Gabe Knuth - All Comments

re: RedHat SPICE vs RDP vs ICA performance video

Ben Vos — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 12:46:43 GMT

@Brian

Why did you test with XD 2.0 while XD 3 FP 1 was already available? (5/1/09)

XD 3 FP 1 does remoting to.

I expect the best results with XD 3 FP 1.

re: RedHat SPICE vs RDP vs ICA performance video

Ben Vos — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 12:43:12 GMT

Brian,

Why did you test XD 2.0 when XD 3.1 was already available?

XD 3.1. does remoting to.

I expect the best results whit XD 3.1 .

re: RedHat SPICE vs RDP vs ICA performance video

skleinert — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 21:12:39 GMT

@Gabe, Where can I find those AutoIT script's you guys used during the Presentation? Brain mentioned during the video you guys would post them, I can't seem to find them.

Thanks in advance!

stellar video, now RDP7 needs to be added into the mix.

re: VDIworks releases new VDI remote desktop connection protocol. Yawn or Yay?

CKelly — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 02:26:47 GMT

I've already downloaded the trial. So far, our experience has already blown the pants off the competition. It's also got an extra bonus of us not having to buy any extra hardware either.

Moti- I couldn't agree more, our team is going to try out the other downloads from this company too (and I'm still regretting not buying Yahoo when it first IPO'd)

re: VDIworks releases new VDI remote desktop connection protocol. Yawn or Yay?

Moti-ITT — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 20:55:31 GMT

When the internet and search business started in the mid 1990's , does anyone know how many search engine startups there were? it might have looked saturated then too , thought all we might remember is Yahoo and Google. I think this company seems to have a product that might break it into the big leagues, especially with cloud computing becoming so popular and the spread of thin/light clients in the enterprise and the spread of 3G, and broadband. I'd keep a watch on this firm... the time is right for such technologies...and yes you should have bought Yahoo stock when it came out!

re: VDIworks releases new VDI remote desktop connection protocol. Yawn or Yay?

Tony — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 23:34:57 GMT

Agreed, this market is starting to get a little over-saturated.

re: VDIworks releases new VDI remote desktop connection protocol. Yawn or Yay?

Glenda Canfield — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 20:54:45 GMT

Not even worth the R&D. Too many other compettitors with real visibility inti the technology and proven progress /customer acceptance.

re: RedHat SPICE vs RDP vs ICA performance video

help4ctx — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 15:53:42 GMT

@Brian, were your tests conducted using HDX?

Also, the FP1 VDA has better support for VoIP.

re: RedHat SPICE vs RDP vs ICA performance video

appdetective — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 13:27:48 GMT

@help4ctx Yes HDX testing was with XD 3.0. I've also tested the XA beta version, and that's good also.

re: RedHat SPICE vs RDP vs ICA performance video

help4ctx — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 11:05:00 GMT

Just out of interest, with the ICA tests, were you using XD 3.0 and HDX MediaStream?

I've done some similar tests myself and saw much better video performance.

re: VDIworks releases new VDI remote desktop connection protocol. Yawn or Yay?

appdetective — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 05:40:24 GMT

YAWN. This company is just thrashing to survive, but a good move to bring attention to their mgmt solutions. I just can't see this as anything but a tier 2 protocol play. The big guys will win this always with $$$. Hopefully though they can do something for mgmt. and I pray there is no hardware crap from clearcube to deal with.

re: RedHat SPICE vs RDP vs ICA performance video

appdetective — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 05:30:21 GMT

About time these were published, there were posts on this request last year :-(

Anyway, good set of basic tests concurs with what I have done with my own testing. SPICE is very heavy on bandwidth, and RDP is not great, and CPU dies quickly. I have also tested with regular PC-IP and RGS and bandwith there is also high. ICA audio sucks still. I care about bandwidth and latentcy and overall ICA wins handsdown, once you add these factors in and start to consider the number of sessions one can support.

I've also tested some of the more recent additions with ICA/HDX and audio and video experience is much better. RDP 7 also tested well, but again not as good on Bandwidth, or CPU. I havn't tested ALP from Oracle/SUN, or bothered with EOP from Quest yet.

It seesm to be there are only so many tricks one can do with the protocol, and there are too many of them. That said combined with WAN accelerators (I have to do more testing) intiail results show improvements. It's also seems that once the ICA guys start caching comtent with their network appliances etc, they have a piece of the puzzle that nobody has that will continue to give them the edge.

re: Why do we need "Software" client hypervisors?

Dan McCall — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 16:30:51 GMT

Gabe,

Interesting idea and certainly worth the discussion. When we started Virtual Computer, we felt that we needed to be hypervisor agnostic such that the management system we built could be used on another hypervisor platform if one was to become ubiquitous in themarket. Our feeling was that microsoft would be the likely candate to do that and we took steps to insulate the end-point management layer (where we implement our high-value features) from the hypervisor itself.

As it turns out, Xen has a good chance of getting a very wide-spread deployment across PC OEM's but I do think the market will remain fragmented for a long time. this is primarily for two reasons:

1) these products are all new and changing rapidly. We are currently planning releases every 3 months to get new features, performance tuning, and bug fixes onto the client (we call that NxTop Engine). imagine if you had to udpate your bios every 3 months on your PC. I don't think people would be too keen on that. It's also quite likely that the day you buy your product from a PC OEM, it will require an upgrade to that layer of firmware (a behaivor that sounds alot more like software than firmware)

2) Microsoft has not been heard on this topic. If they get serious about a hypervisor as the base for Windows, they would likely get very wide spread deployment (assuming they did it in an open manner and supported more than just Windows environments). That's not to say intel, vmware, citrix or the PC OEM's themselvs wouldn't have a huge impact on the success or failure of such a solution. It just says Microsoft will gain alot of attention if it enters the market with bare-metail hypervisor technology.

just my .02,

drm

re: Why do we need "Software" client hypervisors?

Shawn Bass — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 14:59:07 GMT

All I know is that client side hypervisors is going to make Intel and AMD wet their pants. Finally a reason to convince someone to purchase that eight-core desktop chip. You'll need it to run your 12 client hypervisor OS's simultaneously. :)

re: Why do we need "Software" client hypervisors?

Thomas McKinley — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 15:49:44 GMT

Gabe, This idea is very communist... Where does it end? :) This idea would turn equipment into more of a basic commodity then it already is.

Actually I think you would still end up with the same situation you have now, different vendors with slightly different ideas on how to do everything. Which I believe is the best system, sure it's a bit chaotic but from the chaos comes innovation.