1 2 3 Previous Next 43 Replies Latest reply on Aug 12, 2011 6:41 PM by rmacho

    Things We'd Like To See in View 5.0

    BISGInc Novice

      Just thought I would kick off a discussion with things we (our company, clients and prospects) would like to see in View 5.0:

       

      • Local Drive Mapping - for users on the soft client, it would sometimes be handy to be able to map through to the local drives.  Citrix and Microsoft allow this in their products, and because some of our clients are coming from a Citrix/TS/RDS world, the lack of this ability is often noticed.

       

      • GPU virtualization - this is a big one.  We often run into clients that require OpenGL support and this rules out View as a solution.   Of course heavy AutoCAD and things like that will always be difficult in this environment, but we have seen clients that use software packages that require OpenGL for mundane tasks.  Some examples include a Kitchen Cabinet refacer and a Flood Cleanup / Restoration company.

       

      • Combine Internal and External VCS - the fact that we need to run two different VMs to allow internal and external PCoIP connections is maddening.   Allowing external PCoIP connections in View 4.6 was a nice first step, but we really need to have this happen on a single VM.

       

      • Improve USB Support - too many USB devices cause too many strange behaviors.   Hit the eject button on a DVD drive and the session resets.  Scan on a USB scanner and the DVM crashes.   Again, there were improvements in firmware 3.3.x but this is an area that still needs a LOT of attention.

       

      • Improve PCoIP Bandwidth Consumption on WANs - I'm a VMware Fan, I admit it...however PCoIP is still not ready for prime time.  It has huge problems running across MLPPP links (bonded T1s).   VMware Tech Support told me a few days ago that we needed to plan for "1.5 to 3.0mbps PER USER".  Come on...that is just not realistic when other products (RDP, ICA, HDX, etc) do an admirable job with a fraction of the bandwidth.  We have also seen situations where a single PCoIP endpoint can saturate a WAN link of, say 10mbps.  No problem there.   Fire up 10-15 end points and the best utilization we can get is 5-6mbps.  The protocol seems to struggle when there are other PCoIP endpoints contending for the same bandwidth.  I could go on and on with this one... PCoIP is just not yet ready for prime time.... It hurts to write that.   I hope they improve SOON!

       

      So, given the above... what are your comments?   What would YOU like to see in VMware View 5.0?

       

       

      Rick

        • 1. Re: Things We'd Like To See in View 5.0
          AndreTheGiant Guru
          vExpertUser Moderators

          Combine Internal and External VCS - the fact that we need to run two different VMs to allow internal and external PCoIP connections is maddening.   Allowing external PCoIP connections in View 4.6 was a nice first step, but we really need to have this happen on a single VM.

          This is for security reasons: to have a server to put in DMZ that is not part or the AD domain.

          Same is also for Citrix and RDS world (where you need a "gateway" server).

           

          Andre

          • 2. Re: Things We'd Like To See in View 5.0
            eeg3 Master
            vExpert

            Profile Management is something I am very much looking forward to. I'd almost be happy with no other features if they would just add that. To be fair, I am happy they are waiting until it is fully stable before releasing, even though I wish it was already out.

            • 3. Re: Things We'd Like To See in View 5.0
              mittim12 Guru
              User Moderators

              I also think Profile Management would be a great thing to see.

               

              I would like to see them continue to improve upon the ThinApp and View integration.

               

              I think better reporting is still in order.  I think the event database was a great idea but I would like to see integrated reports instead of having to write my own queries on the SQL backend.

               

               

               

              Also keep in mind that any suggestion you have should be sumitted to the feature request.   This will really help VMware know what the user's wan for future releases.

              • 4. Re: Things We'd Like To See in View 5.0
                Master

                I think they are all good suggestions.

                 

                WP

                • 5. Re: Things We'd Like To See in View 5.0
                  ShaunDarkLord Novice

                  Database cleanup tools would be nice to have

                  • 6. Re: Things We'd Like To See in View 5.0
                    caryers Enthusiast

                    I would like to second the notion on ThinApps and View intergration.

                     

                    We are at a 33% success rate with ThinApp our applications. These apps are not too unique or home grown. The apps that I can not get to ThinApp for one reason or another are HP applications and popular emulation packages(Reflections & Exceed). I am actually using MS's SCCM product to push apps to my designated ThinApp VM.

                     

                    The summary of my ThinApp issues are:

                    • "Invalid Path" error message when I attempt to add the apps into Inventory within the View admin GUI
                    • Applications crash when I attempt to test them on my Linked-clone VDI VMs.
                    • Icons are not placed on desktops as it was captured in the ThinApp process.

                     

                    Also, I wish the Events & Events Configuration was more intuitive and how to utlizie these events, etc.

                     

                    Thanks, Scott

                    • 7. Re: Things We'd Like To See in View 5.0
                      mgmn Enthusiast

                      One of the View/Thinapp integration features I want to see in a next version is USER centric assignment of thinapps from View. We use a single parent for all users but have a great deal of streaming thinapps that are deployed on a per user basis. What we do is assign the thinapps via Group Policy Software Installation. This works OK for us and doesn't add to login time greatly as the streaming thinapps are small enough to install in a couple seconds. But I would like to do this from View rather than GP, which is rather clunky.

                      • 8. Re: Things We'd Like To See in View 5.0
                        Master

                        Rick,

                         

                        I did want to point you to the latest PCoIP planning and optimization guide. I hope you find some useful information there.

                         

                        http://www.vmware.com/files/pdf/VMware_View_4_to_PCoIP_Client_WAN_Network_Guidelines.pdf

                         

                        By default and design PCoIP was designed to deliver the most rich experience targeting extreme highend workstation class 3D workloads that no on was addressing really beside RGS. The default configuration is to deliver a fully lossless experience and it will use more bandwidth to try and do so. However; there are mechanisms that are available to control the bandwidth usage based on a given use case.

                         

                        I know this is the oppoisite from alternative protocols which try to target the lowest bandwidth possible out of the box.

                         

                        I am not sure which versions you have worked with, but with each version since View 4.0 improvements have been made. Both VMware and Teradici have been working to also provide a competitive solution for lower bandwidth use cases where bandwidth and the number of users is more important.

                         

                        I know this is the oppisite from other protoocl options such as HDX ( ICA ) and RDP which by default target the lowest bandwidth possible. 

                         

                        These improvements and enhances will continue as well on an on going basis as they have since 4.x.

                         

                        It seems you might work as a consultant or partner. If so we should make sure you have a the latest information and are equipped with the right information. Please feel free to send me a message so we make sure you are getting that.

                         

                        Thanks,

                         

                        Warren

                        • 9. Re: Things We'd Like To See in View 5.0
                          BISGInc Novice

                          Andre-

                           

                          Correct, you CAN use separate connection servers with Citrix and RDS, but it is not a requirement.   I suppose what I am saying is that it would be nice if VMware gave the client the option to deploy it in a less secure fashion thus eliminating the cost associated with running two servers.

                           

                          Rick

                          • 10. Re: Things We'd Like To See in View 5.0
                            Master

                            >>Combine Internal and External VCS - the fact that we need to run two different VMs to allow internal and external PCoIP connections is maddening.   >>Allowing external PCoIP connections in View 4.6 was a nice first step, but we really need to have this happen on a single VM.

                             

                            This is possible today. It has been possible since VDM 2.0 with RDP and View 4.6 for PCoIP. Every VCS has the same components that SS/PSG has. If you want to expose the VCS on the edge of the network and Tunnel RDP or PCoIP connections it is possible to do so as every VCS contains the same tunneling capabilities that a SS/PSG offers.  This is not a recomended deployment method but can be done.

                             

                            WP

                            • 11. Re: Things We'd Like To See in View 5.0
                              BISGInc Novice

                              Warren-

                               

                              We actually tried this.  For RDP, yes, it works flawlessly, and we do have several clients using it this way.

                               

                              However, the VCS cannot communicate using PCoIP with both externally addressed devices and internally addressed devices at the same time.   We worked with tech support and were told that we need one VCS for internal users and one for external users.  The exception, of course, would be if the remote users were accessing via VPN and thus appeared to the VCS as if they were coming from an internal IP address.

                               

                              Are we missing something here?

                               

                              Rick

                              • 12. Re: Things We'd Like To See in View 5.0
                                Master

                                I just set this up and see what the issue is. I do not think you are missing anything.

                                 

                                WP

                                • 13. Re: Things We'd Like To See in View 5.0
                                  BISGInc Novice

                                  Warren,

                                   

                                  Thanks for taking the time to do that...   It is always good to have someone else confirm that you are not crazy. 

                                   

                                  Rick

                                  • 14. Re: Things We'd Like To See in View 5.0
                                    Bluemoon404 Novice

                                    Would like to see a mechanism where we could join the ‘Users’ session to undertake support requests. We currently use Dameware to perform this task but other competitors i.e. Citrix have this function built in. 

                                    1 2 3 Previous Next