[THIN] Re: Server spec's
- From: Matt Kosht <matt.kosht@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2011 09:58:37 -0400
#1 Well that settles it for me :) WWJD What would Joe do?
#2 OK they share code base but 90% of the Vista stuff was FUD IMO. I ran it
for 2 years myself with 0 issues.
#3 Does that still hold true? The only big feature that I thought was
missing was HDX Flash redirection which was added in FP3/2008 some time ago.
#4 Haven't hit any show stoppers myself, but then my farm is pretty small
(<200 concurrent users)
Biggest issues with me sticking with 2003R2 is it's age, needs much more
tuning on XA than 2008, and it's butt ugly to look at. Issues with XA6 is
x64 is a huge jump for some of the apps we run. So this was the best
compromise.
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 9:22 AM, Webster <webster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> #1 – Joe Shonk doesn’t like it (if you can’t tell, Joe and I love to pick
> on one another)
>
> #2 – Server 2008 equals Vista Server
>
> #3 – XenApp 5 on 2008 does not have the feature set of XenApp 5 on 2003
>
> #4 – I gave up writing my book on it because of all the bugs I found and I
> couldn’t get Citrix to address the issues
>
>
>
> I made it to Chapter 5 in my book and gave up on the product.
>
>
>
>
>
> Carl Webster
>
> Consultant and Citrix Technology Professional
>
> http://dabcc.com/Webster
>
>
>
> *From:* thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On
> Behalf Of *Matt Kosht
>
> *Subject:* [THIN] Re: Server spec's
>
>
>
> OK Carl I'll bite. What is wrong with XA5/2008? I run this now in
> production. I find it to be stable and performing well.
>
> -Matt
>
> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 8:03 AM, <webster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> I personally think that XenApp 5 on Server 2008 is the ugly red-headed
> step-child of the XenApp family tree. My apologies to all you good
> looking red-headed step-children on the list.
>
>
>
Other related posts:
