Brian Madden - All Comments

re: BriForum 2010 early-bird registration ends next week! ($500 discount)

Kata Tank — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 11:24:03 GMT

Will you have cover for the "Client Side Type I Hypervisor" up coming market and get away all the FUD around it ?

Startups, CTXS, MSFT, VMW... are all around it... Just heard that CTXS was delaying XenClient, and VMW were dropping CVP for some type of bundle including Linux kernel/Workstation and ACE, Phoenix HyperSpace is no more available for download...

re: BriForum 2010 early-bird registration ends next week! ($500 discount)

Kimmo Jernstrom — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 06:55:01 GMT

Thanks Gabe, I understand + gotta admit that I didn't read the previous posts before hitting "Add". Sorry about that. I look forward to next weeks teaser.

re: Citrix releases report on ICA versus PC-over-IP. VMware cries foul. Both are half-right. Here's my full analysis.

Dan Shappir — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 23:54:46 GMT

As various protocols and enhancements are being mentioned, I would also like to mention Ericom Blaze. Ericom Blaze was specifically designed for WAN, and compresses and accelerates RDP to a significantly greater extent than general purpose WAN accelerators. Also, it is Connection Broker independent. This means you can use it either with or without a Connection Broker.

For those who don't know - I work at Ericom.

re: BriForum 2010 early-bird registration ends next week! ($500 discount)

Gabe Knuth — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 22:27:31 GMT

We won't be able to get a post out on Friday with the sessions, but maybe Monday. It's a list of 24 or so sessions right now, but that will grow to between 50-60, if memory serves, after the April 1 deadline.

re: BriForum 2010 early-bird registration ends next week! ($500 discount)

Kimmo Jernstrom — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 22:11:56 GMT

Yeah I concur. I'd like to see the agenda and a provisional sample of the topics and speakers. Maybe a news post for friday, Brian?

re: BriForum 2010 early-bird registration ends next week! ($500 discount)

Brian Madden — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 21:16:08 GMT

Well, the call for papers process is still open, so the agenda isn't final yet. (Although we're going through the process of notifying the first round of speakers that they've been accepted.)

That said, we'll be able to get the first batch on the site next week, so you'll have a few days to check them out.. The sessions look really great this year BTW!

re: BriForum 2010 early-bird registration ends next week! ($500 discount)

Rudy Bauer — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 18:51:51 GMT

Thanks for the reminder Brian. Would be nice to know what's on the agenda this year before registering. When will the session list be available?

re: Citrix releases report on ICA versus PC-over-IP. VMware cries foul. Both are half-right. Here's my full analysis.

Kata Tank — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 14:41:12 GMT

Keep in mind that Miercom do not judge... It only "certified" that the test was conduct "this way" and that the result are "valid". If you do not like the test procedure, you could define and run others...

I could say something... Miercom could certified this is correct... but this is probably not always true. Take it for what it is...

re: Citrix releases report on ICA versus PC-over-IP. VMware cries foul. Both are half-right. Here's my full analysis.

VMguy — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 13:31:28 GMT

jmsazboy,

Very good points. I see people mentioning flash video all the time, but on the majority of the situations, people do not need it for business purposes.

Some e-learnings and other corporate stuff might require flash, but this is way different from hi-def video.

Video/Audio/Multimedia performance is relevant on some scenarios only, not for the average office user, task worker.

re: Citrix releases report on ICA versus PC-over-IP. VMware cries foul. Both are half-right. Here's my full analysis.

jmsazboy — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 12:17:33 GMT

"In 2010, I don't see many customers choosing one desktop virtualization over another based solely on display protocol"

Best quote was saved for last! Great article and this site and both of you do the rest of us a great service by providing an objective view of this technology.

That said, I could care less about how good my user's Youtube videos are and more about how easy their solution is going to snap into my environment.

I understand video performance is important for CAD, GIS, etc but your day to day users do not generate any revenue for your company by watching flash videos. Both Vendors would serve themselves better to focus on fusion with incumbent environments and not focus so much on their flash performance.

Great article guys!

Thanks!

John

re: Citrix releases report on ICA versus PC-over-IP. VMware cries foul. Both are half-right. Here's my full analysis.

VMguy — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 11:25:53 GMT

@David,

Although I am sure PCoIP is bandwidth hungry, I am sure VMware could find some scenarios in which it could perform better than ICA.

These tests were objective, but carefully selecting scenarios favorable to ICA. Come one, its Citrix sponsored !!!! This alone makes the tests suspect.

The only purpose IMO is to give Citrix sales people some ammunition, and be used by marketing purposes.

re: Citrix releases report on ICA versus PC-over-IP. VMware cries foul. Both are half-right. Here's my full analysis.

David Caddick — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 10:58:24 GMT

@Simon Bramfitt

I'm with Simon on this - at least it's objective and measurable - this is something that should be applauded and encouraged. If another Vendor doesn't like it, then publish quantifiable, repeatable and measured tests around parameters that you do like and then Vendor A can respond as they see fit?

Brian? Perhaps you could do a poll on a number of testing parameters (or methodology) that the Community feels best meets their business and user cases?

Virtual Reality Check x 20/50/100 users x 2Mb/5Mb/10Mb = poor/OK/good/excellent

But even the result there is a cop out as it's subjective right?

re: Citrix releases report on ICA versus PC-over-IP. VMware cries foul. Both are half-right. Here's my full analysis.

rebecca.vanderbilt — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 10:05:42 GMT

Did you even contacted Miercom? I guess not. And what have you done lately to test these products thoroughly? Should I say NONE?

"Citrix should be embarrassed that Miercom published this data, and if I were Citrix, I would never use Miercom again."

If Miercom is good enough for Cisco, why not Citrix or even VMware.

re: Citrix releases report on ICA versus PC-over-IP. VMware cries foul. Both are half-right. Here's my full analysis.

MichelEhlert — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 08:08:35 GMT

Hi,

I know the article is about ICA versus PCoverIP.

But I do want to add there are other protocols out there. RDP7 e.g. Though I admit we do not position RDP7 for usage over WAN links. (yes I'm from Microsoft). But than what about the enhancement by Quest of the RDP protocol (EOP).

I mention this to make sure people are aware there are more choices.

re: Citrix releases report on ICA versus PC-over-IP. VMware cries foul. Both are half-right. Here's my full analysis.

Brian Madden — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 04:10:39 GMT

@rebecca.vanderbilt, Did you read the few paragraphs in the article after I called Miercom's integrity into question? Because I feel I explained pretty clearly what the problems were with their testing. So I'm curious on your thoughts... do you agree that their testing was bad, but feel that I was too harsh on Miercom, or do you think their testing was fine? (If that's the case, I'd love to understand the technical reasons why you think their tests were ok.)

Also, I've never done pay-for-play. Not once ever. So I'm not sure where that comment comes from.. Perhaps you're confusing me with someone else?