We appreciate all the feedback you are giving on the product. We acknowledge some of the serious issues reported.
Currently, we are indeed addressing performance related issues as one of the top priority items. Some of the performance improvement areas we are looking at are:
- Action menus
- Related object lists
- Performance charts
- Auto refresh when a logged in user does a change on a given UI item. This will eliminate the need for clicking refresh button
- Few other optimizations been done across client product
We hope to have a much improved client at GA
On the flash issue: Yes, web client today is flash based and we acknowledge the vulnerability issue. We are very focused on building a html5 based client right now. We will make announcements when it is ready. Clearly its not going to be in this upcoming major release
Please continue to provide feedback, we value your comments. We will continue to provide frequent updates on performance improvements done.
If you want to make your customers happy, bring back the client. I do agree there is a place for the web client for quick admin tasks and diagnostics when you cannot get to the client but for everything else, i would prefer the client. Please bring it back!!!
Even the Vmware support guys hate it and have hinted the the people they talk to for support also hate it.
Please bring back the proper client and stop trying to force us to use the inadequate and cumbersome web client. If you are going to bring out a proper web client then make it built into the appliance and easy to configure, without any SSO agents or rubbish to install.
I can't help but agree with this post.
If we are doing away with the VIC, the web client must have at least the SAME or BETTER functionality as the VIC. That's what we expect from a company like VMWare. The current web client is just garbage.
Flash? Yes, that horse is dead. Please, please, please, HTML5 the next go round. Don't put yet another web based tool out there that requires some off version of Java that is going to break tomorrow when the next two releases of the JVM come out.
Let's face it. The VIC isn't always the most reliable tool. There is room for improvement, and room for a web base vCenter management UI to really shine. I hope that with whatever product that is released in 2014+, the web client in its current form is scraped, and replaced!
I tried to use the web client a few times, then I had to get some work done, rather than searching, clicking and waiting...
Also I understand the SRM plug in and a few others are not compatible with the web client as well.
SRM plugin for web client is coming later this year
Harishn - thanks for the updates, much appreciated. Please update us when VMware has decided to put full effort into keeping the C# client alive.
I want to shoot myself for upgrading the hardware.... to version 10.... I can not add harddrives, or cd drives... at all... I can submit the task and it just hangs there Starting Task.... so I am pretty much screwed with the new web client... anyone know the CLI commands to add a CDROM drive connected to the host and make sure it is powered on? Their documentation sucks for that too, it gives a great example of a client connect but not a host.
I also regret the fact that my coworker upgraded all of our VMs to version 10. The WebClient is horrible. I can't find the options I want. The tree display on the left keeps changing on me when I'm trying to select something. I feel like I really have no clear idea of the stat of my VMware environment 'cuz it's so tough to find things or see the status now. Whoever decided at VMware that this current interface is the way to go should be fired. I'd bet it's the same idiots that built the horrible web interface for Altiris.
Two major areas of concern functionality wise and one of resource usage in addition to the questionable choice of flash as the client:
1). Unacceptably slow.
2). No real time updates (this is a HUGE step backwards as compared to the original client).
3). Unacceptable resource consumption. By this I mean that it must be installed either as a virtual appliance, or in your own server VM. Either way it uses gigabytes of storage and a dozen megabytes of memory. For all practical purposes one might as well consider the overhead of this approach as overhead required by the hypervisor itself, because you can't manage ESXi properly anymore without it. For those of us using an essentials package this overhead represents a significant fraction of the total computing resource we wish to make more efficient use of by purchasing VMWare in the first place. At least before we could choose to manage the machines individually with the native client and not incur any overhead, which is practical in a small shop where essentials would be used and funds are often very tight. Now, we basically have no choice.
I guess we are all in the same situation.
We just bought a new server HP DL 380 G8 with two sockets and 12 cores each. 32 GB of RAM. SSD´s....
All to make the Web Client faster. I could remember last VMworld in Barcelona someone talk about performance of the webclient.....
He recommend to install the webclient on an ssd drive...
But now, when i log on the webclient and wan´t to do some work, it looks like we have an old Întel i486 dx2 CPU!!
It´s sad, but i agree with the posts here. It´s not worth to think about the cost and the get for that product.
For me, hardware Version 10 as an example is never an option. Without, i am able to do some work with the old Client.
It´s the same with the last vSphere Updates. First, an major release, shortly after that an update 1, than an update1 a, update1 b, update1 c.
What the hell should that be? Is there no department for program testing? And thats the same with the web client. I could not understand why you let die the C# client (which works for most customers) to build something that is not working (for all customers).
If you wan´t to build something new, then please, develop both possibilites as fas as your web client could not do the same work with the same speed.
The difference with Altiris is that at least Symantec publicly announced plans for better browser support in their next service pack (due in the next couple months).
As a daily user, admin, engineer, and evangelist of VMware I have to agree with all of the above posts. I was just thinking about this earlier today. If VMware phases out the client, it will be a damn nightmare to admin my 25-30 host environment. Please for the love of mercy, don't push the web client on us. Flash is terrible, response time is second-rate, not intuitive at all.. Look, I'm all for change.. I've been in the business of change for the last 5 years.. I took my current employer from 5% virtual to 99.9% virtual in 4 years...trust me, I get change.. BUT FOR THE BETTER!!! The web client is step backward... sorry, I'm just venting and agreeing with the above posts...
VMware leave things as is do not take away the fat client not yet. You know you have made mistakes before and because of customers you have had to turn things back around. Do the right thing and make your improvements to the Web Client but let the comunity let you know when we are ready for this as of right now VMware you are not ready. As an admin I have not and will not upgrade our VM's to hardware level 10 I do not want to rely on using the web client just as everyone else said in these post too many pains. Once fixed trust me we will let you know to get rid of the fat client, but as of now nah not yet.
Listen to your cutomers VMware, listen to us.
I don't know, I really don't mind the webclient that much unless I am using internet explorer or I have underprovisioned the ram for my vCenter server. Even through a vmware view session with 3D acceleration enabled it works fairly well.
The web client hasn't matured very well but did a considerable jump in 5.5; you can also force the HTML5 on the VCSA version if you want to ditch flash.
I have to jump in here, as both a VAR selling servers on which vSphere is frequently deployed, and as a casual user of ESXi for my own internal projects and development.
I frankly like neither the web client nor the legacy desktop client, for different reasons. The web client is very slow, confusing due to the poor organisation of its menus and dialogs, and the console plugin simply does not work well over VNC/RDP/Citrix.
The desktop client is also slower than it should be (speaking as a rusty developer), has absolutely horrendous error reporting, lacks lots of what I consider essential functionality, for example patching hosts and various batch operations. On the upside, it works well for the most common tasks of starting/stopping and deploying VMs, and basic configuration tasks. It is good enough for perhaps 80% of my daily tasks, with the rest currently handled via clumsy CLI/scripts.
Here's what I would expect from the ideal client:
- it MUST be my go-to for all management and maintenance tasks
- it MUST give the option to remember my login credentials, because my workstation is already secured via other means
- it MUST let me patch hosts without needing some convoluted toolchain like VUM or the command line
- it MUST let me configure every aspect of individual hosts and clusters via context menus and wizards
- it MUST give meaningful error messages when something does not work as intended, and the means to fix such problems (e.g. killing a hung VM process)
- it should let me save multiple sets of IP / credentials, because I often work with multiple, separate sites
Most importantly: it should be pleasant to use, because the last thing I need during an outage or system failure, is frustrating software that slows me down by being unreasonably sluggish. The server is *one* hop away from my workstation, on a gigabit or better pipe. Why should I wait several seconds to populate a list of VMs or check a performance graph ?
I see this being most readily achieved with a desktop client. The web interface can come later, or better yet: publish good API documentation and let the community produce a web interface. Just look at the variety of clients out there for Xen and KVM... those technologies aren't as mature as ESXi, but the tools are light-years ahead and scripting is a breeze. Why don't we paying customers have tools at least as good as the free stuff ?