Application Publishing: Comparing Longhorn Terminal Services to Citrix Presentation Server - Guest Bloggers - BrianMadden.com
Brian Madden Logo
Your independent source for desktop virtualization, consumerization, and enterprise mobility management.
Guest Bloggers's Blog

Past Articles

Application Publishing: Comparing Longhorn Terminal Services to Citrix Presentation Server

Written on Nov 14 2006
Filed under: ,
28,430 views, 27 comments


by Katie Koepke

It’s now common knowledge that one of the biggest new features of Terminal Services in Windows Longhorn Server is the ability to “publish applications”. But how does publishing applications in Longhorn compare to publishing applications in Citrix Presentation Server? This article answers this question by comparing the application publishing functionality between Windows Longhorn Server (August 2006 CTP version) and Citrix Presentation Server 4.0.

To begin, it’s important to clarify the terminology. As technologists familiar with Citrix products, Citrix terminology has become the de facto industry standard. What Citrix calls a “Published Application”, Microsoft refers to as a “Remote Program”. In this sense a Remote Program from the user’s perspective is an application running remotely on a server, but it means the same thing as Published Application. This article will refer to both terms.

Moving forward, after installing Windows Longhorn Server, you’ll naturally need to install Terminal Services. In Windows 2003 this is done via Add/Remove Windows Components, whereas in Windows Longhorn, Terminal Services is added as a “Role”. This is done by simply running the Add Roles Wizard in Server Manager. (Note that the Server Manager of Windows Longhorn is totally different from the Server Manager of the NT 4.0 days.)

When it comes time to “published applications” in Longhorn, Server Manager can also handle this functionality or you can use the Terminal Services Remote Programs (TSRP) MMC snap-in. When compared to Citrix’s Presentation Sever Java Console, Longhorn’s Server Manager provides a similar look and feel, however, when solely administering remote programs you may opt for the TSRP console.

Server Manager

Terminal Server Remote Programs MMC Snap-in

Creating a Remote Program

To create remote program (or “published application”) in Longhorn Server, you can use either the Server Manager or the TSRP MMC to launch the Remote Programs Wizard. This wizard is similar to Citrix’s Application Publishing Wizard. In short, the Remote Programs Wizard is made up of three easy windows: a welcome screen, a list of preconfigured remote programs to choose from or the option to browse to an executable, and a confirmation screen. The second window is pictured below.

Creating a Remote Program adds the program to what Microsoft calls the “Allow List”. You can view all of the available Remote Programs in the Allow List on a given Terminal Server through Server Manager or the TSRP MMC. Unlike Citrix Presentation Server where you can assign individual Published Applications to specific servers, an Allow List of Remote Programs must be created for each Terminal Server. If you have multiple Terminal Servers that require the same Remote Programs, you have the option of exporting and importing Allow Lists from server to server. Again, this can be done via Server Manager or the TSRP MMC. Another distinct difference worth mentioning is that when creating a Published Application in Citrix Presentation Server, a farm is automatically available as part of the Presentation Server’s “out-of-the-box” functionality (even if it’s a farm of one server). When publishing applications, this allows you to simply choose which server you would like to publish your application on. With Longhorn Server, a Terminal Server farm must be configured separately either using a 3rd party load balancer or using Windows NLB. (To have the ability to reconnect to a disconnected session and share a session when launching more than one application on a Terminal Server, Session Directory, which is somewhat like Citrix’s Data Collector, must be in place. Session Directory will be discussed further in a future article.) The bottom line is without manually configuring a Terminal Server farm when creating a Remote Program, you only have the option of “publishing” or allowing that program on each specific Terminal Server.

Permissions to Remote Programs

For a user to have permission to access a Remote Program, the given Remote Program must exist in the Terminal Server’s Allow List, Remote Desktop connections must be allowed, and the user must be a member of the Remote Desktop Users local group. Adding the Terminal Services role to a server automatically changes the System Properties - Remote Desktop settings from, “Don’t allow connections to this computer” to “Allow connections from computers running any version of Remote Desktop”. The former can also be configured through Local or Group policy. The final step in regards to permission is to ensure the user is a member of the Remote Desktop Users group.

You lose some granularity in controlling who has permission to Remote Programs in comparison to how Citrix Presentation Server handles who has permissions to Published Applications. With Presentation Server you can control access by the application, whereas Longhorn Server gives access to all applications in the Allow List on a given server. With Longhorn you can restrict who has access by the server, using policy etc., however, it’s not on a per-application basis. Naturally you can also leverage security groups, however, this still does not allow you to restrict access per application with the same ease as in Presentation Server’s published applications.

Methods of Accessing Remote Programs

There are three different ways you can provide access to Longhorn’s remote programs: by creating an RDP package, creating an MSI package, or accessing the Remote Program through TS Web Access. These methods will be discussed in more detail in a future article, however, here is a brief summary.

  • An RDP package creates an .rdp file which essentially acts the same as an ICA file and establishes a connection directly to the remote program when you double click it.
  • An MSI package creates an .msi file which can be installed on the client machine. This creates a shortcut to the Remote Program either on the client’s desktop and/or in the client start menu, similar to the Citrix Program Neighborhood Agent (PNA).
  • A Remote Program can be accessed via TS Web Access which is similar to Citrix’s Web Interface.

By default, access to Remote Programs in the Allow List via TS Web Access is enabled. Of course you could always establish an RDP session to a Terminal Server desktop and launch programs as if you were connected to a published desktop.

By the way, there is a default Remote Program available that essentially publishes an RDP connection called a “Remote Remote Desktop Connection” (a “double hop” from one server to another). I think it would be fun to call it a “Really Remote Desktop Connection”.

Configuration Options when creating Remote Programs

When compared to publishing applications in Citrix Presentation Server, there are very few configuration options possible at the point of creating a Remote Program through the Remote Programs Wizard. However, many options can be configured after the fact through policy. For example, with Presentation Server you have the option of defining color depth and encryption level when publishing the application. When creating a Remote Program you do not have the option to define color depth or encryption level when “publishing” (or allowing) the program, but you can configure these settings later through Local or Group Policy in Computer Configuration | Admin Templates | Windows Components | Terminal Services | Terminal Server etc.

With regards to Session Window Size, in Citrix Presentation Server this can be defined in the Application Publishing Wizard, however, the Remote Program by default will launch in a resizable window. For the Remote Programs to launch seamlessly, you must launch the program using the RDP 6.0 client. If you are using the older RDP client the program will still launch in a resizable window, but it will be displayed within an outer shell (which is also resizable). This more cumbersome and not as pretty than if you were using the newer client.

Both Published Applications in Citrix and Remote Programs in Longhorn have the option of changing the icon associated with the program as well as defining command line arguments to use with the program through their respective publishing wizards. Citrix’s Publish Application Wizard allows you to limit the number of published application instances allowed to run in a server farm and limit the number of instances of each application per user. In Longhorn, the number of connections to a server can be limited through policy, but connections to a specific application cannot be defined. (Again, you can get creative with Security Groups but it’s not as straightforward as with Citrix Published Applications.) Another feature the Publish Application Wizard allows is the ability to assign a CPU priority level as well as Access Control (if you are using Advanced Access Control with the Citrix Access Gateway) whereas no similar options exist for Longhorn Remote Programs. In addition, file type associations can be defined in the Publish Application Wizard whereas if you’d like to define file type associations or “client file extensions” for Remote Programs, you do when creating an MSI package versus at the point of allowing (“publishing”) the Remote Program.

Finally, Local Policy or Group Policy for Remote Programs and Citrix Policy for Published Applications can be used to configure multiple options such as connection level settings, device and printer settings, security, session time limits, etc.

Summary

Citrix’s Published Applications and Longhorn’s Remote Programs have some similarities, and naturally, some differences. Presentation Server’s Published Applications have more options when using the Published Application Wizard and they offer more granularity, particularly when targeting an individual application. Longhorn’s Remote Programs offer a very simplified wizard while having the option to configure additional settings using Local or Group Policy. Published Applications in general allow more flexibility and more exhaustive “out-of-the-box” options. That said, Longhorn’s Remote Programs are a huge enhancement to the Terminal Services of the past and provide a great option for those who don’t need the enhancements and expense of Citrix.

Resources

 
 




Our Books


Comments

Jeff Embry wrote Longhorn Terminal Services
on Tue, Nov 14 2006 9:24 AM Link To This Comment
Great article....I can see not too far down the line that MAYBE we will not have the expense of having to deal with Citrix...at least in my environment.  Longhorn seems to provide all that I need.
 
 
Corey Ruffer wrote citrix end?
on Tue, Nov 14 2006 9:26 AM Link To This Comment
Is Citrix going to have PS version that runs on Linux now? Citrix is going to be hard sale in the small to medium business. I see security, scalability, and reliability still in Citrix control but will that be enough to presuade people to buy it? 
Dan Shappir wrote The goals of Longhorn Terminal Services
on Tue, Nov 14 2006 9:55 AM Link To This Comment
Microsoft's stated goals with Longhorn Terminal Services are to provide:
Better entry-level solution (features optimized for low complexity scenarios)
Improved platform for ISVs to extend
(this is an edited quote from the Microsoft TechNet broadcast introducing Longhorn Terminal Services). These goals are evident in the "Remote Programs" implementation, as well as most any other feature in Longhorn Terminal Services.
 
In the context of Remote Programs it is evident that the solution is quit adequate when:
There are only a few Terminal Servers (I would say 1-3 but it really depends on how much manual management the sys admin is willing to put up with)
The Terminal Servers are identical, for example because there is no Application Load Balancing
All users access the same applications (more or less)
A simplistic user access interface is sufficient
Everybody is using Vista (yes you can use RDP 6 on XP but you loose any semblance of SSO).
If these are limitations you can live with than Longhorn is a great solution, and certainly a significant step up from Windows 2003. If you need more than this then there are several 3rd party solutions that may be appropriate, including Citrix.
Mike Blackett wrote LH vs 2X
on Tue, Nov 14 2006 11:09 AM Link To This Comment
How does Longhorn remote applications compare to 2X application publishing.?
Dan Shappir wrote RE: The goals of Longhorn Terminal Services
on Tue, Nov 14 2006 12:15 PM Link To This Comment
There is also, obviously, the time factor. Given past experiences I'm guessing that most organizations will wait for Longhorn SP1 before they make significant production deployments. This puts Longhorn based deployments approximately 18 months from now at least. OTOH the FUD factor will kick in long before then (in some cases it already has).
Katie Koepke wrote RE: The goals of Longhorn Terminal Services
on Tue, Nov 14 2006 1:34 PM Link To This Comment
ORIGINAL: shappir
Microsoft's stated goals with Longhorn Terminal Services are to provide: Better entry-level solution (features optimized for low complexity scenarios)


This is a great point to reiterate, Dan, thanks.  Application "publishing" in Longhorn provides a great, basic solution for offering remote programs. Citrix still offers a wealth of added functionality (better load balancing, AAC, application optimization, to name a few). The intent of this article is to compare the "application publishing" functionality of these two products groups. And, of course, there are other 3rd party products with provide this ability as well. :)
David Caddick wrote RE: The goals of Longhorn Terminal Services
on Tue, Nov 14 2006 5:13 PM Link To This Comment
Just to reinforce this point regarding "Simple" installations...  (although I am some what biased? ;-)
 
Some ex-colleagues of mine at a large Financial Institution look after 140+ Citrix Presentation Servers as well as 8 Terminal Servers that are mandated for "simple" remote access by users - guess which servers occupy the bulk of their time?
 
Cheers,
Dave
Katie Koepke wrote RE: The goals of Longhorn Terminal Services
on Tue, Nov 14 2006 5:45 PM Link To This Comment
I'm guessing the Terminal Servers definitely take more of their time time.  Citrix definitely offers a more efficient and granular method of managing a farm. My question is if your ex-colleagues own Citrix at their organization, why aren't they using it instead of Terminal Services? :)
Tim Mangan wrote User look and feel?
on Wed, Nov 15 2006 9:12 AM Link To This Comment
Katie,
 
Good job.  How is the "look and feel" to the user running the app?  Cut & paste, overlapping windows flipping back and forth and the like.
 
tim
Greg Wood wrote RE: The goals of Longhorn Terminal Services
on Wed, Nov 15 2006 11:14 AM Link To This Comment
We converted our qty42 x86 terminal server farm into qty30 x64 servers.  We only have about 8 citrix servers because of their licensing costs, and thats for smaller apps used by a multitude of people.  Our main farm of 30 servers are all identical in configuration.

