ICA vs RDP

[sgrinker]

Is anyone aware of a good comparison matrix for ICA vs RDP features? I'm more interested in something comparing the latest versions of both, but I haven't found anything that actually compares to RDP6. I really don't want to re-invent the wheel on this one, so hopefully there's something out there already.

Thanks

Steve

[admin]

I think this will be a little hard to find. Even though RDP 6 is out there there are still advancements coming with USB device redirection and printing that are just now being talked about.

[sgrinker]

Here's all I found of relevance thus far, and still nothing with RDP 6. I'm starting to think Warren is right regarding anything being released yet.

http://www.purenetworking.net/RDPvsICA.htm

http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/embedded/aa714324.aspx

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FOX/is_1998_Nov_18/ai_53209280

http://www.brianmadden.com/content/article/What-if-Citrix-dropped-ICA-and-just-went-with-RDP

Anyone aware of anything more/different/better?

Thanks again

Steve

[TomHowarth]

I havent found all that much on the benefits over ICA, only that although it is catching up, it's not equal. for example no two way audio.

however have a look at this Blog from the TS team

http://blogs.msdn.com/ts/archive/2006/11/29/remote-desktop-connection-terminal-services-client-6-0-f...

and this KB on benefits and known issues surrounding RDP 6.0

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/925876

ps the blog also has a few links to other resources, I have not yet had the time to read them all

this one seems to be interestng

http://blogs.msdn.com/ts/archive/2007/03/28/ts-connection-experience-improvements-based-on-rdp-6-0-c...

Message was edited by:

tom howarth

[sgrinker]

Thanks for the links Tom!

[rklein]

One issue that we had was RDP didn't support screen resolutions as a percentage of the client's desktop. Only fullscreen and fixed resolutions. Sounds silly but our client base is pampered and it would have been a deal breaker for us. So I wrote this front end script to pre-compute the desired screen resolution, then call mstsc.exe

strComputer = "."

Set objWMIService = GetObject(_

"winmgmts:
" & strComputer & "\root\cimv2")

Set colItems = objWMIService.ExecQuery(_

"Select * from Win32_DesktopMonitor")

For Each objItem in colItems

sh = objItem.ScreenHeight

sw = objItem.ScreenWidth

Next

set WshShell = WScript.CreateObject("WScript.Shell")

shcommand = "mstsc.exe /v:batsxp1 /w:" & int(sw.9) & " /h:" & int(sh.9)

WshShell.Run shcommand

[TomHowarth]

nice little script, but what happened if they wanted 87%, only joking.

[rklein]

heh, thanks 😃 Ran into a little problem with it though. It only returns the resolution of the console which I found to be problematic when connecting to an RDP session within an RDP session. Here's the modified code that uses a call to IE to get the terminal session's screen resolution instead of the console:

Set obj = CreateObject("InternetExplorer.Application")

obj.Navigate("about:blank")

sw = obj.document.ParentWindow.screen.width

sh = obj.document.ParentWindow.screen.height

set WshShell = WScript.CreateObject("WScript.Shell")

shcommand = "mstsc.exe /v:SERVERNAME /w:" & int(sw.9) & " /h:" & int(sh.9)

WshShell.Run shcommand

[sgrinker]

Anyone aware of any new information/postings regarding the original question? It's been some time since I posted the original question, but I still haven't come by any good comparisons. Closest thing thus far has been the recent article by Brian Madden. Looking primarily for a comparison of the native features in RDP6 vs ICA as they both sit right now. I know most everyone says they are about equal now, but just wondering if there is anything spelling all of that out.

Even better would be a matrix showing the various available add-ons to each protocol. Anyone up for putting together the pieces? I'm sure others in the industry would love you for it too... ! :smileygrin:

[sgrinker]

On a related, but more serious note... Here's a link to an upcomming Microsoft TechNet Webcast for anyone interested. It's a level 300, so hopefully the tech content will be higher.

TechNet Webcast: Remote Desktop Protocol as a Presentation Remoting Platform (Level 300)

Date: Wednesday, November 14, 2007

1:00 PM Pacific Time (US & Canada)

http://www.microsoft.com/events/EventDetails.aspx?CMTYSvcSource=MSCOMMedia&Params=%7eCMTYDataSvcPara...Name%3d%22ID%22Value%3d%221032355418%22%2f%5e%7eargName%3d%22ProviderID%22Value%3d%22A6B43178-497C-4225-BA42-DF595171F04C%22%2f%5e%7eargName%3d%22lang%22Value%3d%22en%22%2f%5e%7eargName%3d%22cr%22Value%3d%22US%22%2f%5e%7esParams%5e%7e%2fsParams%5e%7e%2fCMTYDataSvcParams%5e

[mreferre]

Steve,

I must admit that after reading Brian's article I was about to decide to "retire" and give up with all such comparisons..... It's just too complex ........

Joking aside I'd like to look into it. The problem with what's going on here is that it's not as "simple" (simple so to speak) as having 10 brokers with 10 different protocols and comparing them. Here we have a number of bricks (brokers, hypervisors, thin clients etc etc) and each vendor in each space is trying to add this "protocol value" ..... thus making the whole thing more difficult to study. So for example Citrix/Provision/Others are trying to add value to the protocol with their own broker technologies ..... while Wyse is doing the same thing but at the ThinClient level ..... I am not sure if you follow me but it is extremely difficult to provide an end-to-end pciture of a given solution because there are SO MANY variables (so many "if" and so many "it depends") that it's extremely difficult to put all this complexity on a simple matrix.

If you had a look at my latest matrix version (updated today Nov 10th) you will start appreciating what I mean ..... with all this broker vendors..... some with their own thin clients (but yet sort of open)............

So my question to you (and of course all the others is)........

1) do you think that what you are asking here could be integrated into that matrix ?

2) if so ... how do you think it should be restructured?

3) if not ... how do you think this new matrix should be structured?

I have tried to keep "clarity" at the very top of my priorities while doing my job ..... but I fear that this matter is becoming so complex that it's almost impossible to provide concise and clear informations here. If I look at my current comparison table I find hard to follow it .... myself.....

Thanks, Massimo.

[TomHowarth]

Perhaps if you have a feature list on the side,

	company
Feature

Kind Regards

Tom,

[mreferre]

Mh .. I see....

Do you mean in an additional matrix/table? If I add that line into the current table some "companies" would be penalized (Wyse with their TCX protocol extensions for example) since they are not in the connection broker space (which is what that matrix was, at least originally, supposed to list).

Perhaps the best thing would be to create an additional matrix centered on the concept of "companies that have something to say in terms of remote protocols" but it will be a mess to correlate the first matrix to this one for the average joe administrator that would like to study/design/implement an end-to-end VDI solution...... I know the "experts" (yourself, Steve etc etc included) would be able to use this as a "quick reference" guide when they need to check something (because they understand the overall architecture / picture) but it would serve probably 0.2% of the people interested in looking into VDI. I wanted to do something more "for the masses" if you know what I mean.... I am struggling.....

You follow me?

Massimo.

[sgrinker]

Massimo

First off, I was only joking when I mentioned your name for this. However, if you are up to it, I think it would be a great resource for the industry! I'll gladly offer what I can to help this along. I'd have to say that a second matrix would be the best, for some of the reasons you mentioned (some companies being penalized, etc) along with the overall complexity it would cause in the single matrix. I definitely agree on trying to make this something for the masses, as originally I was looking to have a reference to use when explaining everything to others within my organization. As you also mentioned, a lot of us here would probably use this as a reference for ourselves, but I think it could be a very handy resource when trying to explain the differences in the protocols to others.

In regard to your point about a way to correlate the two, how about an index/reference number for each of the protocols types? Then on the broker matrix, a column that would basically say "Protocols Available" where the ID's for the protocols could be listed. As to which protocols to list and how to lay them out... that's something I'm still struggling with. Obviously RDP, ICA, VNC, RGS, KVM-over-IP, etc are the "easier" ones to break apart. It's all of the add-on features to the base protocols and all of the different providers that get really confusing. Regardless, not an easy task no matter how you break it down. That's why I think everyone was so impressed with Brian Madden's article. He did an excellent job of breaking things down in a high/mid level summary. To get down to the specifics of each protocol in a matrix diagram will be even more of a challenge. Especially with the market changing at the rate that it is. All that said, let us know if you need any assistance on this, and I'm sure we'll all offer what we can. I know I’ll do what I can anyway.

Thanks again

Steve

[TomHowarth]

Massimo

Stick my name in that frame as well, PM me offline if you need my help (not that you will )

Kind Regards

Tom,

[mreferre]

Steve, Tom,

Thanks.

I need to sit down for a minute (so to speak) and think on how to progress with this. As you mentioned one of the challenges is the changing rate ... but anyway .... something can be done.

You'll hear back from me.

Massimo.