Re: Which hardware upgrades are more important

Bri <not@xxxxxxxx> wrote in 98dvf.138293$2k.84712@pd7tw1no:">news:98dvf.138293$2k.84712@pd7tw1no:

>
> Lyle Fairfield wrote:
>> I understand the bit about simple terminals (but the last one of
>> those I saw was in the previous century), but the remote
>> locations? You mean the TS can find and connect to the DB while
>> the Remote Locations can't? Hmmm. And someone feels it's not
>> secure enough to enable the DB server over the NET as the TS is
>> enabled? I disagree but it's your/their decision.
>
> TS only send the screen info down the line and this can be set to
> send the bare minimum (min colours, no fancy see as you drag, etc)
> so that the response is acceptable over a modem (56k or less
> even). It doesn't take a lot of data moving to the FE to exceed
> the screen data sent via TS.

On connections with more bandwidth than dialup, the responsiveness
is quite close to what a local desktop feels like.

> Security of the data isn't really the issue. AFAIK, Both TS and a
> remote connection to SQL Server can be secured to similar levels.
> . . .

But if your back end is Jet, the difference is gigantic -- there is
no way to serve up Jet data to an Access front end to remote
locations, unless you've got huge pipes for your WAN.

> . . . Integrity of
> the data is more important. One of my apps is used by workers in
> the field where they have VERY unreliable phone lines. If a line
> drops while they are working, they just dial up again and their TS
> session picks up exactly where they left off. If they were pulling
> data (or worse sending data for a write) from a local FE and the
> line goes down, then they could lose or corrupt the current
> process.

That's really only relevant for a non-client/server app, no? That
is, with Jet?

> TS also makes deploying an FE update much easier. All of the
> user's profiles are on the same machine. The user doesn't have to
> download a 5-10 mb FE across to their local PC via a slow line.
>
> Oh, and 'simple terminal' could be replaced with 'those older
> PCs/Laptops we can now keep around for a while longer'.

It means you don't have to worry about what they have on the other
end.

All other options for sharing data are much more complicated.

Oh, and I believe that you don't have to have Access installed to be
able to run Access on the TS. You just have to have cross-compatible
Office licenses. I definitely know that you don't have to have the
*same* version of Access installed. I don't have A2K3, but I can run
it on one of my clients' Terminal Servers.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/
.

Relevant Pages