[THIN] Re: what goes down an ICA pipe??
- From: "Braebaum, Neil" <Neil.Braebaum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 14:05:01 -0000
And that being the reason, why in the main, X requires more bandwidth
(the "chatty" bit).
In order to do all the graphic stuff, a lot (relatively) instructions
get sent to the X server (which in the X architecture, is the display,
or effectively the workstation). Whereas in the ICA world, mucho
optimisation (including ignoring that which tends towards being
redundant) was done in order to very much reduce the amount of imagery
that needed transmitting in order to *give the impression* of the
current graphical situation.
The chattiness of X may not seem that intuitive, but as somebody who
played around writing X code (some years back) it does bear note.
However, in the earlier days of thin client, some vendors worked on
optimising this to be suitable for thin client / low bandwidth
implementations (Keoke was the name of the technology, and I think
Insignia was the vendor).
Neil
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Timothy Mangan [mailto:tmangan@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: 15 January 2004 14:01
> To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [THIN] Re: what goes down an ICA pipe??
>
> What X sends is more like instructions on how the application
> would like things displayed, as opposed to a bitmap/changes.
> So it is both a change in the content on the wire, as well as
> a change in where the actual display is generated. It's kid
> of like this (Hopefully I'll keep from wrapping):
>
> Case X:
> App code --- X commands on wire --> Display code : Display
>
> Case ICA:
> Application code and Display rendering --- ICA on Wire : Display
>
> X is much more chatty on the wire (requires more bandwidth)
> than ICA for the typical user.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Brian Lilley
> Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 11:38 AM
> To: 'thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx'
> Subject: [THIN] what goes down an ICA pipe??
>
> Chaps, I have heard several people describe the ICA
> connection as the windows answer to X. I personally don't
> think this is correct as I understood that the ICA session is
> simply sending bitmap screen changes as opposed to X which I
> understand sends screen drawing commands??
>
> Any help much appreciated as usual...
>
***********************************************
This e-mail and its attachments are confidential
and are intended for the above named recipient
only. If this has come to you in error, please
notify the sender immediately and delete this
e-mail from your system.
You must take no action based on this, nor must
you copy or disclose it or any part of its contents
to any person or organisation.
Statements and opinions contained in this email may
not necessarily represent those of Littlewoods.
Please note that e-mail communications may be monitored.
The registered office of Littlewoods Limited and its
subsidiaries is 100 Old Hall Street, Liverpool, L70 1AB.
Registered number of Littlewoods Limited is 262152.
************************************************
********************************************************
This Week's Sponsor - RTO Software / TScale
What's keeping you from getting more from your terminal servers? Did you
know, in most cases, CPU Utilization IS NOT the single biggest constraint to
scaling up?! Get this free white paper to understand the real constraints &
how to overcome them. SAVE MONEY by scaling-up rather than buying more
servers. http://www.rtosoft.com/Enter.asp?ID=147
*********************************************************
Useful Thin Client Computing Links are available at:
http://thethin.net/links.cfm
***********************************************************
For Archives, to Unsubscribe, Subscribe or
set Digest or Vacation mode use the below link:
http://thethin.net/citrixlist.cfm
Other related posts:
