[THIN] Re: Flash on MF XPe 1.0

  • From: "Tim Mangan" <tmangan@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 19:22:33 -0400

Rob,

 

This new manager is working with what he knows, which is not all that
unusual.  If he is a good manager, he will now learn that he is in a new
environment and needs to adjust his solutions to the problems at hand there
in the clubs.  Too bad you have to stand in the path of that learning!  Flex
is really cool, but not for a TS.  Hope to see you out at iForum again this
year!

 

Tim Mangan

 

From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Rob Slayden
Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2006 7:10 PM
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [THIN] Re: Flash on MF XPe 1.0

 

Rick,

 

Thanks for the feedback. Of course, the way this started was we hired a
Manager of Development and he was not impressed with the app or the
supportive infrastructure, even at one point indicating that we just need to
replace the 4200 thin clients with desktop PCs and run the app from the
local browser. Of course, this would be over our 384K DSL VPN links to the
clubs! Guess the medicinal marijuana from his pharmacist is really good
quality! I sent the terminal server programming guidelines over to him and
told him that Flash and MetaFrame did not really play nice, but he worked up
a prototype and wowed the executive management to the extent that they
RIF'ed a department that would no longer be necessary once the app
development was complete. So here we are now looking at options for picking
up the slack. He is finally convinced about the necessity to program for the
infrastructure as our Network Manager has already informed everyone that the
network will not support the deployment of this app and the bandwidth it
requires.

 

Your idea to make the developers work from home over a dial-up connection is
a good one!! This should be a fun one...

 

rob

 

 

  _____  

From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Rick Mack
Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2006 2:09 PM
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [THIN] Flash on MF XPe 1.0

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: