS2000 was build BEFORE the Security push. That was
> back in the days that we put in stuff without thought to Security. Code
> Red/Nimda and all that was AFTER SBS2k was released.

There is firewall, NAT and antivirus software that take care of that.

> And please, watch the 4 letter words. This is a family community out
> here. Use #$%$ but not the actual words okay?

Okey :-)

> Typically at about 35 to 40 users you really should be looking to a
> member server to offload file and printing.

And in Norway where i work, ther is a lot of "1-15 users" business and the
SBS2000 and 2003 is a great product. So that is not the problem. But why
dont make a small business for maximum 15 users and the posibility to run
TS? Everyone is aware off the problem when there is a lot of users on a TS
and that its demand a lot of CPU and RAM etc.

> Again, we ASKED, we DEMANDED security. Doing TS on a domain controller
> is like sitting someone down on that server and using it as a
> workstation. Now you are wacking security right back out.

But if you have a standard 2003server with AD, you cant run TS?
The security is also a internal learningprossess of the staff. And when its
about Code Red/Nimda MSBlast etc. a good firewall and/or NAT is a great
thing to stop that, and most of the small firms use a router with NAT and a
standalone VPN 'box' so the security is good.

> Don't complain about Microsoft's security when you are chosing insecurity.

If you now what you are doing, and implements good rutins with the pepole
that use the network, the security is not a problem. None off my
installations are ever been 'hacked' by some from the outside. The only time
there has been anything is when someone has used a home computer or
something with viruses or backdoor in the office, but that you can never be
100% protected from.
So dont be hysteric, use your good sense and most thing works fine.

> Susan
>
> Per W. wrote:
> > "Bas" <Bas@[RemoveThis]Bestdeals.info> skrev i melding
> > news:br6qml$o2h$1@reader11.wxs.nl...
> >
> >>Hi,
> >>
> >>Allthough Microsoft says application mode has been removed from SBS
> >>2003 Terminal Services I read something on
> >>
> >> http://www.bagsolutions.orcon.net.nz
> >>
> >>Does this work, has anyone got experiences (or other solutions) with
> >>putting SBS 2003 TS in application mode?
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > Thanks, i will also try this. The limitation is the most stupid thing MS
> > ever have done. The SBS is for a small firm and with 5-25 in the office
and
> > maybe 2-10 in the field (max 2-3 at the same time) the server dont have
any
> > problem. But i see the security issue, but why in the hell is there TS
in
> > SBS2000? is the security better in SBS2000? I think they want more mony,
> > becuse the SBS2003 cost a lot less than SBS2000 they want to get the
mony on
> > other things. If this thing works i can say to my customer that they can
> > upgrade from SBS2000 to SBS2003, if it dont work, they dont upgrade
becuse
> > WHY in the fuck should i samll business have more than one -1- server?
and
> > with a small number of employes the security issue is not a big problem.
One
> > more qustion, some here said "30 users on an SBS box is another issue",
why
> > is that a issue? if there are more than 10-15 TS users at the same time,
> > they proberly even dont run a SBS server.
> >
> > /Per W
> >
> >
>
> --
> http://www.sbslinks.com/really.htm
>

Mark
Wed Dec 10 16:01:33 CST 2003

EXACTLY! I fyou need a handful of users to remote in and they don't have a
machine on the network then TS is your only solution. A server and $1000
license for 5 people is a bunch of #@$% so I am glad this workaround was
made public. I've been TSing on SBS and single server boxes for several
years without issues and now M$ is going to tell me I can't?!?! It's not
secure enough?!?! I'll decide.

--
Sincerely,
Mark Mancini, CCA, CCNA, Master CIW&CI, CNE 4&5, MCSE+I 4&2000
www.MCSE2000.com
www.AppLauncher.com



"Per W." <pwbuf@tiscali.no> wrote in message
news:ysLBb.57043$jf4.3241400@news000.worldonline.dk...
>
> "Susan Bradley, CPA aka Ebitz - SBS Rocks [MVP]" <sbradcpa@pacbell.net>
> skrev i melding news:eHInxi1vDHA.2000@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> > Because dear sir, SBS2000 was build BEFORE the Security push. That was
> > back in the days that we put in stuff without thought to Security. Code
> > Red/Nimda and all that was AFTER SBS2k was released.
>
> There is firewall, NAT and antivirus software that take care of that.
>
> > And please, watch the 4 letter words. This is a family community out
> > here. Use #$%$ but not the actual words okay?
>
> Okey :-)
>
> > Typically at about 35 to 40 users you really should be looking to a
> > member server to offload file and printing.
>
> And in Norway where i work, ther is a lot of "1-15 users" business and the
> SBS2000 and 2003 is a great product. So that is not the problem. But why
> dont make a small business for maximum 15 users and the posibility to run
> TS? Everyone is aware off the problem when there is a lot of users on a TS
> and that its demand a lot of CPU and RAM etc.
>
> > Again, we ASKED, we DEMANDED security. Doing TS on a domain controller
> > is like sitting someone down on that server and using it as a
> > workstation. Now you are wacking security right back out.
>
> But if you have a standard 2003server with AD, you cant run TS?
> The security is also a internal learningprossess of the staff. And when
its
> about Code Red/Nimda MSBlast etc. a good firewall and/or NAT is a great
> thing to stop that, and most of the small firms use a router with NAT and
a
> standalone VPN 'box' so the security is good.
>
> > Don't complain about Microsoft's security when you are chosing
insecurity.
>
> If you now what you are doing, and implements good rutins with the pepole
> that use the network, the security is not a problem. None off my
> installations are ever been 'hacked' by some from the outside. The only
time
> there has been anything is when someone has used a home computer or
> something with viruses or backdoor in the office, but that you can never
be
> 100% protected from.
> So dont be hysteric, use your good sense and most thing works fine.
>
> > Susan
> >
> > Per W. wrote:
> > > "Bas" <Bas@[RemoveThis]Bestdeals.info> skrev i melding
> > > news:br6qml$o2h$1@reader11.wxs.nl...
> > >
> > >>Hi,
> > >>
> > >>Allthough Microsoft says application mode has been removed from SBS
> > >>2003 Terminal Services I read something on
> > >>
> > >> http://www.bagsolutions.orcon.net.nz
> > >>
> > >>Does this work, has anyone got experiences (or other solutions) with
> > >>putting SBS 2003 TS in application mode?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks, i will also try this. The limitation is the most stupid thing
MS
> > > ever have done. The SBS is for a small firm and with 5-25 in the
office
> and
> > > maybe 2-10 in the field (max 2-3 at the same time) the server dont
have
> any
> > > problem. But i see the security issue, but why in the hell is there TS
> in
> > > SBS2000? is the security better in SBS2000? I think they want more
mony,
> > > becuse the SBS2003 cost a lot less than SBS2000 they want to get the
> mony on
> > > other things. If this thing works i can say to my customer that they
can
> > > upgrade from SBS2000 to SBS2003, if it dont work, they dont upgrade
> becuse
> > > WHY in the fuck should i samll business have more than one -1- server?
> and
> > > with a small number of employes the security issue is not a big
problem.
> One
> > > more qustion, some here said "30 users on an SBS box is another
issue",
> why
> > > is that a issue? if there are more than 10-15 TS users at the same
time,
> > > they proberly even dont run a SBS server.
> > >
> > > /Per W
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > http://www.sbslinks.com/really.htm
> >
>
>

Susan
Wed Dec 10 19:56:18 CST 2003

I would never allow someone to use the server as a workstation.

Thus I would never support doing TS in app mode on my domain controller
running AD and Exchange and Sharepoint...and....

Win2k3 standard as a DC shouldn't do it either. Check out I think it's
page 364 or so of the MS Security Res Kit that says "DDT" [don't do
that] when doing Terminal Server on a Domain Controller. It's on Wk2k3
standard because it can be a member server. In my book any DC should be
blocked from TS in app mode.

Win2k3 standard isn't doing Exchange like we are.

Security isnt' just a firewall.. a firewall is a speedbump, NAT can be
bypasssed and A/V is only as good as your last update.

It's also about permissions and restrictions of what someone can do on a
device. TS in app mode is using your server as a workstation.

Per W. wrote:

> "Susan Bradley, CPA aka Ebitz - SBS Rocks [MVP]" <sbradcpa@pacbell.net>
> skrev i melding news:eHInxi1vDHA.2000@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
>
>>Because dear sir, SBS2000 was build BEFORE the Security push. That was
>>back in the days that we put in stuff without thought to Security. Code
>>Red/Nimda and all that was AFTER SBS2k was released.
>
>
> There is firewall, NAT and antivirus software that take care of that.
>
>
>>And please, watch the 4 letter words. This is a family community out
>>here. Use #$%$ but not the actual words okay?
>
>
> Okey :-)
>
>
>>Typically at about 35 to 40 users you really should be looking to a
>>member server to offload file and printing.
>
>
> And in Norway where i work, ther is a lot of "1-15 users" business and the
> SBS2000 and 2003 is a great product. So that is not the problem. But why
> dont make a small business for maximum 15 users and the posibility to run
> TS? Everyone is aware off the problem when there is a lot of users on a TS
> and that its demand a lot of CPU and RAM etc.
>
>
>>Again, we ASKED, we DEMANDED security. Doing TS on a domain controller
>>is like sitting someone down on that server and using it as a
>>workstation. Now you are wacking security right back out.
>
>
> But if you have a standard 2003server with AD, you cant run TS?
> The security is also a internal learningprossess of the staff. And when its
> about Code Red/Nimda MSBlast etc. a good firewall and/or NAT is a great
> thing to stop that, and most of the small firms use a router with NAT and a
> standalone VPN 'box' so the security is good.
>
>
>>Don't complain about Microsoft's security when you are chosing insecurity.
>
>
> If you now what you are doing, and implements good rutins with the pepole
> that use the network, the security is not a problem. None off my
> installations are ever been 'hacked' by some from the outside. The only time
> there has been anything is when someone has used a home computer or
> something with viruses or backdoor in the office, but that you can never be
> 100% protected from.
> So dont be hysteric, use your good sense and most thing works fine.
>
>
>>Susan
>>
>>Per W. wrote:
>>
>>>"Bas" <Bas@[RemoveThis]Bestdeals.info> skrev i melding
>>>news:br6qml$o2h$1@reader11.wxs.nl...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Hi,
>>>>
>>>>Allthough Microsoft says application mode has been removed from SBS
>>>>2003 Terminal Services I read something on
>>>>
>>>> http://www.bagsolutions.orcon.net.nz
>>>>
>>>>Does this work, has anyone got experiences (or other solutions) with
>>>>putting SBS 2003 TS in application mode?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Thanks, i will also try this. The limitation is the most stupid thing MS
>>>ever have done. The SBS is for a small firm and with 5-25 in the office
>
> and
>
>>>maybe 2-10 in the field (max 2-3 at the same time) the server dont have
>
> any
>
>>>problem. But i see the security issue, but why in the hell is there TS
>
> in
>
>>>SBS2000? is the security better in SBS2000? I think they want more mony,
>>>becuse the SBS2003 cost a lot less than SBS2000 they want to get the
>
> mony on
>
>>>other things. If this thing works i can say to my customer that they can
>>>upgrade from SBS2000 to SBS2003, if it dont work, they dont upgrade
>
> becuse
>
>>>WHY in the fuck should i samll business have more than one -1- server?
>
> and
>
>>>with a small number of employes the security issue is not a big problem.
>
> One
>
>>>more qustion, some here said "30 users on an SBS box is another issue",
>
> why
>
>>>is that a issue? if there are more than 10-15 TS users at the same time,
>>>they proberly even dont run a SBS server.
>>>
>>>/Per W
>>>
>>>
>>
>>--
>>http://www.sbslinks.com/really.htm
>>
>
>
>

