Application Virtualization/Citrix/TS alternatives?.
Application Virtualization/Citrix/TS alternatives?.
Author
Discussion

paddyhasneeds

Original Poster:

68,336 posts

241 months

Thursday 22nd April 2010
quotequote all
If we have an app that we would, ideally, like to run from a central server, does anyone know of any product that doesn't rely on either a per client license, or that requires a terminal services CAL per user/device?

Ideally something that licenses on concurrency.

(please note I'm not talking about a license manager like FlexLM, I mean a product where the app is installed/maintained centrally and runs "thin" on the end PC).

itsnotarace

4,685 posts

240 months

Thursday 22nd April 2010
quotequote all
http://sourceforge.net/projects/sslexplorer/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SSL-Explorer:_Communi...

Regardless of the front end, you will still need CAL's to access the resources if it's a Windows based server. Perhaps obtain a *nix version of your app if you don't want to spend on CALs

TonyToniTone

3,929 posts

280 months

Thursday 22nd April 2010
quotequote all
This chart may help ApplicationVirtCompChart2009.pdfit's from this discussion http://www.linkedin.com/groupAnswers?viewQuestionA...

If you have software assurance you may want to have a look at MDOP.


paddyhasneeds

Original Poster:

68,336 posts

241 months

Thursday 22nd April 2010
quotequote all
TonyToniTone said:
This chart may help ApplicationVirtCompChart2009.pdfit's from this discussion http://www.linkedin.com/groupAnswers?viewQuestionA...

If you have software assurance you may want to have a look at MDOP.
Cheers for that first link - looks useful.

We don't have MDOP and have a mix of XP, Vista and Win7 clients. I suspect from what I'm seeing/reading so far it's going to be either Citrix or Windows 2008 TS Remoteapp.

I don't think bandwidth should be an issue, integration with our VPN may be (it'll work, it's just how user friendly it is).

Allanv

3,540 posts

217 months

Thursday 22nd April 2010
quotequote all
Have a look at 2x application server.

http://www.2x.com/

If I recall it is free for upto 5 users and will do what you require and is a shed loads cheaper than citrix.

I used it for an office once before moving to TS.

theboss

7,549 posts

250 months

Thursday 22nd April 2010
quotequote all
If it has to run on Windows then you don't have many choices. Any multi-user Windows server setup harnessing TS will require a Windows Server OS license, TS CALs and Windows CALs, regardless of whether you run Citrix or anything else on top of it.

There is Citrix XenApp Fundamentals to consider, which is a cut down small business version of XenApp bundled with TS CALs, however they haven't updated this to support Win 2008 R2 yet, but it is definitely cheaper than buying normal XenApp licenses + TS CALs.

If its really small scale (say 10 concurrent users) then one thing you could do, potentially, is buy 10 retail copies of Windows XP or 7 Pro, for which there is no VECD licensing requirement, install them on virtual machines and allow RDP access, or install a basic VDI broker. Citrix XenDesktop Express edition is free for up to 10 users, its designed for proof of concepts etc. but I'm sure they allow full commercial use if you so wish.

RoadRailer

599 posts

259 months

Thursday 22nd April 2010
quotequote all
Have you looked at Nomachine NX server

Definitely cheaper than Citrix et al for low concurrency uses, nice and fast over lean bandwidth too.

TonyToniTone

3,929 posts

280 months

Thursday 22nd April 2010
quotequote all
App-v TS is included with windows 2008 TS CAL should you need virtualisation.

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?di...


Edited by TonyToniTone on Thursday 22 April 23:04

TurricanII

1,516 posts

229 months

Friday 23rd April 2010
quotequote all
Is there any way you can get or write/have written a web front end for this application and then just make that available on a free Apache web server?

lestag

4,614 posts

307 months

Friday 23rd April 2010
quotequote all
paddyhasneeds said:
We don't have MDOP and have a mix of XP, Vista and Win7 clients. I suspect from what I'm seeing/reading so far it's going to be either Citrix or Windows 2008 TS Remoteapp.

I don't think bandwidth should be an issue, integration with our VPN may be (it'll work, it's just how user friendly it is).
Just use TS. I have run 30+ knowledge workers per TS server x 4 servers , no citrix needed ( and TS CALS are a prerequsite to citrix)

VPN should not be an issue. what VPN Software??
TCP port 3389 is used by terminal services and ther is no need to encrypt the connection via the terminal server , if you already have a VPN session encrypting

Edited by lestag on Friday 23 April 11:29

paddyhasneeds

Original Poster:

68,336 posts

241 months

Friday 23rd April 2010
quotequote all
lestag said:
paddyhasneeds said:
We don't have MDOP and have a mix of XP, Vista and Win7 clients. I suspect from what I'm seeing/reading so far it's going to be either Citrix or Windows 2008 TS Remoteapp.

I don't think bandwidth should be an issue, integration with our VPN may be (it'll work, it's just how user friendly it is).
Just use TS. I have run 30+ knowledge workers per TS server x 4 servers , no citrix needed ( and TS CALS are a prerequsite to citrix)

VPN should not be an issue. what VPN Software??
TCP port 3389 is used by terminal services and ther is no need to encrypt the connection via the terminal server , if you already have a VPN session encrypting

Edited by lestag on Friday 23 April 11:29
2008 with TS Remoteapp looks worth a closer look.

When I say issues with VPN, it'll work, I just meant that with our Juniper Citrix apps can be published and run via the VPN using a Citrix client vs. needing full Network Connect/WSAM, but I believe that it can publish TS applications and, if it's 2008, run them seamlessly like Citrix.

Seems on the TS CAL issue I'm screwed with any solution, which is a shame but there you go, the business will have to decide whether it's really essential for these people to be able to access these resources off site or not.

Thanks.