Terminal Server vs. VPN

I would appreciate any recommendations on the best way to
set up the following:

1) 8 users now (50% remotely connecting); 30 users within
6 months (80% remotely connecting); 50 users within 2
years (90% remotely connecting)

I was thinking Small Business Server 2003 Standard due to
the Exchange feature, but I am not convinced we need all
the functionality of Exchange.

Would TS be better for remote connectivity, or would VPN
work just as well? There is no application sharing. Mostly
just file sharing. If VPN is better, should it be
implemented in hardware or Windows 2003?

I was also thinking a dual 2.8GHz cpu with 2GB RAM and
73GB HDD's in Raid 5.

Both will work. Determine exactly what you user's MUST
and MAY be doing and post that.

Hardware capacity is not likely to be an issue (and your's is
pretty hefty) unless you are going to have a bunch of people
us TS to run Autocad or a variety of CPU hog programs.

Windows or Hardware solution is largely a religious issue.
I choose Windows for myself much of the time, but can make
the case the other way.

--
Herb Martin
"Doug" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:1272001c3f662$1f688fc0$(E-Mail Removed)...
> I would appreciate any recommendations on the best way to
> set up the following:
>
> 1) 8 users now (50% remotely connecting); 30 users within
> 6 months (80% remotely connecting); 50 users within 2
> years (90% remotely connecting)
>
> I was thinking Small Business Server 2003 Standard due to
> the Exchange feature, but I am not convinced we need all
> the functionality of Exchange.
>
> Would TS be better for remote connectivity, or would VPN
> work just as well? There is no application sharing. Mostly
> just file sharing. If VPN is better, should it be
> implemented in hardware or Windows 2003?
>
> I was also thinking a dual 2.8GHz cpu with 2GB RAM and
> 73GB HDD's in Raid 5.

If we had Exchange (SBS) we would likely use it. I am
trying to balance the added productivity versus expense.
It is not REQUIRED that we have it, however. I figure just
getting a hosted account somewhere could work for our
email needs.

I like SharePoint. I would try to find a way to get
everyone using it.

Basic file access would be mandatory.


>-----Original Message-----
>Both will work. Determine exactly what you user's MUST
>and MAY be doing and post that.
>
>Hardware capacity is not likely to be an issue (and
your's is
>pretty hefty) unless you are going to have a bunch of
people
>us TS to run Autocad or a variety of CPU hog programs.
>
>Windows or Hardware solution is largely a religious issue.
>I choose Windows for myself much of the time, but can make
>the case the other way.
>
>--
>Herb Martin
>"Doug" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
message
>news:1272001c3f662$1f688fc0$(E-Mail Removed)...
>> I would appreciate any recommendations on the best way
to
>> set up the following:
>>
>> 1) 8 users now (50% remotely connecting); 30 users
within
>> 6 months (80% remotely connecting); 50 users within 2
>> years (90% remotely connecting)
>>
>> I was thinking Small Business Server 2003 Standard due
to
>> the Exchange feature, but I am not convinced we need all
>> the functionality of Exchange.
>>
>> Would TS be better for remote connectivity, or would VPN
>> work just as well? There is no application sharing.
Mostly
>> just file sharing. If VPN is better, should it be
>> implemented in hardware or Windows 2003?
>>
>> I was also thinking a dual 2.8GHz cpu with 2GB RAM and
>> 73GB HDD's in Raid 5.
>
>
>.
>

SBS2003 won't let you use the server as a TS box in application mode (remote
desktop) so it's moot. You can't install SharePoint on a server running
Exchange, so that's moot.

I'd just buy a Windows 2003 server and use it as a TS/RD box - use VPN to
connect to the network first for added security.



Doug wrote:
> If we had Exchange (SBS) we would likely use it. I am
> trying to balance the added productivity versus expense.
> It is not REQUIRED that we have it, however. I figure just
> getting a hosted account somewhere could work for our
> email needs.
>
> I like SharePoint. I would try to find a way to get
> everyone using it.
>
> Basic file access would be mandatory.
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> Both will work. Determine exactly what you user's MUST
>> and MAY be doing and post that.
>>
>> Hardware capacity is not likely to be an issue (and
> your's is
>> pretty hefty) unless you are going to have a bunch of people
>> us TS to run Autocad or a variety of CPU hog programs.
>>
>> Windows or Hardware solution is largely a religious issue.
>> I choose Windows for myself much of the time, but can make
>> the case the other way.
>>
>> --
>> Herb Martin
>> "Doug" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:1272001c3f662$1f688fc0$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> I would appreciate any recommendations on the best way to
>>> set up the following:
>>>
>>> 1) 8 users now (50% remotely connecting); 30 users within
>>> 6 months (80% remotely connecting); 50 users within 2
>>> years (90% remotely connecting)
>>>
>>> I was thinking Small Business Server 2003 Standard due to
>>> the Exchange feature, but I am not convinced we need all
>>> the functionality of Exchange.
>>>
>>> Would TS be better for remote connectivity, or would VPN
>>> work just as well? There is no application sharing. Mostly
>>> just file sharing. If VPN is better, should it be
>>> implemented in hardware or Windows 2003?
>>>
>>> I was also thinking a dual 2.8GHz cpu with 2GB RAM and
>>> 73GB HDD's in Raid 5.
>>
>>
>> .