The reasoning behind it is that in a normal environment you always will need
a CAL to connect to a server. Now when you use a terminal services desktop
or published app, Microsoft sees this as not only using a CAL but you are
also using a licensed desktop of windows. In the old days they used to
charge you a full NT license to access TS. Be thankful it's now a discounted
TS license. Oh and it gets better with Citrix in the mix.
One CAL, one TS, and one metaframe license per EACH user - well at least the
citrix license is concurrent from a pool and not per seat.
From: CW <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: The Hardware List <[email protected]>
To: "The Hardware List" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [H] Windows 2003 CALs
Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2005 14:59:41 -0600
Pretty much. There are a few other issues with Terminal Services (like
running a Terminal Services Licencing server, which you can do on the same
box). Also, make sure your win2k3 box is not SBS (which won't do terminal
service lic. server, etc.)
:)
-----Original message-----
From: "Thane Sherrington (S)" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2005 14:23:36 -0600
To: [email protected]
Subject: [H] Windows 2003 CALs
> Ok, I'm sure this is really stupid (or at least uneducated.)
>
> I have a client with Windows 2003 server OEM with 5 CALs. He wants to
use
> Terminal Server, and I understand from talking to MS that one needs
> Terminal Server CALs on top of the Windows CALs that come with 2K3.
(But
> according to MS, Terminal Server is part of 2K3, so that's a bit
confusing
> to me.)
>
> From talking to MS, this is how I think things work:
>
> 2K3 with Windows CALs allows a user or a device to connect (since a user
> must be using a device to connect to the server, I don't understand the
> difference between users and devices, but anyway) and use the server as
a
> file server. To run applications on the server and share those, or for
> remote file sharing access, one needs Terminal Server, and needs CALs
for
> that. Of course, one needs 1 Windows CAL for every Terminal Server CAL.
>
> Am I understanding this right?
>
> T
>
