Deciding which way to go - terminal server or client/server??

Hello everyone:
we are a small company with 15 users/ desktops - one p3 and rest p4 2.2

- all with 256 mb ram and 40/80 gb hdd - single location - on a
workgroup with one xp pro and rest xp home machines. v were ok till we
upgrade our accounting software to peachtree quantum 2007 which is our
main application which has runtime sql server database. new peachtree
slows down our system to a good extent but still works
we have been adviced to go for new server with 4 gb ram and raid 5 with

3 hard disk - install windows 2003 and terminal server - so that v just

have to buy terminal server licenses for users and not to invest in
upgrading from xp home to pro and 256 mb ram to 512 or a gig on all pc.

our main concern is we need to know the experience of someone with
similar setup and also how much difference it will make in speed and
maintenance? are there any technical issues?
we thank you in advance for your feedback.
Mike.

In news:(E-Mail Removed) oups.com,
Mike <(E-Mail Removed)> stated, which I commented on below:
> Hello everyone:
> we are a small company with 15 users/ desktops - one p3 and rest p4
> 2.2
>
> - all with 256 mb ram and 40/80 gb hdd - single location - on a
> workgroup with one xp pro and rest xp home machines. v were ok till we
> upgrade our accounting software to peachtree quantum 2007 which is our
> main application which has runtime sql server database. new peachtree
> slows down our system to a good extent but still works
> we have been adviced to go for new server with 4 gb ram and raid 5
> with
>
> 3 hard disk - install windows 2003 and terminal server - so that v
> just
>
> have to buy terminal server licenses for users and not to invest in
> upgrading from xp home to pro and 256 mb ram to 512 or a gig on all
> pc.
>
> our main concern is we need to know the experience of someone with
> similar setup and also how much difference it will make in speed and
> maintenance? are there any technical issues?
> we thank you in advance for your feedback.
> Mike.

Apparently none of your workstations are joined to the domain because of XP
Home. I have not experienced or seen such a scenario, or if we have, we have
suggested upgrading to at least Pro to allow centralized management using
the domain. In your scenario, to cut $$, you may as well go with terminal
services, but for the licenses and the cost of the server upgrade, it may be
almost the same. Keep in mind, for 15 users, it's suggested one CPU for 15
users, anmd approx 45-100 megs per user (depending on if they are power -
meaning heavy- users or not). But you must keep in mind that other services
are also running on the machine therefore, it will be wise to get at least a
dual Xeon for what you want with a gigabit connection, and hopefully you
have a gigabit switch.


--
Ace
Innovative IT Concepts, Inc (IITCI)
Willow Grove, PA

This posting is provided "AS-IS" with no warranties or guarantees and
confers no rights.

Ace Fekay, MCSE 2003 & 2000, MCSA 2003 & 2000, MCSE+I, MCT, MVP
Microsoft MVP - Directory Services
Microsoft Certified Trainer

Having difficulty reading or finding responses to your post?
Instead of the website you're using, I suggest to use OEx (Outlook Express
or any other newsreader), and configure a news account, pointing to
news.microsoft.com. This is a direct link to the Microsoft Public
Newsgroups. It is FREE and requires NO ISP's Usenet account. OEx allows you
to easily find, track threads, cross-post, sort by date, poster's name,
watched threads or subject.
It's easy:

How to Configure OEx for Internet News
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=171164

Infinite Diversities in Infinite Combinations
Assimilation Imminent. Resistance is Futile
"Very funny Scotty. Now, beam down my clothes."

The only constant in life is change...

Ian:
Thanks for your reply. after researching little bit, v have decided to
do the same. get a spare computer with 2gb ram as server with xp pro
and upgrade rest to 1gb. but question still remains as to what extend
it will increase speed? as this is still work group v/s running 2003
server and maybe xp pro as work stations? is there any big difference?
v will first see with workgroup and still if there are speed issues, v
can go for 2003 server and i guess might have to upgrade workstations
to xp pro?
one question though, if v don't have any user security issue, and
incase v go for 2003 server - work station scenario, does xp home v/s
pro makes any difference in speed?
Let me know,
Thanks,
Mike.

Ian wrote:
> Here you have two distinct roadmaps - if you go the terminal server route
> then just about any client will do, as everything runs on the server, the
> client being just a 'TV screen' that views the action remotely. HST, the
> Terminal route is hideously expensive for a small setup. Its main strength is
> its ability to cope seamlessly with roaming users.
>
> The other approach is hardware upgrade. I suspect increasing the RAM on both
> server and worlkstations might be the most cost-effective upgrade. 512MB on
> workstations should make a big difference, a server needs a Gig or two to run
> effectively. Worth experimenting with a Gig or more in a desktop to see if
> that woudl be worth the money.
>
> As for a new server, I'm not a fan of RAID or SCSI solutions, IMLI they
> seldom deliver value for money. A decent fast processor/mobo with SATA disks
> will not be that much slower, but will cost vastly less and give far fewer
> technical headaches.
>
> The main reason to want XP Pro to allow the use of domain policies, which
> are not available on Home. Since most small sites are trustworthy users, and
> the sysop can walk to the desktops faster then he can figure-out how to
> administer policies, this is pretty-much overkill anyway.
>
> To allow a proper user-logon with Home, see my tagline.
>
> -------------------------------
>
> An alternative approach to XP network logon - http://mylogon.net