I've been looking at the improvements to terminal services in application
mode available with Windows 2003 Server. It seems to me that the remaining
technical features that are absent from the Microsoft capabilities, with
respect to the Citrix Metaframe product are:

1) published applications and the ability to launch an application in it's
own window that is not a full login session

2) Unix and Linux clients.

Agree? Have I missed anything?

Don't forget load balancing. While Microsoft has network
load balancing and DNS round-robin, the fact of the matter
is that it isn't as sophisticated as Citrix's.

However, while Microsoft may not have Unix clients, you
can download Unix clients, since many of them are open
source. Check out RDesktop.org for instance.

-M

>-----Original Message-----
>I've been looking at the improvements to terminal
services in application
>mode available with Windows 2003 Server. It seems to me
that the remaining
>technical features that are absent from the Microsoft
capabilities, with
>respect to the Citrix Metaframe product are:
>
>1) published applications and the ability to launch an
application in it's
>own window that is not a full login session
>
>2) Unix and Linux clients.
>
>Agree? Have I missed anything?
>
>
>.
>

Thanks for the response.

I think the NLB with Session Directory in W2K3 is probably adequate. How
sophisticated do you have to get?

I was unaware of the open source clients for Unix or Linux.

Can published applications be far behind?

"Matthew Harris [MVP]" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:0a9f01c3a011$504652a0$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Don't forget load balancing. While Microsoft has network
> load balancing and DNS round-robin, the fact of the matter
> is that it isn't as sophisticated as Citrix's.
>
> However, while Microsoft may not have Unix clients, you
> can download Unix clients, since many of them are open
> source. Check out RDesktop.org for instance.
>
> -M
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >I've been looking at the improvements to terminal
> services in application
> >mode available with Windows 2003 Server. It seems to me
> that the remaining
> >technical features that are absent from the Microsoft
> capabilities, with
> >respect to the Citrix Metaframe product are:
> >
> >1) published applications and the ability to launch an
> application in it's
> >own window that is not a full login session
> >
> >2) Unix and Linux clients.
> >
> >Agree? Have I missed anything?
> >
> >
> >.
> >

If they were going to do published apps, they would have already! My
program is a cost effective alternative and with 2003, Citrix is about done
as far as being "special". rdesktop.org has an open source TS client.

--
Sincerely,
Mark Mancini, CCA, CCNA, Master CIW&CI, CNE 4&5, MCSE+I 4&2000
www.MCSE2000.com
www.AppLauncher.com



"Rich Raffenetti" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Thanks for the response.
>
> I think the NLB with Session Directory in W2K3 is probably adequate. How
> sophisticated do you have to get?
>
> I was unaware of the open source clients for Unix or Linux.
>
> Can published applications be far behind?
>
> "Matthew Harris [MVP]" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:0a9f01c3a011$504652a0$(E-Mail Removed)...
> > Don't forget load balancing. While Microsoft has network
> > load balancing and DNS round-robin, the fact of the matter
> > is that it isn't as sophisticated as Citrix's.
> >
> > However, while Microsoft may not have Unix clients, you
> > can download Unix clients, since many of them are open
> > source. Check out RDesktop.org for instance.
> >
> > -M
> >
> > >-----Original Message-----
> > >I've been looking at the improvements to terminal
> > services in application
> > >mode available with Windows 2003 Server. It seems to me
> > that the remaining
> > >technical features that are absent from the Microsoft
> > capabilities, with
> > >respect to the Citrix Metaframe product are:
> > >
> > >1) published applications and the ability to launch an
> > application in it's
> > >own window that is not a full login session
> > >
> > >2) Unix and Linux clients.
> > >
> > >Agree? Have I missed anything?
> > >
> > >
> > >.
> > >
>
>

The load balancing with Citrix is more sophisticated in
that the balancing program can take various atributes into
account when balancing people between servers. Things
like how big the page file is, or how busy the processor
are..etc. NLB is nice, but it only does it based on
network load, which can be deceiving at times.

I'd imagine that published applications aren't far
behind. While I can't speak for Microsoft, I wouldn't be
surprised it you saw it sooner than later. Many people
have requested this type of feature, and I know that
Microsoft has been paying an increased amount of attention
to those requests.

-M

>-----Original Message-----
>If they were going to do published apps, they would have
already! My
>program is a cost effective alternative and with 2003,
Citrix is about done
>as far as being "special". rdesktop.org has an open
source TS client.
>
>--
>Sincerely,
>Mark Mancini, CCA, CCNA, Master CIW&CI, CNE 4&5, MCSE+I
4&2000
>www.MCSE2000.com
>www.AppLauncher.com
>
>
>
>"Rich Raffenetti" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> Thanks for the response.
>>
>> I think the NLB with Session Directory in W2K3 is
probably adequate. How
>> sophisticated do you have to get?
>>
>> I was unaware of the open source clients for Unix or
Linux.
>>
>> Can published applications be far behind?
>>
>> "Matthew Harris [MVP]" <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote in message
>> news:0a9f01c3a011$504652a0$(E-Mail Removed)...
>> > Don't forget load balancing. While Microsoft has
network
>> > load balancing and DNS round-robin, the fact of the
matter
>> > is that it isn't as sophisticated as Citrix's.
>> >
>> > However, while Microsoft may not have Unix clients,
you
>> > can download Unix clients, since many of them are open
>> > source. Check out RDesktop.org for instance.
>> >
>> > -M
>> >
>> > >-----Original Message-----
>> > >I've been looking at the improvements to terminal
>> > services in application
>> > >mode available with Windows 2003 Server. It seems
to me
>> > that the remaining
>> > >technical features that are absent from the Microsoft
>> > capabilities, with
>> > >respect to the Citrix Metaframe product are:
>> > >
>> > >1) published applications and the ability to launch
an
>> > application in it's
>> > >own window that is not a full login session
>> > >
>> > >2) Unix and Linux clients.
>> > >
>> > >Agree? Have I missed anything?
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >.
>> > >
>>
>>
>
>
>.
>