I'm thinking of getting a Powerbook and use it in my office. (Medical practice) We just set up a server with software for billing and practice management and perhaps in the future physician encounters etc. The product is written for Windows and is on the Window 2000 Server. I was trying to see if Terminal services could be used to connect to the server using the remote desktop, but it appears that Terminal services will not work with the Mac OS because of a problem or limitation with 256 colors on the server end or something like that. This is foreign to me but was wondering if there was some kind of work around. Could Virtual PC work in this kind of situation? Could the server be upgraded to 2003? Sorry if I'm not explaining things more clearly. Any comments would be appreciated.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Terminal services and Server 2000
- Thread starter osroubek
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I have a PB at work and connect to many Windows 2000 Server machines with 16 million colors. If you use the Remote Desktop client from MS (www.mactopia.com), just be sure to click the little gray triangle and modify the display settings to up the color. I think it is 256 colors by default.
Thanks. I was wondering if this would be a viable option. Then if I understand correctly, I do not need to configure terminal services at all in order to use the remote desktop? What if any thing needs to be done on the server side to allow remote desktop to work. Will the full functionality of whatever program on the server be allowed on the Mac using this method? Thanks
While the RDC for OS 10 from Microsoft will display more than 256 colors (Thousands & Millions are the other choices) Terminal Services under Windows 2000 will only send out 265 colors. You can set the client to whatever you want, but the server will still only send out 256 colors. If you want Terminal Services to send out more than 256 colors, you need to upgrade to Server 2003. I have a mixture of 2000 and 2003 Servers here at work that I manage and only the 2003 servers will send out more than 256 colors and even then that has to be set in the Terminal Services properties since by default it will only send out 256. 2003 Server also sends out sound as well as thousands of colors.
The very reason I have the Windows 2003 Servers now is becasue of this limitation in TS 2000. We have a specific application that was written to take advantage of millions of colors and wasn't optimized for Terminal Services under 2000. So I had to upgrade.
The very reason I have the Windows 2003 Servers now is becasue of this limitation in TS 2000. We have a specific application that was written to take advantage of millions of colors and wasn't optimized for Terminal Services under 2000. So I had to upgrade.
A few more things....
I forgot to mention that I do all of my systems management on Servers from my 12" Powerbook. You do not have to do any special configuration with either 2000 or 2003 other than enabling Terminal Services and selecting either Remote Admin or Application Mode. A note on this, if no more than 2 people will be connected at one time to the Terminal Server, Remote Admin mode is fine. Almost all of my 20 servers run in this mode since I am the only one that connects to them. However, my Terminal Servers run in Application mode since at any given time I could have up to 100 clients connected to them. In Application mode you have to have the correct CALs as well as the correct number of CALs. With all of that said, your tech people should be able to configure TS on a server in about 5 minutes..10 at the most.
As for ease of use, get a 2 button mouse. I use the Microsoft Bluetooth Keyboard and Bluetooth Mouse with my powerbook and it works great. But just about any 2 button USB mouse will work. This is a must if you are going to use TS on your Mac.
I forgot to mention that I do all of my systems management on Servers from my 12" Powerbook. You do not have to do any special configuration with either 2000 or 2003 other than enabling Terminal Services and selecting either Remote Admin or Application Mode. A note on this, if no more than 2 people will be connected at one time to the Terminal Server, Remote Admin mode is fine. Almost all of my 20 servers run in this mode since I am the only one that connects to them. However, my Terminal Servers run in Application mode since at any given time I could have up to 100 clients connected to them. In Application mode you have to have the correct CALs as well as the correct number of CALs. With all of that said, your tech people should be able to configure TS on a server in about 5 minutes..10 at the most.
As for ease of use, get a 2 button mouse. I use the Microsoft Bluetooth Keyboard and Bluetooth Mouse with my powerbook and it works great. But just about any 2 button USB mouse will work. This is a must if you are going to use TS on your Mac.
Remote Desktop is great. I use it through VPNs to support Filemaker database clients all over the USA from my Powerbook to either their server or, usually, a desktop client in their network running our stuff. No other software required, works every time.
Upgrade
The upgrade to Server 2003 for us was around $4500 per server, but I was buying new servers. (This was just the cost of the server hardware and software BUT does NOT include the CALs.)
If your server is relatively new, you should be able to upgrade just for the cost of the software. Since I buy software at the educational discount, I couldn't tell you what it could cost you. I can only tell you that I'm planning on upgrading my other servers this summer based on the experience I've had with my new 2003 servers. As little downtime (around 20 minutes a month or so since I can restart the machines at night after service packs, etc) as I have with 2000 I have even less with 2003. Of course, 2003 just works better. Shadow copy alone is worth the cost of upgrading in my opinion.
I should also mention that I did not integrate the 2003 servers into my Active Directory structure. They are joined to the domain, etc but are not set to replicate AD, etc. since I didn't want to have to go through that process just yet. What I'm trying to say is if the server you want to upgrade is also your Primary AD server that also houses your global catalog, the upgrade could get technical since there are serveral steps that need happen when you do that since 2003 adds several componets to AD.
The upgrade to Server 2003 for us was around $4500 per server, but I was buying new servers. (This was just the cost of the server hardware and software BUT does NOT include the CALs.)
If your server is relatively new, you should be able to upgrade just for the cost of the software. Since I buy software at the educational discount, I couldn't tell you what it could cost you. I can only tell you that I'm planning on upgrading my other servers this summer based on the experience I've had with my new 2003 servers. As little downtime (around 20 minutes a month or so since I can restart the machines at night after service packs, etc) as I have with 2000 I have even less with 2003. Of course, 2003 just works better. Shadow copy alone is worth the cost of upgrading in my opinion.
I should also mention that I did not integrate the 2003 servers into my Active Directory structure. They are joined to the domain, etc but are not set to replicate AD, etc. since I didn't want to have to go through that process just yet. What I'm trying to say is if the server you want to upgrade is also your Primary AD server that also houses your global catalog, the upgrade could get technical since there are serveral steps that need happen when you do that since 2003 adds several componets to AD.
Thanks. Unfortunately I do not understand everything that you are explaining but our equipment and software for our practice is brand new. We have not gone live yet since there has to be a conversion of our database and other information to the new system. Seems to me that Windows 2003 server should have been installed at this point in time rather than 2000. I suspect the software was written a while ago on the previous server. Should I complain that the software is not up to the current technology?
I could be wrong since I don't know anything about the software that you are running, but if it runs under 2000 it should run under 2003. I was hesistant at first to get the 2003 servers since they are still fairly new and I have only recently begun to go to a few classes to get up to date as far as 2003 is concerened. So it could just be that the software can run under 2003 but your IT folks may be hesistant to run 2003. It also could be that your software might not run under 2003 at all due to some changes in the server code of 2003 since it is very different than 2000. (I hate to put my nose in other people's IT stuff.......you never know the specifics.) Also 2000 has been out there much longer and it is probably easier to patch as far as HIPA compliance is concerened than 2003.
Although looking at your previous post, and I think you mentioned that it requires Terminal Services to run. So if they are running Terminal Services and everyone is going to be connecting to the software using TS, you wouldn't have anything to worry about since RDC for OSX is identical to the RDC for Windows machines.
From the server standpoint, a TS client is a TS client. I have a mixture of Macs, PCs, and thin-client systems connecting to my servers and the server doesn't care what the client hardware is..as long as the software supports the RDC protocol.
Although looking at your previous post, and I think you mentioned that it requires Terminal Services to run. So if they are running Terminal Services and everyone is going to be connecting to the software using TS, you wouldn't have anything to worry about since RDC for OSX is identical to the RDC for Windows machines.
From the server standpoint, a TS client is a TS client. I have a mixture of Macs, PCs, and thin-client systems connecting to my servers and the server doesn't care what the client hardware is..as long as the software supports the RDC protocol.
I should have mentioned that this program, named Intergy, is installed on every PC in our office. So as I understand it, it will take some of the pressure off of the server since alot of the processing will occur at the PC's scattered around the office. So, terminal services is not even enabled for this program. The bottom line is that I like the Mac environment alot and would like to incorporate it into my work and personal work as well, but there appear to be alot of limitations/restrictions.
The clients are not identical. There are some features that are only available in certain versions, but I don't think these will restrict you. These differences can also be found in HTML format in the RDC for Mac help.
ddiver, thanks for the updates. I didn't know Win2K was limited to 256 colors.
ddiver, thanks for the updates. I didn't know Win2K was limited to 256 colors.