5 Replies Latest reply on Jul 24, 2012 10:21 AM by worldcloud

    Virtual Appllcation Technology and FileMaker


      We have been offering Microsoft RemoteApp and Citrix XenApp services for quite some time, but recently have become intriged at offerings from 2X, Ericom, WebRDP, AquaConnect, nComputing and others. We also seem to attend almost a confernece at month where we keep finding new VDI vendors- this month we are heading to Orlando for the Parallels Summit.


      We have installed all of these products in our test lab and can see advanatages and disadvantages to each. We are testing these technologies for use mainly with FileMaker Pro and wondered how many developers where utilizing virtual clients, which technologies they where using and what they liked about each; or more useful- what you hate about them.


      We are very open about the technologies we use and would be happy to discuss this topic with anyone. Our most popular services are where we 'stream' only the FileMaker window and not the desktop- user tend to get confused with two desktops. The old issues of printing and sharing a clipboard are mostly gone, but accessing serial ports, scanners, etc are still tricky and better supported in some products than others.









        • 1. Re: Virtual Appllcation Technology and FileMaker

          We have clients in the far north where internet speeds between communities and with the south are very slow (we're talking modem-slow). They've been getting by with TS although they used to use Citrix which had much better performance (their IT dept could no longer support it however). We've had to adjust our interface to be very simple to aid the speed of transmission and we've had to remove all radio buttons and checkboxes as they don't trigger a refresh of parts of the screen and result in long delays. They have the usual printing problems; they are able to sometimes save as PDF and move the file to a location they can copy it to their local machine. I don't think clipboard contents are a problem but sending emails won't launch Outlook on their local machine so that's a problem. Would any of your technologies solve all of those problems? How about a Mac client?

          • 2. Re: Virtual Appllcation Technology and FileMaker

            We have considered leaving Cirtix. There server setup is far more complex than anyone else, not to mention the cost. The XenApp product is the only one we still use. It sounds like you have been using 'traditional' Terminal Services; however, in Server 2008 RS the RemoteApp streaming seems to run faster and is less confusing to the client.


            The Ericom software is supposed to accellerate the traffic for RDP, and 2X is a Citrix alternative which is also faster than 'normal' Terminal Services. We have been able to get all of these services to run on a Mac, but RemoteApp is a bit tricky on the Mac, so we nomrally just send our clients shortcuts so thaey don't have to enter a bunch of stuff. 2X seems to work best for mapping scanners and other devices.


            I would be interested in doing some test with you. If we test with out 'real' clients, they get mad and cancel their subscriptions were with you; we all realize that this is being done in the name of testing and there is no comitment implied from either party. By performing these test publically; hopefully we can get additional feedback and publish 'FileMaker-specific' testing results; something that these other sites are missing.







            • 3. Re: Virtual Appllcation Technology and FileMaker

              We use a terminal server (2003), and optimised the layouts to prevent refreshes.  We have found the flexibility with being able to print direct on the remote computer, and access the remote computers HD as a local printer/HD on the remote desktop connection app works well.  It's light enough on network resources to run on a .5MBps connection, though printing that way does take some time.

              And it's Mac/Win compatible.

              I have't tried any other of those remote clients you mention, just adding my thoughts.


              • 4. Re: Virtual Appllcation Technology and FileMaker


                Am looking for a Cloud solution. Happy to test some stuff if that can help.



                • 5. Re: Virtual Appllcation Technology and FileMaker

                  We now are support 7 different 'non-traditional' FileMaker deployment methods, including a new HTML 5 which allow a full FileMaker 11/12 experaince with no downloads required. If you would like a trial account to play with, please let me know...