--
http://www.sbslinks.com/really.htm

Per
Thu Dec 11 23:21:52 CST 2003


"Bas" <Bas@[RemoveThis]Bestdeals.info> skrev i melding
news:br6qml$o2h$1@reader11.wxs.nl...
> Hi,
>
> Allthough Microsoft says application mode has been removed from SBS
> 2003 Terminal Services I read something on
>
> http://www.bagsolutions.orcon.net.nz
>
> Does this work, has anyone got experiences (or other solutions) with
> putting SBS 2003 TS in application mode?
>

I have now tried it, and it dont works. Its seems that the server is going
in TS Application mode, but after installing the adminpak.msi the computer
is #&??#up. This is something you have to try on a fresh computer before you
use it to something becuse it need a reinstall after installing the
adminpak.msi, I will try it one more time and now without installing the
adminpak.msi. Its seems that the adminpak.msi is different from thats
installed with the small business server.

/Per W.

Bas
Fri Dec 12 03:44:27 CST 2003

> I have now tried it, and it dont works. Its seems that the server is going
> in TS Application mode, but after installing the adminpak.msi the computer
> is #&??#up. This is something you have to try on a fresh computer before you
> use it to something becuse it need a reinstall after installing the
> adminpak.msi, I will try it one more time and now without installing the
> adminpak.msi. Its seems that the adminpak.msi is different from thats
> installed with the small business server.

Nope, won't work either! After 'installing' as described on the
BagSolutions-page, MMC won't work. You can fix this by doing a small
reinstall, but it puts the TS back in remote admin mode again. I even
tried downloading the adminpack from Microsoft, no difference.

It looks like you have to make a choice; or TS in app mode (I tested
it and it works fine) and no MMC, or TS in remote admin mode and a
working MMC ;-))) Since the first is not an option, my TS is running
in admin mode.

Bas.

Bas
Fri Dec 12 04:02:42 CST 2003

> Does this work, has anyone got experiences (or other solutions) with
> putting SBS 2003 TS in application mode?

A lot of our small customers are using SBS 2000, one or two employees
of these small companies are able to connect to the office from home
(or mobile) and do a few things on the server, like getting there
email and syncing documents.
Although Microsoft disencourages the use of TS in application mode,
and although there is a potential security breach, it works pretty
fine and fills in a big need.

With SBS 2003 these tiny companies are now forced to buy two servers;
one SBS-server and a TS-server. Do I have to say to my customers "Ok
you've got 3 workstations and to be able to work at home you have to
buy 2 servers." A bit strange in my opinion. It will cost way too much
money!

This is the reason why I'm still trying to get TS in app mode.

Bas.

Mark
Fri Dec 12 08:38:43 CST 2003

Well, then I need your sales skills to go to small clients and have them
cough up $7000 on another server and license b/c you feel as though it isn't
secure. Hard to justify that cash for 2-5 remote users. My book is
different than your and I've been making DCs app servers for years for small
clients and none have had an issue b/c I put them in correctly. Other
people can too, this should be our choice.....no dictated to us!!!! You
are stating that people don't know any better so they shouldn;t be allowed.
I NOW KNOW YOU ARE A DEMOCRAT!!!!

--
Sincerely,
Mark Mancini, CCA, CCNA, Master CIW&CI, CNE 4&5, MCSE+I 4&2000
www.MCSE2000.com
www.AppLauncher.com



"Susan Bradley, CPA aka Ebitz - SBS Rocks [MVP]" <sbradcpa@pacbell.net>
wrote in message news:eGL4up4vDHA.3536@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> I would never allow someone to use the server as a workstation.
>
> Thus I would never support doing TS in app mode on my domain controller
> running AD and Exchange and Sharepoint...and....
>
> Win2k3 standard as a DC shouldn't do it either. Check out I think it's
> page 364 or so of the MS Security Res Kit that says "DDT" [don't do
> that] when doing Terminal Server on a Domain Controller. It's on Wk2k3
> standard because it can be a member server. In my book any DC should be
> blocked from TS in app mode.
>
> Win2k3 standard isn't doing Exchange like we are.
>
> Security isnt' just a firewall.. a firewall is a speedbump, NAT can be
> bypasssed and A/V is only as good as your last update.
>
> It's also about permissions and restrictions of what someone can do on a
> device. TS in app mode is using your server as a workstation.
>
> Per W. wrote:
>
> > "Susan Bradley, CPA aka Ebitz - SBS Rocks [MVP]" <sbradcpa@pacbell.net>
> > skrev i melding news:eHInxi1vDHA.2000@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> >
> >>Because dear sir, SBS2000 was build BEFORE the Security push. That was
> >>back in the days that we put in stuff without thought to Security. Code
> >>Red/Nimda and all that was AFTER SBS2k was released.
> >
> >
> > There is firewall, NAT and antivirus software that take care of that.
> >
> >
> >>And please, watch the 4 letter words. This is a family community out
> >>here. Use #$%$ but not the actual words okay?
> >
> >
> > Okey :-)
> >
> >
> >>Typically at about 35 to 40 users you really should be looking to a
> >>member server to offload file and printing.
> >
> >
> > And in Norway where i work, ther is a lot of "1-15 users" business and
the
> > SBS2000 and 2003 is a great product. So that is not the problem. But why
> > dont make a small business for maximum 15 users and the posibility to
run
> > TS? Everyone is aware off the problem when there is a lot of users on a
TS
> > and that its demand a lot of CPU and RAM etc.
> >
> >
> >>Again, we ASKED, we DEMANDED security. Doing TS on a domain controller
> >>is like sitting someone down on that server and using it as a
> >>workstation. Now you are wacking security right back out.
> >
> >
> > But if you have a standard 2003server with AD, you cant run TS?
> > The security is also a internal learningprossess of the staff. And when
its
> > about Code Red/Nimda MSBlast etc. a good firewall and/or NAT is a great
> > thing to stop that, and most of the small firms use a router with NAT
and a
> > standalone VPN 'box' so the security is good.
> >
> >
> >>Don't complain about Microsoft's security when you are chosing
insecurity.
> >
> >
> > If you now what you are doing, and implements good rutins with the
pepole
> > that use the network, the security is not a problem. None off my
> > installations are ever been 'hacked' by some from the outside. The only
time
> > there has been anything is when someone has used a home computer or
> > something with viruses or backdoor in the office, but that you can never
be
> > 100% protected from.
> > So dont be hysteric, use your good sense and most thing works fine.
> >
> >
> >>Susan
> >>
> >>Per W. wrote:
> >>
> >>>"Bas" <Bas@[RemoveThis]Bestdeals.info> skrev i melding
> >>>news:br6qml$o2h$1@reader11.wxs.nl...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Hi,
> >>>>
> >>>>Allthough Microsoft says application mode has been removed from SBS
> >>>>2003 Terminal Services I read something on
> >>>>
> >>>> http://www.bagsolutions.orcon.net.nz
> >>>>
> >>>>Does this work, has anyone got experiences (or other solutions) with
> >>>>putting SBS 2003 TS in application mode?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Thanks, i will also try this. The limitation is the most stupid thing
MS
> >>>ever have done. The SBS is for a small firm and with 5-25 in the office
> >
> > and
> >
> >>>maybe 2-10 in the field (max 2-3 at the same time) the server dont have
> >
> > any
> >
> >>>problem. But i see the security issue, but why in the hell is there TS
> >
> > in
> >
> >>>SBS2000? is the security better in SBS2000? I think they want more
mony,
> >>>becuse the SBS2003 cost a lot less than SBS2000 they want to get the
> >
> > mony on
> >
> >>>other things. If this thing works i can say to my customer that they
can
> >>>upgrade from SBS2000 to SBS2003, if it dont work, they dont upgrade
> >
> > becuse
> >
> >>>WHY in the fuck should i samll business have more than one -1- server?
> >
> > and
> >
> >>>with a small number of employes the security issue is not a big
problem.
> >
> > One
> >
> >>>more qustion, some here said "30 users on an SBS box is another issue",
> >
> > why
> >
> >>>is that a issue? if there are more than 10-15 TS users at the same
time,
> >>>they proberly even dont run a SBS server.
> >>>
> >>>/Per W
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>--
> >>http://www.sbslinks.com/really.htm
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> http://www.sbslinks.com/really.htm
>
>

Susan
Fri Dec 12 14:37:47 CST 2003

OWA and RWW

Bas wrote:
>> Does this work, has anyone got experiences (or other solutions) with
>> putting SBS 2003 TS in application mode?
>
>
> A lot of our small customers are using SBS 2000, one or two employees of
> these small companies are able to connect to the office from home (or
> mobile) and do a few things on the server, like getting there email and
> syncing documents.
> Although Microsoft disencourages the use of TS in application mode, and
> although there is a potential security breach, it works pretty fine and
> fills in a big need.
>
> With SBS 2003 these tiny companies are now forced to buy two servers;
> one SBS-server and a TS-server. Do I have to say to my customers "Ok
> you've got 3 workstations and to be able to work at home you have to buy
> 2 servers." A bit strange in my opinion. It will cost way too much money!
>
> This is the reason why I'm still trying to get TS in app mode.
>
> Bas.
>

--
http://www.sbslinks.com/really.htm

Jeff
Fri Dec 12 15:08:06 CST 2003

Basically the argument you are making doesn't make much sense.

You are stating an assumption that isn't correct.

If you say "company has 1 or 2 people who want to connect from home", fine
do whatever you want and have the SBS configured in TS Admin mode....you get
three sessions concurrently: console, plus 2 remote.

If you have XP desktop stations, a remote user can connect to any XP desktop
stations in the office 1 at a time as needed.

Both of those options cost you nothing. The XP Desktop remote control is
free for each additional workstation you have in the LAN. If you have 5, you
can have 5 remote users. If you have 10, you can have 10 remote users.

Ah! You are about to say "I have 5 remote users but no XP workstations?"
Then what would it cost you to upgrade the OS on 3 XP desktops an use the
SBS in TS Admin mode? Cheaper than a TS Apps Server? You still don't need
TS CALs either.

Oh! You are going to say that you need these 5 users to connect from outside
while other users are still using their workstations? Well, you have just
added 5 more users to the LAN, so that wasn't free, that costs 5 more SBS
CALs at $500, so it's not free, but you need to figure out how to get those
sessions running because the first 2 using the Admin mode is find, but what
of the other 3? You could buy 3 more XP Pro workstations at ~ $700 each,
that's about $2100. On the other hand, you could buy one more XP Pro type
workstation, buy a copy of Windows 2003 Server instead of XP Pro, and you
have a TS Apps mode server for about $1600. Keep in mind that you also now
have a machine that has no other responsibilities other than as a TS Desktop
host, all on a single computer. At the point you switch your machine into TS
Apps mode, you need to buy TS CALs....for every session, and for every SBS
session you need CALS. Therefore, if you have a TS Apps Server or an SBS
server in APPs mode, with 5 users, you need $500 in SBS CALs, plus $500 in
TS CALs. You have to have the $1000 invested, so it's not free.

I realize I've just upped the overall cost for most people, but the point
isn't that it cost another $1000, it's that this wasn't a free ride, and
supporting this in deployment isn't a free ride. By the end of the year,
there will be support costs for managing the SBS while hosting other
applications....so add that to the cost.

In general, most experienced TS Admins would tell you that they'd really
like to have a machine dedicated to the purpose of being a TS Desktop host,
not one that has a bunch of other jobs or applications that have nothing to
do with the primary role as a remote host for end users. This is partly
because you can tune the machine precisely for the type of work the users
need, not some split.

It just makes sense that if you have more than 3 users needing remote
access, either building a simple TS Apps server or exposing the XP Desktop
stations is going to make more sense that futzing the SBS into difficult to
support and manage condition, one that isn't supported by MS, therefore one
that isn't going to have a great future in promoting to a customer.

"Bas" <Bas@[RemoveThis]Bestdeals.info> wrote in message
news:brc3pu$k9b$1@reader10.wxs.nl...
> > Does this work, has anyone got experiences (or other solutions) with
> > putting SBS 2003 TS in application mode?
>
> A lot of our small customers are using SBS 2000, one or two employees
> of these small companies are able to connect to the office from home
> (or mobile) and do a few things on the server, like getting there
> email and syncing documents.
> Although Microsoft disencourages the use of TS in application mode,
> and although there is a potential security breach, it works pretty
> fine and fills in a big need.
>
> With SBS 2003 these tiny companies are now forced to buy two servers;
> one SBS-server and a TS-server. Do I have to say to my customers "Ok
> you've got 3 workstations and to be able to work at home you have to
> buy 2 servers." A bit strange in my opinion. It will cost way too much
> money!
>
> This is the reason why I'm still trying to get TS in app mode.
>
> Bas.
>

Jeff
Fri Dec 12 15:16:17 CST 2003

Mark, keep your comments as either compliments or on topic and leave
whatever trivial attempts at personal insults to your personal
relationships, not this public forum.



"Mark Mancini" <info@NOSPAMmcse2000.com> wrote in message
news:#RPxh2LwDHA.2072@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Well, then I need your sales skills to go to small clients and have them
> cough up $7000 on another server and license b/c you feel as though it
isn't
> secure. Hard to justify that cash for 2-5 remote users. My book is
> different than your and I've been making DCs app servers for years for
small
> clients and none have had an issue b/c I put them in correctly. Other
> people can too, this should be our choice.....no dictated to us!!!! You
> are stating that people don't know any better so they shouldn;t be
allowed.
> I NOW KNOW YOU ARE A DEMOCRAT!!!!
>
> --
> Sincerely,
> Mark Mancini, CCA, CCNA, Master CIW&CI, CNE 4&5, MCSE+I 4&2000
> www.MCSE2000.com
> www.AppLauncher.com
>
>
>
> "Susan Bradley, CPA aka Ebitz - SBS Rocks [MVP]" <sbradcpa@pacbell.net>
> wrote in message news:eGL4up4vDHA.3536@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > I would never allow someone to use the server as a workstation.
> >
> > Thus I would never support doing TS in app mode on my domain controller
> > running AD and Exchange and Sharepoint...and....
> >
> > Win2k3 standard as a DC shouldn't do it either. Check out I think it's
> > page 364 or so of the MS Security Res Kit that says "DDT" [don't do
> > that] when doing Terminal Server on a Domain Controller. It's on Wk2k3
> > standard because it can be a member server. In my book any DC should be
> > blocked from TS in app mode.
> >
> > Win2k3 standard isn't doing Exchange like we are.
> >
> > Security isnt' just a firewall.. a firewall is a speedbump, NAT can be
> > bypasssed and A/V is only as good as your last update.
> >
> > It's also about permissions and restrictions of what someone can do on a
> > device. TS in app mode is using your server as a workstation.
> >
> > Per W. wrote:
> >
> > > "Susan Bradley, CPA aka Ebitz - SBS Rocks [MVP]"
<sbradcpa@pacbell.net>
> > > skrev i melding news:eHInxi1vDHA.2000@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> > >
> > >>Because dear sir, SBS2000 was build BEFORE the Security push. That
was
> > >>back in the days that we put in stuff without thought to Security.
Code
> > >>Red/Nimda and all that was AFTER SBS2k was released.
> > >
> > >
> > > There is firewall, NAT and antivirus software that take care of that.
> > >
> > >
> > >>And please, watch the 4 letter words. This is a family community out
> > >>here. Use #$%$ but not the actual words okay?
> > >
> > >
> > > Okey :-)
> > >
> > >
> > >>Typically at about 35 to 40 users you really should be looking to a
> > >>member server to offload file and printing.
> > >
> > >
> > > And in Norway where i work, ther is a lot of "1-15 users" business and
> the
> > > SBS2000 and 2003 is a great product. So that is not the problem. But
why
> > > dont make a small business for maximum 15 users and the posibility to
> run
> > > TS? Everyone is aware off the problem when there is a lot of users on
a
> TS
> > > and that its demand a lot of CPU and RAM etc.
> > >
> > >
> > >>Again, we ASKED, we DEMANDED security. Doing TS on a domain
controller
> > >>is like sitting someone down on that server and using it as a
> > >>workstation. Now you are wacking security right back out.
> > >
> > >
> > > But if you have a standard 2003server with AD, you cant run TS?
> > > The security is also a internal learningprossess of the staff. And
when
> its
> > > about Code Red/Nimda MSBlast etc. a good firewall and/or NAT is a
great
> > > thing to stop that, and most of the small firms use a router with NAT
> and a
> > > standalone VPN 'box' so the security is good.
> > >
> > >
> > >>Don't complain about Microsoft's security when you are chosing
> insecurity.
> > >
> > >
> > > If you now what you are doing, and implements good rutins with the
> pepole
> > > that use the network, the security is not a problem. None off my
> > > installations are ever been 'hacked' by some from the outside. The
only
> time
> > > there has been anything is when someone has used a home computer or
> > > something with viruses or backdoor in the office, but that you can
never
> be
> > > 100% protected from.
> > > So dont be hysteric, use your good sense and most thing works fine.
> > >
> > >
> > >>Susan
> > >>
> > >>Per W. wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>"Bas" <Bas@[RemoveThis]Bestdeals.info> skrev i melding
> > >>>news:br6qml$o2h$1@reader11.wxs.nl...
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>>Hi,
> > >>>>
> > >>>>Allthough Microsoft says application mode has been removed from SBS
> > >>>>2003 Terminal Services I read something on
> > >>>>
> > >>>> http://www.bagsolutions.orcon.net.nz
> > >>>>
> > >>>>Does this work, has anyone got experiences (or other solutions) with
> > >>>>putting SBS 2003 TS in application mode?
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>Thanks, i will also try this. The limitation is the most stupid thing
> MS
> > >>>ever have done. The SBS is for a small firm and with 5-25 in the
office
> > >
> > > and
> > >
> > >>>maybe 2-10 in the field (max 2-3 at the same time) the server dont
have
> > >
> > > any
> > >
> > >>>problem. But i see the security issue, but why in the hell is there
TS
> > >
> > > in
> > >
> > >>>SBS2000? is the security better in SBS2000? I think they want more
> mony,
> > >>>becuse the SBS2003 cost a lot less than SBS2000 they want to get the
> > >
> > > mony on
> > >
> > >>>other things. If this thing works i can say to my customer that they
> can
> > >>>upgrade from SBS2000 to SBS2003, if it dont work, they dont upgrade
> > >
> > > becuse
> > >
> > >>>WHY in the fuck should i samll business have more than one -1-
server?
> > >
> > > and
> > >
> > >>>with a small number of employes the security issue is not a big
> problem.
> > >
> > > One
> > >
> > >>>more qustion, some here said "30 users on an SBS box is another
issue",
> > >
> > > why
> > >
> > >>>is that a issue? if there are more than 10-15 TS users at the same
> time,
> > >>>they proberly even dont run a SBS server.
> > >>>
> > >>>/Per W
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>--
> > >>http://www.sbslinks.com/really.htm
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > http://www.sbslinks.com/really.htm
> >
> >
>
>

Per
Fri Dec 12 15:38:19 CST 2003


"Jeff Middleton [SBS-MVP]" <jeff@cfisolutions.com> skrev i melding
news:ubv4dNPwDHA.1600@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Basically the argument you are making doesn't make much sense.
>
> You are stating an assumption that isn't correct.
>
> If you say "company has 1 or 2 people who want to connect from home", fine
> do whatever you want and have the SBS configured in TS Admin mode....you
get
> three sessions concurrently: console, plus 2 remote.

Thats okay, but the big problem her is that the user can actualy shutdown
the server when he is leaving the session/work. Its easy to select shutdown
when you are finish.

/Per W.

Per
Fri Dec 12 15:43:06 CST 2003


"Bas" <Bas@[RemoveThis]Bestdeals.info> skrev i melding
news:brc3pu$k9b$1@reader10.wxs.nl...
> > Does this work, has anyone got experiences (or other solutions) with
> > putting SBS 2003 TS in application mode?
>
> A lot of our small customers are using SBS 2000, one or two employees
> of these small companies are able to connect to the office from home
> (or mobile) and do a few things on the server, like getting there
> email and syncing documents.
> Although Microsoft disencourages the use of TS in application mode,
> and although there is a potential security breach, it works pretty
> fine and fills in a big need.
>
> With SBS 2003 these tiny companies are now forced to buy two servers;
> one SBS-server and a TS-server. Do I have to say to my customers "Ok
> you've got 3 workstations and to be able to work at home you have to
> buy 2 servers." A bit strange in my opinion. It will cost way too much
> money!
>
> This is the reason why I'm still trying to get TS in app mode.

Its seem that the solutions is to use www.thinsoftinc.com winconnect XP
server when there is someone that need to work from home in a small company.
I hva now tried it becuse of the stupid limitations with the SBS2003, and
the software works fine, so maybe this is the solutions for all companies
thats not made of mony. My first choice is to use a TS server, but with this
new policy this is the way to go.

/Per W.

Jeff
Fri Dec 12 16:04:43 CST 2003

Is that not what Remote Web Workplace provides already?


"Per W." <pwbuf@tiscali.no> wrote in message
news:qFqCb.57624$jf4.3329603@news000.worldonline.dk...
>
> "Bas" <Bas@[RemoveThis]Bestdeals.info> skrev i melding
> news:brc3pu$k9b$1@reader10.wxs.nl...
> > > Does this work, has anyone got experiences (or other solutions) with
> > > putting SBS 2003 TS in application mode?
> >
> > A lot of our small customers are using SBS 2000, one or two employees
> > of these small companies are able to connect to the office from home
> > (or mobile) and do a few things on the server, like getting there
> > email and syncing documents.
> > Although Microsoft disencourages the use of TS in application mode,
> > and although there is a potential security breach, it works pretty
> > fine and fills in a big need.
> >
> > With SBS 2003 these tiny companies are now forced to buy two servers;
> > one SBS-server and a TS-server. Do I have to say to my customers "Ok
> > you've got 3 workstations and to be able to work at home you have to
> > buy 2 servers." A bit strange in my opinion. It will cost way too much
> > money!
> >
> > This is the reason why I'm still trying to get TS in app mode.
>
> Its seem that the solutions is to use www.thinsoftinc.com winconnect XP
> server when there is someone that need to work from home in a small
company.
> I hva now tried it becuse of the stupid limitations with the SBS2003, and
> the software works fine, so maybe this is the solutions for all companies
> thats not made of mony. My first choice is to use a TS server, but with
this
> new policy this is the way to go.
>
> /Per W.
>
>

Jeff
Fri Dec 12 16:04:27 CST 2003

Group Policy management can be used to eliminate this and any other feature
you want on a case by case basis if that's the only thing that stops you
from going this way. However, to really pursue this, you now need to be
looking at the problem as if you are an SBS Admin expert, a TS Apps mode
expert, and a Group Policy expert....all dancing on the head of the pin on
one box.


"Per W." <pwbuf@tiscali.no> wrote in message
news:0BqCb.57622$jf4.3329449@news000.worldonline.dk...
>
> "Jeff Middleton [SBS-MVP]" <jeff@cfisolutions.com> skrev i melding
> news:ubv4dNPwDHA.1600@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> > Basically the argument you are making doesn't make much sense.
> >
> > You are stating an assumption that isn't correct.
> >
> > If you say "company has 1 or 2 people who want to connect from home",
fine
> > do whatever you want and have the SBS configured in TS Admin mode....you
> get
> > three sessions concurrently: console, plus 2 remote.
>
> Thats okay, but the big problem her is that the user can actualy shutdown
> the server when he is leaving the session/work. Its easy to select
shutdown
> when you are finish.
>
> /Per W.
>
>

Susan
Fri Dec 12 19:28:43 CST 2003

Don't know what hardware you buy but $7,000 is a bit steep these days
for a member server.

Mark Mancini wrote:
> Well, then I need your sales skills to go to small clients and have them
> cough up $7000 on another server and license b/c you feel as though it isn't
> secure. Hard to justify that cash for 2-5 remote users. My book is
> different than your and I've been making DCs app servers for years for small
> clients and none have had an issue b/c I put them in correctly. Other
> people can too, this should be our choice.....no dictated to us!!!! You
> are stating that people don't know any better so they shouldn;t be allowed.
> I NOW KNOW YOU ARE A DEMOCRAT!!!!
>

--
http://www.sbslinks.com/really.htm

Mark
Fri Dec 12 20:30:10 CST 2003

??????? A standard 2600 well built well is $5600 and then installation.
Even a stripped down crappy 600SC is like $4000.

--
Sincerely,
Mark Mancini, CCA, CCNA, Master CIW&CI, CNE 4&5, MCSE+I 4&2000
www.MCSE2000.com
www.AppLauncher.com



"Susan Bradley, CPA aka Ebitz - SBS Rocks [MVP]" <sbradcpa@pacbell.net>
wrote in message news:eOVAqjRwDHA.1512@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Don't know what hardware you buy but $7,000 is a bit steep these days
> for a member server.
>
> Mark Mancini wrote:
> > Well, then I need your sales skills to go to small clients and have them
> > cough up $7000 on another server and license b/c you feel as though it
isn't
> > secure. Hard to justify that cash for 2-5 remote users. My book is
> > different than your and I've been making DCs app servers for years for
small
> > clients and none have had an issue b/c I put them in correctly. Other
> > people can too, this should be our choice.....no dictated to us!!!!
You
> > are stating that people don't know any better so they shouldn;t be
allowed.
> > I NOW KNOW YOU ARE A DEMOCRAT!!!!
> >
>
> --
> http://www.sbslinks.com/really.htm
>

Jim
Sun Dec 14 09:50:47 CST 2003

You can spend $1,000 for the hardware for a mchine that will do just
fine for a few ts sessions. At worst you spend 2 grand for a scsi
based machine. Or if you push it maybe $3,000 for hardware. The TS
server does not have to have as much umph for a few users. If all the
users are going to be using TS and you are going to have 50 user
hitting it then the server has a need for some power but we are
talking about a small shop with 3-5 user needing ts. I am recycling
one accounts old server. Just a dual PIII 800 with Promise Raid 5 and
500 megs of ram. Doesn't cost much besides a few hours setup time,
Server 2003 and 5 cals. You can get those old servers on Ebay for
$500. ;-)

"Mark Mancini" <info@NOSPAMmcse2000.com> wrote:

>??????? A standard 2600 well built well is $5600 and then installation.
>Even a stripped down crappy 600SC is like $4000.

Jim B. SBS MVP
remove the mvp to send email

Chris
Mon Dec 29 20:00:33 CST 2003

Kinda off subject but I just purchased a Dell 1600SC 1 Xeon 2.8 Dual
Capable, 36Gb SCSI Drive 128 MB Ram for $699 and I get $100 Rebate and a
free Palm Zire. Other than the memory this machine is anything but stripped
down, The one SCSI Drive is putting all eggs in one basket, so I added a few
cheap IDE drives for storage.


"Jeff Middleton [SBS-MVP]" <jeff@cfisolutions.com> wrote in message
news:ubv4dNPwDHA.1600@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Basically the argument you are making doesn't make much sense.
>
> You are stating an assumption that isn't correct.
>
> If you say "company has 1 or 2 people who want to connect from home", fine
> do whatever you want and have the SBS configured in TS Admin mode....you
get
> three sessions concurrently: console, plus 2 remote.
>
> If you have XP desktop stations, a remote user can connect to any XP
desktop
> stations in the office 1 at a time as needed.
>
> Both of those options cost you nothing. The XP Desktop remote control is
> free for each additional workstation you have in the LAN. If you have 5,
you
> can have 5 remote users. If you have 10, you can have 10 remote users.
>
> Ah! You are about to say "I have 5 remote users but no XP workstations?"
> Then what would it cost you to upgrade the OS on 3 XP desktops an use the
> SBS in TS Admin mode? Cheaper than a TS Apps Server? You still don't need
> TS CALs either.
>
> Oh! You are going to say that you need these 5 users to connect from
outside
> while other users are still using their workstations? Well, you have just
> added 5 more users to the LAN, so that wasn't free, that costs 5 more SBS
> CALs at $500, so it's not free, but you need to figure out how to get
those
> sessions running because the first 2 using the Admin mode is find, but
what
> of the other 3? You could buy 3 more XP Pro workstations at ~ $700 each,
> that's about $2100. On the other hand, you could buy one more XP Pro type
> workstation, buy a copy of Windows 2003 Server instead of XP Pro, and you
> have a TS Apps mode server for about $1600. Keep in mind that you also now
> have a machine that has no other responsibilities other than as a TS
Desktop
> host, all on a single computer. At the point you switch your machine into
TS
> Apps mode, you need to buy TS CALs....for every session, and for every SBS
> session you need CALS. Therefore, if you have a TS Apps Server or an SBS
> server in APPs mode, with 5 users, you need $500 in SBS CALs, plus $500 in
> TS CALs. You have to have the $1000 invested, so it's not free.
>
> I realize I've just upped the overall cost for most people, but the point
> isn't that it cost another $1000, it's that this wasn't a free ride, and
> supporting this in deployment isn't a free ride. By the end of the year,
> there will be support costs for managing the SBS while hosting other
> applications....so add that to the cost.
>
> In general, most experienced TS Admins would tell you that they'd really
> like to have a machine dedicated to the purpose of being a TS Desktop
host,
> not one that has a bunch of other jobs or applications that have nothing
to
> do with the primary role as a remote host for end users. This is partly
> because you can tune the machine precisely for the type of work the users
> need, not some split.
>
> It just makes sense that if you have more than 3 users needing remote
> access, either building a simple TS Apps server or exposing the XP Desktop
> stations is going to make more sense that futzing the SBS into difficult
to
> support and manage condition, one that isn't supported by MS, therefore
one
> that isn't going to have a great future in promoting to a customer.
>
> "Bas" <Bas@[RemoveThis]Bestdeals.info> wrote in message
> news:brc3pu$k9b$1@reader10.wxs.nl...
> > > Does this work, has anyone got experiences (or other solutions) with
> > > putting SBS 2003 TS in application mode?
> >
> > A lot of our small customers are using SBS 2000, one or two employees
> > of these small companies are able to connect to the office from home
> > (or mobile) and do a few things on the server, like getting there
> > email and syncing documents.
> > Although Microsoft disencourages the use of TS in application mode,
> > and although there is a potential security breach, it works pretty
> > fine and fills in a big need.
> >
> > With SBS 2003 these tiny companies are now forced to buy two servers;
> > one SBS-server and a TS-server. Do I have to say to my customers "Ok
> > you've got 3 workstations and to be able to work at home you have to
> > buy 2 servers." A bit strange in my opinion. It will cost way too much
> > money!
> >
> > This is the reason why I'm still trying to get TS in app mode.
> >
> > Bas.
> >
>
>