Nah, they've hated it for 10+ years through tons of different versions and builds. I think it's just that they have probably 50+ apps, apps that link to other apps, and they do a lot of intensive work. It's not just published word and excel.
They also have a hard time understand latency and home bandwidth. When the husband is watching Netflix, and the kids are downloading bit torrent, yeah, your Citrix experience may not be the best. Had one user mad that Citrix has horrible. Turned out she was using a Verizon 3G hotspot 8 hours a day. Latency maybe? And of course simple things like timeouts, they can't stand. They want to Citrix to stay open all day while they take 3 hour breaks. Really though, I've yet to talk to anyone who uses XenApp who likes it at any company. On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 6:34 PM, Webster <[email protected]> wrote: > Something must be wrong with your XenApp implementation if users hate it. > **** > > ** ** > > Thanks**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > Webster**** > > ** ** > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Jon D > *Sent:* Tuesday, October 29, 2013 2:53 PM > > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [NTSysADM] VPN and high bandwidth applications**** > > ** ** > > Thanks for everyone's responses so far! Responses below:**** > > **** > > >>Wouldn't something like Citrix XenApp offload the performance hit onto > the local network for your remote users? **** > > Good suggestion. We're actually already using it(have been for 10+ years), > but end-users hate it. **** > > I might end up trying something like XenDesktop and see if they like that > better just for remote access....**** > > **** > > **** > > >>It is, however, something that WAN accelerators were designed to help > mitigate.**** > > I saw that Riverbed has a mobile client which sounds interesting. **** > > **** > > **** > > >>So normally the SQL traffic is between the users desktop and the sql > backend?**** > > Yeah for some of the apps the traffic from the workstation can easily hit > 100megs doing a normal operation or query. **** > > **** > > **** > > >>A VPN is just a network link. Nothing more, nothing less. Think of it > like a really long Ethernet cable.**** > > Very good point. I'm over thinking it. I think the end-users have psyched > me out by keep saying all other companies have VPNs. It seems like using a > VPN w/o something like RDP or Citrix is only useful for simple apps like > outlook/word/excel/etc.**** > > **** > > **** > > Summary: Sounds like a VPN is what it is, and something like Citrix is the > current best solution for chatty apps...**** > > **** > > > Thanks,**** > > Jon**** > > ** ** > > On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 1:22 PM, Ben Scott <[email protected]> wrote:** > ** > > On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 12:09 PM, Jon D <[email protected]> wrote: > > I'm not an expert with VPNs...**** > > A VPN is just a network link. Nothing more, nothing less. Think of > it like a really long Ethernet cable.**** > > > > Is it possible to have end-users use any sort of VPN technology to access > > high-bandwidth apps?**** > > (1) I'm with others in the "Use a VPN to access the network > remotely; use RDP (or Citrix or whatever) to run applications that > aren't WAN friendly" camp. I see them as complementary technologies, > not replacements for each other. > > (2) Bandwidth is only part of the equation. Latency (AKA packet > delay AKA round trip time) is just as important. Indeed, latency is > usually more of a problem these days, because everybody's talking > bandwidth and ignoring latency, so you have to fight just to find > someone who understands the problem. In other words: If you have a > gigabit link with RTT at 300 ms, it will still feel like an old analog > modem. > > -- Ben > > **** > > ** ** >
