Is SBS 2011 the right choice for replacing Server 2003 Terminal Server?

Question

Reading license options has done my head in so going to ask for recommendations here if SBS is best option, as every option seems to have pros/cons.
Need to upgrade a 2003 Server which has 2 local users and average of 10 remote users (max 15 users).  They use remote desktop to connect with everything on a single server (on its last legs now).  Server acts as DC, runs SQL Server 2008 R2 Express
(need to upgrade from Express to SQL server Std shortly due to size), Microsoft Office, Myob, and a couple of proprietary applications.
I'm thinking SBS 2011 is best option as with premium add-on will include SQL Server licenses, so it's looking the most cost effective?
So the questions;
In an ideal world what would you suggest as a replacement for the current setup?  (As is, with apps installed on server and remote users using Remote Desktop, or can SBS 2011 offer better solution?)
Can you install Microsoft Office 2003 under SBS 2011 for all users to use with existing licenses?  Cost of upgrading server and O/S will probably rule out upgrading Office as well at the moment (though that's the long term plan).
or.. Best way of running Office and app for SQL Server on local PC's with VPN link?  (may have issues with response times for some locations).  I gather DirectAccess won't be an option as needs multiple servers and clients are Windows 7, but just
Win 7 Pro, not Enterprise.
Appreciate any advice....  this is for a small business with a few locations that is just getting big enough to require an upgrade, but small enough that funds as always are limited.  Realise what I'm asking about maintaining current setup using
Remote Desktop is probably not best practice, but is it most cost effective given the small size?

Answer 1

Hi:
There is no easy answer, and a lot depends on what you do with your email.  SBS made email very easy, but without it, the decisions are harder and more costly.  O365 and other hosted email systems are low cost of entry but they add up over time. 
Pop3 is cheap, but not very robust or convenient.
SQL introduces another wrinkle.  SQL express is free and is good for databases up to 10 GB.  If you are well within that limit I would do that and not incur the expense of SQL Server.  If you need SQL server, the PAO is the best way to
acquire it, but you will need a physical box to install it, unless you do Hyper V as below.
SBS does not allow for remote access to itself to run programs.  Only for admin purposes.  Full stop.
In an ideal world I would suggest SBS 2011 and Server 2012 running as VM's on one beefy server.  Install Server 2012 in HyperV role only, then install SBS 2011 as VM1 and Server 2012 again as VM2.  The license for Server 2012 allows 3 installs
of the same license, one as host and two guests.  If you need a third server you can install the same copy of Server 2012 again as a second VM.  Not that all three installs must be on the same box.  This third VM could also be the Server 2008
from the PAO, but iirc the SQL version that comes with the PAO only checks that there is a SBS in the domain, not what OS it is being installed on.
So, for the cost of one pretty beefy server, one copy of SBS 2011, one copy of the Server 2012 and, if needed the PAO and RDS CALs and Office CALs you should be covered. 
Don't forget a robust firewall to protect all of this.
Larry Struckmeyer[SBS-MVP] If your question is answered, please mark the response as the answer so that others can benefit.