Terminal Services?

bremen1874 · 3 Apr 2009 at 01:30

I’ve got a few users that occasionally access our network over VPN connections. They currently RDP into a couple of old PCs running XP Pro that provide a pseudo Terminal Services environment.

This has worked quite well but both machines are now in need of replacement.

After some network reconfiguration I did today I now have a Dell PE1600SC going spare. The basic specifications are:-

Dual 2.8GHz S604 533FSB Xeons
3GB memory
2 x 36GB 10K SCSI
PERC3/DC
Retail Windows 2003 Server license (not R2)

I was considering re-tasking this machine to run Terminal Services. I’d obviously need to purchase the CALs to allow this, but it wouldn’t cost anymore than replacing the two existing PCs and could provide more flexibility.

At the moment I can’t see that there’d ever be more than three concurrent sessions, and for most of the time there’d only be one.

Any opinions as to whether this is a sensible idea given the available hardware and OS?

richard smith · 3 Apr 2009 at 07:39

For 3 users, that'd be more than enough... even overkill

iaind · 3 Apr 2009 at 08:48

Agreed - that'll be more than enough - could probably get 20+ users on there depending on the apps

bremen1874 · 3 Apr 2009 at 17:47

Thanks for that.

Would there be any significant advantage in upgrading to Server 2008?

Muffin` · 3 Apr 2009 at 17:57

Them being able to print to thier local printers easily is one

iaind · 4 Apr 2009 at 11:16

2003 TS print redirection isnt too bad, you just need to make sure you have the drivers installed on the server - not too much of a problem for 2 people

I cant think of anything myself (I've been looking myself to see if there was a good reason for my 100 user Citrix farm), other than a slightly nicer gui?

Burnsy2023 · 4 Apr 2009 at 11:22

bremen1874 said:
Thanks for that.

Would there be any significant advantage in upgrading to Server 2008?

Why are you getting a retail 2003 licence and not OEM? Personally, I would get a 2008 standard OEM licence with it.

m4cc45 · 4 Apr 2009 at 11:29

Security I guess is the big one. If you're also buying a new licence now it's pretty much going to be a 2008 licence so you may as well use it.

M.

bremen1874 · 4 Apr 2009 at 14:28

Why are you getting a retail 2003 licence and not OEM? Personally, I would get a 2008 standard OEM licence with it.

We've had the hardware and the Server 2003 license for years. The question was whether it was worth spending the extra to get Server 2008. I'm currently waiting for my supplier to come back with information about whether an upgrade to the existing license is possible, and what the cost would be.

I think it's actually a Volume License (without Software Assurance) rather than boxed retail, but it's definately not OEM.

I've always used non-OEM licenses for server software. I believe that an OEM license is tried to the hardware, it's not a problem on a desktop, but on a small server the license can cost more than the hardware it's running on.

Burnsy2023 · 5 Apr 2009 at 00:49

bremen1874 said:
I think it's actually a Volume License (without Software Assurance) rather than boxed retail, but it's definately not OEM.

If that's the case, you can't use this on a new server. VLA OS licences are upgrade only.

bremen1874 · 5 Apr 2009 at 02:54

Fair enough. I was under the impression that Volume Licenses were transferable in the same way retail licenses are but I could very easily be wrong. Lucky server licensing isn't something I have to get involved with very often.

I was aware of the limitations of an OEM license, and it’s fairly obvious that an OEM license sticker is designed to destroy itself if you try to physically transfer it.

When I have the time I'll have to make the effort and make sure I’m properly up to speed with the various licensing options and the different terms/limitations that are imposed.

In this case the license has only ever been applied to the server in question and I’m just planning to change the machine’s role.

You’ll have to forgive my ignorance in these matters, I earn my bread and butter programming but have to deal with other issues when required.

Edit:

I've just spent a hour trying to track down the specific licensing terms and have failed. I can find references to the reassignment of desktop operating systems but nothing concrete for server operating systems.

The one thing I did keep coming across is that MS has, in some cases, relaxed the previous 90-day software reassignment rules; this doesn’t directly apply, but does seem to imply that reassignment may be possible for some volume licensed software.

The licenses we’ve got were described as OLP (Open License Program?) so ‘Volume License’ may have been the incorrect term. I’ve sent a request to the original supplier to see if they can clarify the position.

Burnsy2023 · 5 Apr 2009 at 13:18

bremen1874 said:
Fair enough. I was under the impression that Volume Licenses were transferable in the same way retail licenses are but I could very easily be wrong. Lucky server licensing isn't something I have to get involved with very often.

Indeed they are transferrable, but as an upgrade licence, you'll need a qualifying product to upgrade from. These tend to be OEM licences although Retail are also valid.

bremen1874 said:
In this case the license has only ever been applied to the server in question and I’m just planning to change the machine’s role.

So are you buying a new server or upgrading an existing one?

bremen1874 said:
The licenses we’ve got were described as OLP (Open License Program?) so ‘Volume License’ may have been the incorrect term. I’ve sent a request to the original supplier to see if they can clarify the position.

The Open and Open Value programs are both types of volume licences.

bremen1874 · 5 Apr 2009 at 15:16

So are you buying a new server or upgrading an existing one?

It's an existing server with an existing server 2003 license. It is now spare as we have installed a new server running SBS. My intention is to just to reconfigure the server to run Terminal Services.

Indeed they are transferrable, but as an upgrade licence, you'll need a qualifying product to upgrade from. These tend to be OEM licences although Retail are also valid.

You seem to implying that it’s not possible to buy a full license via Volume Licensing.

I’ve been reading the ‘Microsoft Licensing Product Use Rights’ documentation. According to the documentation desktop and server operating systems are licensed under two separate licensing models.

Under the desktop operating system licensing model it’s made clear that desktop operating system licenses obtained via Volume Licensing are upgrade only, and a machine needs to have a previously existing OEM or FPP license.

In the same document under the server operating system model there’s no mention of any similar requirements.

I'm hoping there isn't any such requirement. If there is then a very well known, and long established, software reseller has sold me several licenses that are basically worthless and will obviously need sorting out.

Burnsy2023 · 5 Apr 2009 at 16:03

bremen1874 said:
You seem to implying that it’s not possible to buy a full license via Volume Licensing.

I must have misread a document from MS about this. You are right, there is no such restriction for OS server licences. Ignore my post except for the poitn that it's worth upgrading to 2008

bremen1874 · 5 Apr 2009 at 16:17

That's a relief :cool:

I would like to upgrade to Server 2008 but I don't think I'll be able to justify the additional expenditure. In the current climate just getting authorisation for the TS CALs was hard enough.

madman045 · 5 Apr 2009 at 17:43

Also remember that if the users need Microsoft Office on the TS server, you will need additional office licenses too. This has caught people out in the past.