Re: Which hardware upgrades are more important
- From: Bri <not@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 06 Jan 2006 18:26:07 GMT
David W. Fenton wrote:
Bri <not@xxxxxxxx> wrote in 98dvf.138293$2k.84712@pd7tw1no:">news:98dvf.138293$2k.84712@pd7tw1no:
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.
Agreed. I use it via cable modem and the field via phone modem and TS can be tailored to both environments.
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.
Agreed. Lyle was referring to remotely connecting to SQL Server, so I was continueing with that line.
One client, before being convinced to use TS, connected their remote office WAN via a broadband microwave link. The users still complained that the app was almost unusable (MDB BE at the time, currently SQL Server). We hooked up a demo of TS using the built-in admin remote desktop. They couldn't get that TS box ordered fast enough! :{)
. . . Integrity of the data is more important. ... 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?
Certainly more relevant with a Jet BE. With SQL Server (or other Client/server BEs I assume) there is still a window of time between the request and delivery where the data could be lost if the line goes down. The current process is potentially lost, but there isn't the same corruption issues that you have with Jet. With TS, their session continues to run, so when they reconnect its just like they had just like they had never left it.
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.
Agreed.
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.
The TS session runs completely on the server. The licencing of Office for the workstation is purely a legal issue not a technology issue.
-- Bri
.
- References:
- Which hardware upgrades are more important
- From: Jeff
- Re: Which hardware upgrades are more important
- From: Lyle Fairfield
- Re: Which hardware upgrades are more important
- From: Jeff
- Re: Which hardware upgrades are more important
- From: Lyle Fairfield
- Re: Which hardware upgrades are more important
- From: paii, Ron
- Re: Which hardware upgrades are more important
- From: Lyle Fairfield
- Re: Which hardware upgrades are more important
- From: paii, Ron
- Re: Which hardware upgrades are more important
- From: Lyle Fairfield
- Re: Which hardware upgrades are more important
- From: Bri
- Re: Which hardware upgrades are more important
- From: David W. Fenton
- Which hardware upgrades are more important
- Prev by Date: Re: SQL query - combine sum() with getting latest record by date field
- Next by Date: Re: Access to Quickbooks
- Previous by thread: Re: Which hardware upgrades are more important
- Next by thread: Re: Which hardware upgrades are more important
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
