[THIN] Re: windows 2003 seamless apps running on XP desktops...
- From: Dogers <dogers@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 11:42:02 +0100
(GMail didnt like your reply Brian, it made it into a new thread for
some reason :) )
The policy changes between nothing and let windows decide (ie, do
whatcha can to look pretty, but go borderline on chugging!)
Andrew
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 19:53:39 +1000, Rick Mack <rick.mack@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Brian,
>
> Sorry, came on a bit heavy.
>
> There's nothing intrinsically wrong with the XP interface, except for the
> huge waste involved in supporting visual effects. Get a really old machine
> and run XP on it with My Computer > properties > advanced > performance set
> to either best appearance or best performance. Where CPU is limited, it makes
> a huge difference to the perception of speed.
>
> However there's nothing wrong with the XP user interface once animations are
> disabled.
>
> Just include the following unmanaged policy snippet in your TS policy
> templates, disable visual effects and you can have the best of both worlds.
>
> --------------------------
> CLASS USER
>
> CATEGORY "Visual Effects"
> KEYNAME "Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Explorer\VisualEffects"
> POLICY "Visual Effects"
> PART "Disable Visual Effects" CHECKBOX
> VALUENAME "VisualFXSetting"
> VALUEOFF NUMERIC 0
> VALUEON NUMERIC 2
> END PART
> END POLICY
>
> END CATEGORY ; visual effects
> -----------------------
>
> regards,
>
> Rick
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of Lilley, Brian
> Sent: Tue 12/10/2004 6:39 PM
> To: 'thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx'
> Subject: [THIN] Re: windows 2003 seamless apps running on XP desktops...
>
> Hi Mark, many thanks for your response
>
>
> some comments inline....
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rick Mack [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Rick
> Mack
> Sent: 11 October 2004 23:57
> To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [THIN] windows 2003 seamless apps running on XP
> desktops...
>
> Hi Brian,
>
> Calling the XP interface a "rich" user interface is actually quite
> correct. It costs a lot more and aside from making things pretty, adds
> nothing to the functionality of the base item. Efficient and functional is
> beautiful too.
> [Lilley, Brian] very true indeed.
>
> There are 2 good reasons for not even considering running any of the
> special effects on terminal services. The first is an increased CPU overhead
> and the second a significant bandwidth utilization increase. ANY animation,
> be it fades or whatever has an overhead and across a WAN will produce a
> perceived reduction in performance. Updating bitmaps takes cpu, bandwidth and
> time.
> [Lilley, Brian] I totally agree, that a TS design should cut out
> unnecessary flashy gizmos, but, at the same time we can't remain with legacy
> look and feel. Is the XP look and feel really going to cost that much?
>
> Log in via a WAN connection, use Excel, enable "feedback with
> animation" and insert a column in a spreadsheet. Now do it with "feedback wih
> animation" turned off. Which one's better?
> [Lilley, Brian] I totally agree.
>
> Users will complain a lot less about a plain user interface than they
> will if it's slow.
> [Lilley, Brian] Absolutely, however will the XP look and feel cost
> that much?
>
> The latest client, with MPS 3.0 does support other skins for seamless
> apps, but that overhead is largely borne at the client end so doesn't have a
> significant effect on performance.
> [Lilley, Brian] ah, ok... so does that mean we can have XP look and
> feel at little cost.
>
> regards,
>
> Rick
>
> Ulrich Mack
> Volante Systems
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of Lilley, Brian
> Sent: Mon 11/10/2004 11:43 PM
> To: 'thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx'
> Subject: [THIN] windows 2003 seamless apps running on XP desktops...
>
> hi list,
>
> I understand that the XP theme is not available by default on windows
> 2003
> servers. I assume this is because you don't need a rich user
> interface on a
> server. Ok, well if that server is a terminal server then you do
> potentially
> want that rich interface (for well connected ICA/RDP clients).
>
> So, my question is this, does anyone know the level of overhead
> required for
> the XP look and feel relative to the classic stylie? I guess the
> overhead
> here is two fold, firstly, one CPU overhead to render rounded
> corners and
> other XP 'stuff'... and the other overhead is in transmitting this
> down an ICA
> channel, i.e. does it actually require additional bandwidth.
>
> Also, what would happen with transparent windowy bits I understand
> the win32
> client released with FR3 for xp included support for LUNA (.net)
> seamless
> apps, although ... I've never tried it...
>
> any thoughts on the subject appreciated...
>
> Brianos :o)
>
>
> ==============================================================================
> This message is for the sole use of the intended recipient. If you
> received
> this message in error please delete it and notify us. If this message
> was
> misdirected, CSFB does not waive any confidentiality or privilege.
> CSFB
> retains and monitors electronic communications sent through its
> network.
> Instructions transmitted over this system are not binding on CSFB
> until they
> are confirmed by us. Message transmission is not guaranteed to be
> secure.
>
> ==============================================================================
>
> ********************************************************
> This Weeks Sponsor RTO Software
> Do you know which applications are abusing your CPU and memory?
> Would you like to learn? -- Free for a limited time!
> Get the RTO Performance Analyzer to quickly learn the applications,
> users,
> and time of day possible problems exist.
> http://www.rtosoft.com/enter.asp?id=320
> **********************************************************
> Useful Thin Client Computing Links are available at:
> http://thin.net/links.cfm
> ***********************************************************
> For Archives, to Unsubscribe, Subscribe or
> set Digest or Vacation mode use the below link:
> http://thin.net/citrixlist.cfm
>
>
> #####################################################################################
>
> This e-mail, including all attachments, may be confidential or
> privileged. Confidentiality or privilege is not waived or lost because this
> e-mail has been sent to you in error. If you are not the intended recipient
> any use, disclosure or copying of this e-mail is prohibited. If you have
> received it in error please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and
> destroy all copies of this e-mail and any attachments. All liability for
> direct and indirect loss arising from this e-mail and any attachments is
> hereby disclaimed to the extent permitted by law.
>
>
> #####################################################################################
>
>
> #####################################################################################
> This e-mail, including all attachments, may be confidential or
> privileged. Confidentiality or privilege is not waived or lost because this
> e-mail has been sent to you in error. If you are not the intended recipient
> any use, disclosure or copying of this e-mail is prohibited. If you have
> received it in error please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and
> destroy all copies of this e-mail and any attachments. All liability for
> direct and indirect loss arising from this e-mail and any attachments is
> hereby disclaimed to the extent permitted by law.
>
> #####################################################################################
>
> ==============================================================================
> This message is for the sole use of the intended recipient. If you received
> this message in error please delete it and notify us. If this message was
> misdirected, CSFB does not waive any confidentiality or privilege. CSFB
> retains and monitors electronic communications sent through its network.
> Instructions transmitted over this system are not binding on CSFB until they
> are confirmed by us. Message transmission is not guaranteed to be secure.
> ==============================================================================
>
>
>
>
> #####################################################################################
> This e-mail, including all attachments, may be confidential or privileged.
> Confidentiality or privilege is not waived or lost because this e-mail has
> been sent to you in error. If you are not the intended recipient any use,
> disclosure or copying of this e-mail is prohibited. If you have received it
> in error please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and destroy all
> copies of this e-mail and any attachments. All liability for direct and
> indirect loss arising from this e-mail and any attachments is hereby
> disclaimed to the extent permitted by law.
> #####################################################################################
>
>
********************************************************
This Weeks Sponsor RTO Software
Do you know which applications are abusing your CPU and memory?
Would you like to learn? -- Free for a limited time!
Get the RTO Performance Analyzer to quickly learn the applications, users,
and time of day possible problems exist.
http://www.rtosoft.com/enter.asp?id=320
**********************************************************
Useful Thin Client Computing Links are available at:
http://thin.net/links.cfm
***********************************************************
For Archives, to Unsubscribe, Subscribe or
set Digest or Vacation mode use the below link:
http://thin.net/citrixlist.cfm
Other related posts:
