Terminalserver versus Citrix

[Peter Schaback]

Hello newsgroup,

my company plans to offers an application for 400 users (80 % over WAN).
We think about, to realize this over Citrix since all clients are running
Windows 98,
the application however dont. First test were ok, but the prices of Citrix
shocked us.
We need Terminalserver CAL and Citrix CAL. The application will be
published over
the Desktop, it's not running seamless.
The application will run on 8 Blade-Server. The application also works fine
under Windows of 2003
terminal servers. In the case we need only Terminalserver CAL.
About 300 Euro less per Client. Which advantage do I have, if I use
Citrix instead of Windows terminal server?

 

[Guest]

Please see your second post. Citrix offers much better load balancing, a
central management console, seamless local drive redirection/mapping, faster
remote file-system access, better sound, Secure Gateway (exposte your entire
farm to internet clients over SSL using 1 IP Address), application
publishing, seamless windows, content redirection, program neighborhood agent
(allows users to click on local files and automatically launch a published
application that supports that file type, i.e. user doesn't have Word
locally, but double clicks a doc file, which automatically opens Word via
Citrx), printer bandwidth management, Universal Printer Driver (EMF Based in
MetaFrame 4.x to be released later this year), restrict users to published
apps only (so users can't logon to a full desktop)... The list goes on...

 

[Jim Vierra]

I would say that at the 400 user level that the price/feature value may not
be met for using Citrix. Most studies I have seen don't factor in Citrix
until about 2000 users. Of course if the environment is very rich and
complex then Citrix becomes a better value sooner.

I support one larger Windows 2003 TS with 80 users, file services, SQLServer
client, Office, Perfect Office, Sybase Infomaker, and more. We haven't seen
a need fro Citrix at this time. We will move to a load balancing server set
(2) and expand to close to 200 users with still no need for Citrix.

I could see out system set up on an array of 4 blades with little or no
change to the existing layout.

Again. It is necessary to asses the complexity of the application
environment and user requirements that is responsible for the choice. When
the analysis requires, Citrix is a very good value.

 

[Simon Guest]

Why not take a look at Tarantella Secure Global Desktop as a more cost
effective, feature righ alternative to Citrix? www.tarantella.com.

Hope this helps,

Simon

 

[Guest]

I think Citrix and other add-ons are good fits on any system needing to
support multiple load balanced terminal servers. This is not tied to a
certain number of users, because I've seen some applications where you can
only put 20-30 users on a single server, meaning a 200 user company is
already hitting 6-10 servers.

These situations are not common, but do exist. For a normal installation of
400 users you're looking at 4-8 servers, so you'll probably want some kind of
add-on to help you load balance and manage sessions.

http://www.workthin.com/tshw.htm

 

[Peter Schaback]

Hello Jim!
Thanks for your fast answer!

We haven't seen
a need fro Citrix at this time. We will move to a load balancing server set
(2) and expand to close to 200 users with still no need for Citrix.

Nice to know! What balancing server will you choose?

I could see out system set up on an array of 4 blades with little or no
change to the existing layout.

Again. It is necessary to asses the complexity of the application
environment and user requirements that is responsible for the choice. When
the analysis requires, Citrix is a very good value.

Of course! And if i would need the many features citrix offers,
i would pay the price without any again-talks.

 

[Peter Schaback]

Hello Patrick!

Thank your for your statement, and excuse my multiposting!
Of course, this system needs load balancing.
I am looking for the riht decision, if i need citrix or a cheaper add-on

Peter Schaback

 

[Guest]

Pardon me for chiming in here folks, but did you say all the client machines
are running Windows 98?

So why would you want to use an OS that is difficult to secure possible map
it drives to a Citrix/TS server?