[THIN] Re: Presentation Server 4.5 Release Date

  • From: "Schneider, Chad M" <CMSchneider@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: "'thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx'" <thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 10:52:49 -0600

Better yet!

 

  _____  

From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of IT Support
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 10:35 AM
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [THIN] Re: Presentation Server 4.5 Release Date

 

Confirmation:-

 

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/64bit/x64/standard.mspx
<http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/64bit/x64/standard.mspx> 

 

 

 

 

Regards

Jaime

  _____  

From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Schneider, Chad M
Sent: 12 February 2007 16:25
To: 'thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx'
Subject: [THIN] Re: Presentation Server 4.5 Release Date

 

I think 64-bit standard allows up to 16 GIG ram, actually.

 

  _____  

From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Michael Pardee
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 10:22 AM
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [THIN] Re: Presentation Server 4.5 Release Date

 

Now I just need to justify upgrading from Standard Edition to Enterprise
Edition so we can use more than 4GB.  It's time for MS to change their
specs/licensing.  When we go to 64-bot operating systems the Standard
Edition should allow us to access 8GB, not 4GB. 

On 2/12/07, Greg Reese <gareese@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:gareese@xxxxxxxxx> >
wrote:

that's good news then.  very good news.

 

On 2/12/07, Schneider, Chad M <CMSchneider@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:CMSchneider@xxxxxxxxx> > wrote: 

Agreed.

 

 

  _____  

From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
[mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> ] On
Behalf Of Berny Stapleton
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 9:53 AM
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
Subject: [THIN] Re: Presentation Server 4.5 Release Date

 

64bit,  small apps, loads of memory. Possible.

 

Would I really want to do it without a heap of testing and a few hotfixes.
Nope. 

BM_110b6bb781bd1bf3_110b6b3233362907__MailE 

From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
[mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> ] On
Behalf Of Schneider, Chad M
Sent: 12 February 2007 15:48
To: ' thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> '
Subject: [THIN] Re: Presentation Server 4.5 Release Date

 

Depending on the hardware, software, and use of 64-bit, sure, I buy it.

 

 

 

  _____  

From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
[mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> ] On
Behalf Of Greg Reese
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 9:43 AM
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
Subject: [THIN] Re: Presentation Server 4.5 Release Date

 

I am skeptical about their claim of 500 user per server. I'll beleive it
when I see it.

 

Does anyone know if all portions of presentation server are 64-bit now? In
PS 4 64 bit, some pieces were still 32 bit (like ima).

 

I am in the middle of a new deployment and have a mess of 64 bit servers.
Citrix consulting recommended we go 32 bit all the way which seems like a
waste to me.  Their reasoning was that 32 bit PS code was better all around
than the 64bit edition.  

 

Greg

 

On 2/12/07, Joe Shonk < joe.shonk@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:joe.shonk@xxxxxxxxx> >
wrote: 

Now that Feb 11th has passed and Citrix has made its announcement, we can
now talk about it.

 

 
<http://citrix.com/English/NE/news/news.asp?newsID=164024&ntref=hp_article_h
eadlines_US>
http://citrix.com/English/NE/news/news.asp?newsID=164024&ntref=hp_article_he
adlines_US 

 

 <http://www.brainmadden.com/content/content.asp?id=672>
http://www.brainmadden.com/content/content.asp?id=672 

 

Looks like Feb 22nd to D/l and March 8th for General Availability according
to Brian.

 

Joe

 








-- 

Michael Pardee
www.blindsquirrel.org <http://www.blindsquirrel.org>  

 

Click here <https://www.mailcontrol.com/sr/wQw0zmjPoHdJTZGyOCrrhg==>  to
report this email as spam.

Other related posts: