Submission details
No 'Terminal Services' equivalent for OS X Server
OS X really needs a Terminal Services server. Supposedly it wouldn't currently work because it's too difficult to adapt the Quartz graphics engine to work on a virtual screen, but it really limits businesses who would prefer to run OS X on their servers but can't.
Terminal Services has been used for many years on Windows Servers. It allows a company's users to keep all their applications and documents on a single computer, but lets multiple users log in and access all their files and applications at the same time from remote destinations. All the users run the same copy of an application at the same time, so instead of needing to install and update Office on every single user's laptop, just one copy can be installed on the server and everybody else will access it remotely. Updates become very simple because only one copy of an application needs to be updated. If a user is traveling their applications can be updated by an administrator on the server, and the updated files will automatically be available to them when they next log on with virtually no down-time. It also allows a user to log onto a server but still use their local printers and devices.
The concept is virtually identical to VNC (Virtual Network Computing) or Leopard's 'Back to My Mac' feature, except that VNC and BTMM only allow a single user to operate the computer at any one time. People can already use Fast User Switching to allow multiple users to use their Mac at the same time, but only one person can actually be operating the computer, keyboard and mouse, and all other users are stuck in the background. Terminal Services would allow all users to use their accounts at the same time by logging on from a different computer. They can see all their settings and documents exactly as they would seem them if they were sitting in front of the server computer.
Five of my clients who currently run Terminal Services on Windows Server have expressed interest in OS X server but are greatly disappointed to find that at the moment, running a Mac is not an option for them.
Apple will never be a serious contender for corporate clients without this functionality because it is becoming such a popular, cost-effective and easily maintainable way to manage IT resources. They really need to invest time and money bringing this functionality to OS X server.
Medium
High
Not fixed
Discussion (5 comments)
Apple does not offer such a solution, but there is a third-party solution available. It supports RDP (working with standard RDP clients), VNC, and X11 and has just the features you are suggesting.
http://www.aquaconnect.net/
Thanks Fred! Unfortunately I emailed these guys requesting pricing and other details a few months back and received no reply. Tried them again in early December and again received no reply. Not sure how 'legit' they are.
Huh. Well, the product really exists and works pretty well; they were demoing at Macworld. It isn't as fast as Windows Terminal Services but is quite sufficient over a LAN. Try emailing ronnieexley@aquaconnect.net directly, he was there at the Expo.
I'll give it a go, thanks again. Maybe their website 'Contact Us' emails are all being sent to somebody who quit the company or something, so they don't get read. They're probably wondering why nobody's buying it, not realising nobody can contact them.
ebaur wrote on December 9, 2008, 12:20am
While I agree that something similar to RDP would be nice, some of what you mentioned is possible via other routes on Mac OS X. VNC is basically just a quick hack so Apple could enable remote administration without having to figure out how to actually support a true remote desktop protocol. (Ironically, Mac OS X has the X Window system installed... which is a far older protocol than even RDP is... but it can't be used with the Mac OS X Windowing system.)
For files, etc., you can set up remote home directories, as far as I know. This used to be done with NFS, but AFP works as well, as far as I know. You can do something similar with Applications, where there is a network location hosting the application and you run it from another client. (This does not mean the server is running the app, as it would with Terminal Services, the server only hosts the files for the app.) Both of these are more difficult when you have remote users, I'll admit... they are really only intended for local connections.
All in all, I think this is a great suggestion for Apple if they want to be taken more seriously in the server space.