[THIN] Re: Flash on MF XPe 1.0
- From: "Rick Mack" <Rick.Mack@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 07:08:54 +1000
Hi Rob,
I'm at a bit of a loss to understand the logic behind going for a Flash-based
application solution when your application delivery mecanism is terminal
services/Citrix and the end user devices are thin client terminals.
A richer user interface equates to a lot more "movement" and a lot more bitmap
updates. Unless you're executing Flash locally, I'm kind of surprised there's
only a 500% increase in bandwidth utilization :-(
Having said that, browser support in PS4 is heaps better than XP with local
JPEG image handling, lossy graphics rendition etc that equates to much better
IE performance in an ICA session. Provided of course you're running the Version
8 client or later (not 100% certain but also 7.2 for CE?).
There are more improvements in store but while they'll make things a lot
faster, they're dependent on upgrading the ICA client on your thin client
devices and even then I'm not sure they'll make up a 500% difference.
The only way Flash should be considered as a viable application rollout option
in your scenario is if:
1) Your user base is attracted to the "richer" front end and this gives you a
significant commercial
advantage.
2) You use a WAN bandwidth optimisation appliance. Considering some of the
claims, this might
provide a solution.
3) You throw out terminal services/Citrix and use the local browser only on
your thin client devices.
That means updating at least some of your thin clients to something that
will support a reasonably
up-to-date version of IE or Netscape with Flash support.
Of course the usual scenario is that you wouldn't have had a chance for any
input on the design etc of the new application and now it's your fault if it
doesn't work.
But it might be worth pointing out to the decision makers that you can have a
rich user interface without Flash, all it needs is the developers realizing
that bandwidth does matter. Make your developers work from home using a dial-up
connection. They'll soon get a feel for what's acceptable.
regards,
Rick
Ulrich Mack
Volante Systems
________________________________
From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of Rob Slayden
Sent: Thu 28/09/2006 5:37
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [THIN] Flash on MF XPe 1.0
I have a couple of questions for the list, both relating to Flash. We are
currently making development changes to our internal application that runs on
Citrix through a browser (IE is what we publish) and they are coding much of it
with Adobe Flex, which uses Flash 9 on the server side. During the bandwidth
testing we just completed, there was a 512% increase in bandwidth utilization
between the original non-flash version of the app and the updated Flash 9/Adobe
Flex version of the app. Our server side is MF XPe 1.0 FR3/SP4 on Server 2003
(no SP1). The client side terminals are Wyse 3350, 3360, 3125 and S30
terminals, so we have CE 2.12 to CE.Net and ICA 6.20 through 9.04. My questions
are as follows:
1. Are there any tweaks or tunes that will help Flash run better in our current
environment?
2. Are the changes between XP 1.0 and PS 4.0 from a Flash perspective enough to
benefit users and reduce bandwidth? Note that we would likely have to fork over
about $1.5 mill to update our environment as we passed on the SA and we would
also have to upgrade about half of our terminals in order to get 9.x ICA client
support.
Any comments, ideas, suggestions, or alternatives would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks!
rob
#####################################################################################
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.
#####################################################################################
Other related posts:
