Server Fault is a question and answer site for system and network administrators. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

We are planing to invest in new software for our factory. Targeting application is standard users application for handling data of goods (bills, finances, accounting management, goods, simple manufacturing with human inputs of data). One of our partner whit the highest chance for getting job, have pretty good application, most of things are looks good. One disadvantage of their system is, that they supporting their application for distance users only to use over Remote Deskotp Connection. Our factory (storehouse, production and few operates) and We (administration, head office) are separated by 1mb DSL line. Data handling is about 40 vs 60 % widespread between these two offices. Should I get away from appl like that? Should I accept RDC as way of communicating distance clients with Main server? Should I insist to they change that?

I have experience with Remote Desktop Server with more than 3 years but for me that era is over. I know a lot of pros an cons of using RDS, but I do not know is that way for connecting is obsolete. When now is Client - Server applications is something that all We accepting when buying something new

share|improve this question
Please clarify. Is this application going to run on Terminal Services or will RDP be used only for support? – John Gardeniers Jun 28 '10 at 14:31
Users that coming from distance locations is forced to use Remote Desktops, This is question about daily use of RDP for clients.Not about support. Sorry for my bad grammar – adopilot Jun 28 '10 at 14:34

I think for remote working RDP is a fantasic tool. If you look at newish MS technology like TSRemoteApp it uses RDP. I think you will find it very difficult to migrate away from RDP whilst keeping costs down. You could look at moving into Citrix enviroments but would the cost be worth it?

With the purpose of helping you find a solution how else would you suggest remote workers access systems in the office?

share|improve this answer
We already have one app that is Client Server application, When I install application on client all I need to do after that is to ensure there is IP connection available to server over one specific port – adopilot Jun 28 '10 at 11:51
have you thought about the difference in bandwidth needed? RDP uses a tiny ammount of bandwidth compared with a VPN option. Given the fact you only have a 1Mb line I cant see any other solutions being effective for you. I tend to agree with the points that joeqwerty had made! – JamesK Jun 28 '10 at 13:10

vpn or web based apps are more common alternatives.

RDP uses more bandwidth than most apps would send so there has to be some compelling reason to be running the app on that remote machine, Eg. cpu power or access to storage/devices there.

share|improve this answer
I disagree with both of your points. I think RDP (or Citrix or some other thin client architecture) is a fairly common way of accessing applications from remote offices\work sites. Also, the applications the OP is referring to are likely to use database backends which surely would require more bandwidth than that used by an RDP\Thin client session. Not to mention the risks involved of losing or corrupting data if the WAN\VPN connection was unstable and unreliable. – joeqwerty Jun 28 '10 at 12:19
+1 - I think that RDP is still a valid way to access such applications from remote locations. – JamesK Jun 28 '10 at 13:12
RDP is actually a fairly reliable connection technology - you can drop and reconnect the session without killing off the application. Most databases will abort the transaction if the network layer signals that it's lost the connection. – ConcernedOfTunbridgeWells Jun 28 '10 at 13:24
So what you are saying is that you can use rdp to cover up a badly written app? I don't disagree with that, but theres no reason why a properly written one should be susceptable to corruption of data. There are plenty of things to guard against that like checksums, transactions, etc. – JamesRyan Jun 29 '10 at 9:31

Unless you really have a requirement for a browser, such as a web based business process orchestration engine or a requirement to access the application from any browser-equipped computer in the world, you don't actually need a browser based interface.

User interface technologies go in and out of fashion, so RDP is just another user interface technology. People still sell AS/400 based green screen apps and get new business with them (although typically these also have a screen scraping layer with a web interface so the comparison isn't totally like for like). If the RDP based app is fit for purpose and your infrastructure has the bandwidth to handle it then the rich client interface shouldn't be a show stopper.

Find out if the vendor have any plans to make a web enabled version. My guess is at some point they will do this anyway.

share|improve this answer

When now is Client - Server applications is something that all We accepting when buying something new

! I stopped buying / developing thick client software 15 years ago.

Do you really mean that RDP is the only product they support? Or merely that any remote access client capable of conencting to MS-Windows systems? There are a lot of different products out there (VNC, NomachineNX, Citrix et al).


share|improve this answer
I'm guessing that it's a rich client app, and the vendor only tests and therefore supports it with MS Terminal Services. – ConcernedOfTunbridgeWells Jun 28 '10 at 13:23

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.