When Longhorn comes out, we will upgrade our main x64 farm to x64 longhorn, complete with everything except NLB (we'll use our F5's for that, more than likely)  The 8 or so apps on there will be published apps and we'll leave the full remote desktop behind just for troubleshooting or as a failsafe.  We will probably have Longhorn eventually take over Citrix as well, but that will take more work since we have about 100 apps published on Citrix and those servers *aren't* identical.

Sure, its a tad more work than Citrix, but the $1,000,000 price tag for Citrix isn't worth it for us.  (we have over 3000 users, and it will grow significantly next year)  We'll get everything to work.  Saying its limited to 1-3 servers is not going to be the case :)  Heck, we could even afford about 2-3 headcount to make it work if we had to - its still cheaper than buying and maintaining Citrix, at least in our environment.

If Citrix was $50 a user, it would be a different story.  They constantly offer more and more features we don't care for, when really we want just a core set of features at an attractive price *with* support.  They aren't anywhere close to that.  We'd consider 2x if they weren't such a small company and if Longhorn was more than 2 years away.

agressiv


Greg Wood wrote RE: LH vs 2X
on Wed, Nov 15 2006 11:33 AM Link To This Comment
It will be fairly similar, except that 2x now has an integrated load balancer that Longhorn won't have.  Granted its an extra cost....

agressiv
Katie Koepke wrote RE: User look and feel?
on Wed, Nov 15 2006 3:12 PM Link To This Comment
Good question Tim, thanks.

The look and feel to the user running a Longhorn Remote Program is the same as if they were accessing a Citrix Published Application.  The Remote Program runs seamlessly, you can toggle between local and remote apps, cut and paste between them, overlap them etc. (See below.) The key is to have the updated RDP client.
 
http://www.brianmadden.com/content/images/overlapping.bmp

Katie
Greg Wood wrote RE: The goals of Longhorn Terminal Services
on Wed, Nov 15 2006 5:22 PM Link To This Comment
Terminal Servers, if designed properly, are inherently simpler than Citrix servers.  Much fewer moving parts, and less to break.  With the latest Citrix, there is a million different ways you can cause problems.   Almost everything that breaks a terminal server will break Citrix as well.  TSLicensing server breaks or something to that extent?  No more Citrix connections...

Point being, if architected properly, a terminal server farm should require much less maintenance than a Citrix farm.

Just my opinion, but a lot of it comes down to design and the level of experience of the admins.

Patrick Rouse wrote RE: The goals of Longhorn Terminal Services
on Wed, Nov 15 2006 11:01 PM Link To This Comment
If you're able to manage your terminal servers w/o Citrix and have concerns about your quantity of apps, you may want to look at Microsoft Softgrid to stream the apps to generic terminal servers, i.e. setup terminal servers with no software except the SoftGrid Client.

Citrix still adds quite a bit of value on top of Longhorn, but if you don't need it in your specific environment it's hard to argue the cost savings.

ORIGINAL: agressiv

We converted our qty42 x86 terminal server farm into qty30 x64 servers.  We only have about 8 citrix servers because of their licensing costs, and thats for smaller apps used by a multitude of people.  Our main farm of 30 servers are all identical in configuration.

When Longhorn comes out, we will upgrade our main x64 farm to x64 longhorn, complete with everything except NLB (we'll use our F5's for that, more than likely)  The 8 or so apps on there will be published apps and we'll leave the full remote desktop behind just for troubleshooting or as a failsafe.  We will probably have Longhorn eventually take over Citrix as well, but that will take more work since we have about 100 apps published on Citrix and those servers *aren't* identical.

Sure, its a tad more work than Citrix, but the $1,000,000 price tag for Citrix isn't worth it for us.  (we have over 3000 users, and it will grow significantly next year)  We'll get everything to work.  Saying its limited to 1-3 servers is not going to be the case :)  Heck, we could even afford about 2-3 headcount to make it work if we had to - its still cheaper than buying and maintaining Citrix, at least in our environment.

If Citrix was $50 a user, it would be a different story.  They constantly offer more and more features we don't care for, when really we want just a core set of features at an attractive price *with* support.  They aren't anywhere close to that.  We'd consider 2x if they weren't such a small company and if Longhorn was more than 2 years away.

agressiv
Citrix User Group wrote Longhorn TS Features Virtual Lab
on Thu, Nov 16 2006 9:23 PM Link To This Comment
If you're keen to have a hands-on look into the new features expected in Windows Longhorn Server then head on over to http://www.cug.co.nz/features/longhorn/virtualtslabs and follow the link from there to the 'Longhorn Beta 2 Terminal Services Gateway and Remote Programs Virtual Lab'.
hans straat wrote Design
on Mon, Nov 20 2006 8:50 AM Link To This Comment
I agree with that you have to carefully design your infrastructure when setting up a terminal server /citrix environment. You already have to design it today with WIN2K3 and MPS4.0 carefully cause a few mistakes and you get a totally flipped environment that won't perform etc. I have seen a few early stage technet sessions with longhorn remote applications and was kind impressed how they made it easy again :) But Citrix doesn't stand still either and are pushing forward also. Longhorn still has no good Load ballancing I really wonder why cause they should really be able to create such a thing as Citrix has at the moment. Well time will tell if Microsoft will push Citrix out of the marked. I doubt it cause if they wanted they would have done it already.
Geoffrey Moore wrote 2 Factor authentication with Longhorn
on Fri, Dec 8 2006 10:53 AM Link To This Comment
How are people doing 2 factor authentication with the new Longhorn version of terminal server and the TS Gateway?  With Citrix it is very easy to introduce 2 factor authentication what about Longhorn TS Gateway?
Earl J wrote How to restrict the access to Terminal Server?
on Sun, Dec 10 2006 10:05 AM Link To This Comment
Simple question but didn't find any answers for this - maybe you have idea. I installed Terminal Service Remote Programs, add applications to the list and add users to Remote Desktop Users group. Access to “remote programs” works well. No problem here but now users could access full terminal server, because they listed in Remote Desktop users. I need to avoid this, I need to allow access to Remote Programs only but not login to entire system.
 
Please, help with some idea
 
Thanks
Michael Scardigno wrote RE: The goals of Longhorn Terminal Services
on Thu, Apr 12 2007 6:52 PM Link To This Comment
ORIGINAL: agressiv

We converted our qty42 x86 terminal server farm into qty30 x64 servers.  We only have about 8 citrix servers because of their licensing costs, and thats for smaller apps used by a multitude of people.  Our main farm of 30 servers are all identical in configuration.

When Longhorn comes out, we will upgrade our main x64 farm to x64 longhorn, complete with everything except NLB (we'll use our F5's for that, more than likely)  The 8 or so apps on there will be published apps and we'll leave the full remote desktop behind just for troubleshooting or as a failsafe.  We will probably have Longhorn eventually take over Citrix as well, but that will take more work since we have about 100 apps published on Citrix and those servers *aren't* identical.

Sure, its a tad more work than Citrix, but the $1,000,000 price tag for Citrix isn't worth it for us.  (we have over 3000 users, and it will grow significantly next year)  We'll get everything to work.  Saying its limited to 1-3 servers is not going to be the case :)  Heck, we could even afford about 2-3 headcount to make it work if we had to - its still cheaper than buying and maintaining Citrix, at least in our environment.

If Citrix was $50 a user, it would be a different story.  They constantly offer more and more features we don't care for, when really we want just a core set of features at an attractive price *with* support.  They aren't anywhere close to that.  We'd consider 2x if they weren't such a small company and if Longhorn was more than 2 years away.

agressiv

 
Just curious .. you mentioned 1M$ for licensing; if you have 3000 users total, your concurrent usage should be significantly less ... you might want to take a closer look at this.  You could save more money just by paying for only the licenses that you need.
 
Michael
Patrick Rouse wrote RE: The goals of Longhorn Terminal Services
on Thu, Apr 12 2007 7:29 PM Link To This Comment
Have you considered looking at Provision Networks Virtual Access Suite, which is $50 per concurrent user to migrate from Citrix.  It provides multitudes more functionality than 2X ApplicationServer, most of what Citrix PS4x offers, and some that neither Citrix nor 2X offer. VAS offers the following that neither of the others offers:
 
1.  Universal Printer driver that works with Network Printers (i.e. so no need for any other printer drivers on your TS)
 
2.  End-to-end VDI Solution (i.e. all of the features of VAS are available when connecting to an XP Pro or Vista Host running on VMware or Blade Server.  This means you can publish apps to a user from TS or a VDI host and get your Universal Printer, SSL Tunnel, USB redirect, performance management, profile mgmt...)
 
3.  CPU and RAM optimization (exist only in Citrix Enterprise)
 
4.  Desktop Lockdown Policies
 
5.  Profile Management
 
6.  Universal USB Redirect to support Palm, Blackberry, Windows Mobile and Scanners (scanners are in Beta)
 
7.  One management console for everything
 
8.  Multi-object management, i.e. add/remove multiple apps/users to/from multiple servers
 
VAS is $99 for new purchases, and $50 for migrations from Citrix.  You never know, some of the things you want may still be added to Longhorn Server, as Beta3 is still not publicly released. :)
 
ORIGINAL: agressiv

We converted our qty42 x86 terminal server farm into qty30 x64 servers.  We only have about 8 citrix servers because of their licensing costs, and thats for smaller apps used by a multitude of people.  Our main farm of 30 servers are all identical in configuration.

When Longhorn comes out, we will upgrade our main x64 farm to x64 longhorn, complete with everything except NLB (we'll use our F5's for that, more than likely)  The 8 or so apps on there will be published apps and we'll leave the full remote desktop behind just for troubleshooting or as a failsafe.  We will probably have Longhorn eventually take over Citrix as well, but that will take more work since we have about 100 apps published on Citrix and those servers *aren't* identical.

Sure, its a tad more work than Citrix, but the $1,000,000 price tag for Citrix isn't worth it for us.  (we have over 3000 users, and it will grow significantly next year)  We'll get everything to work.  Saying its limited to 1-3 servers is not going to be the case :)  Heck, we could even afford about 2-3 headcount to make it work if we had to - its still cheaper than buying and maintaining Citrix, at least in our environment.

If Citrix was $50 a user, it would be a different story.  They constantly offer more and more features we don't care for, when really we want just a core set of features at an attractive price *with* support.  They aren't anywhere close to that.  We'd consider 2x if they weren't such a small company and if Longhorn was more than 2 years away.

agressiv

Patrick Rouse wrote RE: The goals of Longhorn Terminal Services
on Thu, Apr 12 2007 7:41 PM Link To This Comment
I forgot to add this link:
 
http://www.sessioncomputing.com/pdf/ProvisionNetworksValueAddToWTS.pdf
Dan Shappir wrote RE: The goals of Longhorn Terminal Services
on Fri, Apr 13 2007 5:20 AM Link To This Comment
agressiv,
 
You should also take a look at our own PowerTerm WebConnect: http://www.ericom.com/
Wilco van Bragt just posted a review of our new version 5.5.1: http://sbc.vanbragt.net/mambo/dedicated-sbc/ericom-powerterm-webconnect-5.5.html
BTW if you are attending Briforum you should also check out Wilco's and Claudio's session: Which SBC add-on product is the right solution
 
Dan
http://ericomguy.blogspot.com/
Guest wrote Bye bye citrix...
on Wed, May 30 2007 7:20 AM Link To This Comment
This is the begenning of the end for Citrix....  The stock price is hovering mid 30s by the time this is common knowledge the price will be in single digits.... oh well, 1 less thing to be certified in!
Guest wrote simple TS
on Mon, Dec 10 2007 9:49 AM Link To This Comment

Hi,

Sometimes we forgot what users want is just a simple and cost effective way to have remote programs

ThinServer XP fits into that category

www.aikotech.com/thinserver.htm 

 

Guest wrote Re: Bye bye citrix...
on Wed, Dec 12 2007 5:32 PM Link To This Comment

Wow.  You're a genius.  It's over six months after your post, this IS now common knowledge, and the price is hovering in the HIGH 30s.  I went to a Microsoft event the other day and they we VERY pro-Citrix, especially for existing customers of CPS.

Guest wrote Costs
on Tue, Mar 25 2008 11:16 AM Link To This Comment
But what are the comparative costs of Longhorn vs CPS in terms of basic remote programs?

(Note: You must be logged in to post a comment.)

If you log in and nothing happens, delete your cookies from BrianMadden.com and try again. Sorry about that, but we had to make a one-time change to the cookie path when we migrated web servers.

Trackbacks

Secure Citrix Systems » Blog Archive » Application Publishing: Comparing Longhorn Terminal Services to … wrote Secure Citrix Systems » Blog Archive » Application Publishing: Comparing Longhorn Terminal Services to …
on Sat, Nov 8 2008 11:20 PM

Pingback from  Secure Citrix Systems  » Blog Archive   » Application Publishing: Comparing Longhorn Terminal Services to …