Rick:
When Citrix first came out and our office was at Win3.1 level, we looked at Remote Access
and Remote Control options. We played with the first version of Citrix Server and did not
like. ( But, that was a pre web server based solution) We ended up getting a Cubix system
with ReachOut Remote. Interesting system. There were two drawers and each drawer had 12
ISA slots. Using a CPU on a card (each card had its own 486 CPU, RAM, hard disk, RS-232,
video, etc) you could then partition the drawer for as many CPU cards you need and each
drawer had a management unit. The two management units (one per drawer) communicated
together to act as one whole management console.
Looking at just one CPU card; DOS 6.0 was loaded on the hard disk and Win31 was loaded
ontop of DOS with ReachOut server loaded on that. The CPU card had a dedicated Hayes modem
attached. We had a hunt group of 12 lines with a 800 number on the lead phone number.
A user would call the 800 number and the hunt group would find a free phone number and
ReachOut Remote would then take control of the Win3.1 system. It worked *extremely* well
and ReachOut was very stable and maximized the modem bandwidth. Of course the only items
that went across the modem were mouse strokes, key strokes and screen updates. They were
smooth and worked well connected to our then Novell LAN.
When we moved to Win95 and were using NT4 Domain, we had a shift in what we did and our
company provided Terminal Services to "all" employess and our Cubix system was "turned-in"
thus ending its use. So we then shifted from Remote Control via a modem to Remote Access
via PPP over a modem. We are now in a new change of process as v.90/v.92 doesn't cut the
mustard anymore. Citrix has greatly matured and has dominated the market. We are in the
process of implementing a corporate Citrix Remote Control server via https. This should be
both secure and musch faster than v.90/v.92 modems as many of our personnel have xDSL or
Cable Internet or are TDY at a hotel with Internet connectivity or at a contractors location
and use the contractors ISP.
I have seen lots of changes and I have been glad to be in the middle of their
implementation. While I have not used ReachOur remote in several years, and the product
line was sold to another compnay, my experiences with it were excellent.
Dave
| I don't know if I would use the term "dominate", as if that were the case
| they would want to put it in all versions of XP, not just Pro - and release
| a compatible version for other Win-OS's. Right now you must be accessing a
| Pro or Server2003 system to use this feature, though you can download a file
| that will allow you to access the machine from any version of Win. But it
| doesn't work in reverse.
|
| I have never tried ReachOut, have you used it and what do you think of it?
| Am curious.
|
| --
| Best of Luck,
|
| Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP
|
| Associate Expert - WindowsXP Expert Zone
|
| Windows help -
www.rickrogers.org
|
| | > Remote desktop -- Just another example of a third party product that
| > Microsoft wants to
| > takeover and dominate. ReachOut and PC AnyWhere are just two of the many
| > Remote Control
| > software.
| >
| > Dave
| >
| >
| >
| > message
| > | > | Keep in mind that some of the more advanced features allowed by Pro also
| > | requires an advanced knowledge of the operating system. Playing with
| > | functions such as EFS can get you into trouble (file loss) if you don't
| > know
| > | how to use it. This becomes critical when dealing with company files.
| > The
| > | bottom line is you can't go wrong with purchasing the Pro edition, but
| > many
| > | of the extra feautures would probably not be used in this case. I do
| > find it
| > | very helpful to be able to use remote desktop which is a pro feature.
| > |
| > | Thanks,
| > |
| > | John
| > |
http://www.americantechie.com
| > |
| > | "David H. Lipman" wrote:
| > |
| > | > Thank you for that clarification Rick.
| > | >
| > | > Dave
| > | >
| > | >
| > | >
| > | > | > | > | Um, no, NTFS, and the resultant permissions, is available and
| > configurable
| > | > | on both versions. Only difference is that on Home systems you have
| > to access
| > | > | the security settings in Safe mode. Both versions can use NTFS with
| > equal
| > | > | alacrity. EFS itself is only available on XP Pro, and is reliant on
| > the NTFS
| > | > | file system, but they are two different things. However, regardless
| > of
| > | > | version, NTFS security can be overridden by sloppy system security
| > (lack of
| > | > | firewall, improper port settings, etc.).
| > | > |
| > | > | --
| > | > | Best of Luck,
| > | > |
| > | > | Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP
| > | > |
| > | > | Associate Expert - WindowsXP Expert Zone
| > | > |
| > | > | Windows help -
www.rickrogers.org
| > | > |
| > | > | | > | > | > But he would also gain NTFS security via XP pro as compared with
| > XPHE.
| > | > | >
| > | > | > Dave
| > | >
| > | >
| > | >
| >
| >
|
|
