(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