The correct newsgroup for this would be microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs.
However, to give a quick answer: SBS 2003 goes so far beyond 2000 that
there's no way you should consider 2000, particularly in the area of remote
access. The particular features are Remote Web Workplace (RWW), Outlook
Mobile Access (OMA), Outlook over HTTP, etc. all of which are either missing
or poorly implemented in SBS 2000. Either read about them at
www.microsoft.com/sbs or check out the above newsgroup for enthusiastic
discussion.
Where your consultant is right is that SBS 2003 no longer supports Terminal
Server in Application Server mode to run applications on the server itself
for security reasons (this is a good thing); SBS 2003 would require a 2nd
server to host Terminal Server. However, SBS 2003 still supports Terminal
Server in Administrative mode (2 sessions maximum) for administering the
server.
Your basic description makes it sound like your emphasis is on remote email
and company info access, and SBS 2003 does this far better than SBS 2000.
If your line of business applications require Terminal Server to support
multiple remote workstations, then a second server working hand-in-hand with
SBS 2003 is still the better solution.
"Biz Girl" <Biz
> wrote in message
news:654CE473-160A-42A5-A516-...
> Help! I've been working with what seems to be a very knowledgeable local
> network installer but he wants to install SBS 2000 instead of 2003. We
> have
> 2 retail stores & he just set us up on a VPN . . . he's telling me that
> 2003
> takes away the ability for remote desktop sessions to the server . . is
> this
> accurate? We will start with about 15 users total. We go on about 5
> business
> trips a year where we would want to access e-mail & company info. Anyone
> out
> there that has used both versions please respond.
Similar Threads
Linear Mode
