1 person found this helpful
I guess ICA is just more network efficient than RDP is. That's pretty much it. If your PRIMARY issue is remote latency and you really really really have to use ICA for that than using the Citrix Presentation Server and the Citrix Connection Desktop Broker (or whatever it's called).
(I intended to update it with new info but I haven't had the time yet)
PortICA is the guess what ..... porting of ICA to XP but that is going to be part of Citrix project trinity due (theoretically) by the end of the year.
Look ... ICA and RDP are the same in terms of bandwidth consumption[/u]. Where ICA is more advanced is through the development of its virtual channels and features for latency and flash acceleration. If you want more detail on this, go to www.brianmadden.com and search for "ica vs rdp".
In your multihop environment if the latency is still acceptable and you don't have mutli-media type apps hosted on the XP VM, then RDP is perfectly suitable.
PortICA is at least a year away - if we're lucky.
Also I know that one VDI vendor (Provision Networks) is already leveraging RDP virtual channels and are working on latency and graphic acceleration.
Message was edited by:
... and just for clarification - to fully answer your question - since portica is a year away, you cannot host ICA on XP VMs... (yet)
ICA and RDP comparisons have been around for ever.
IMHO, the benefits of ICA are its support for multi-media applications, some enhancements to latency "reduction" (a typed character is echoed locally before it is sent to the hosted application) and ability to tune per virtual channel session bandwidth (I can control printing jobs in the session can take a max of x% of bandwidth).
Having said that, RDP in terms of pure session bandwidth requirements is quite comparable to ICA and sometimes even better, specifically with thin clients and low bandwidth links.
So the answer is: if you need to support remote applications that need multi-media or if you are using extremely slow links and want the end user to feel that latency is "reduced" you can choose ICA over RDP. The problem is direct ICA to an XP VM is not possible as of now as pointed out in a response earlier because ICA is only available for Windows Server 2003 or windows Server 2000 operating systems.
You can however use the citrix connection broker (if you are already a citrix customer it is a stop gap solution to do VDI until Citrix comes up with something better). It front ends connections to XP VMs with ICA and backend them with RDP. You can get benefits of speed screen latency "reduction" but loose the multi-media support.
If you need to support users that use the desktop, some productivity applications like office, and general purpose applications like instant messenger, you can go with RDP.
Hope this helps.
just for the record, have you got shares in Provision,
... for the record, no I don't - just a big fan...
>Having said that, RDP in terms of pure session bandwidth requirements is >quite comparable to ICA and sometimes even better, specifically with thin >clients and low bandwidth links.
Are you sure about this ? In some circumstances such as using the browser in the remote machines or other applications ICA should be able to cut bandwidth requirements pretty aggressively. I have for example seen, just browsing with a remote browser some pretty graphic web sites that the RDP bandwidth requirements are in the range of 400/500 KB/sec with peaks up to 1MB/sec ..... While I haven't had a chance to testi it with ICA I know that there are some optimization in the protocol that could allow to lower that to a few dozens of KB/sec.
So while RDP is getting better in my opinion ICA is still kind of superior even in terms of bandwidth.
got an interesting one for you from Microsoft which is a statement in an executive chat
Q: I was told 32-bit color mode is being introduced with enhanced compression. How does it compare to ICA in low bandwidth scenarios?
A: Starting from Vista we introduced 32 bpp for RDP. We do not expect big difference between 32bpp and 24bpp or lower bpp in the low bandwidth scenarios based on our preliminary tests
refer to the complete blog in http://www.microsoft.com/technet/community/chats/trans/windowsnet/06_0801_tn_wslong.mspx
I think there is a bit of creative thinking int he statement, more depth has no bearing on network bandwidth hmmmmmmmm
Did you really read all that ?
You are my hero man ......
I guess we will be happy about the PortICA project in the long run at least this is my impression ..... Problem is how much Citrix is going to charge for their "stuff".....
knowing Citrix too much to make it viable in all but the biggest environments where heavy discount kicks in.
I agree (for the moment).
I'd hope that they would be smart and somehow bundle PortICA into one of their given Editions (probably the new "Platinum"... or maybe they will have an "Extra Super Titanium" edition by then.) Granted we have a relatively decent sized farm already, and only use the Enterprise (even in the new flavor).
However, regardless of what hey bundle PortICA/Trinity into, there will still be the CAL concept to deal with. At this rate though, they have about 8 months to decide on a dollar value. I keep hoping that they decide to release something sooner, but October still keeps popping up as an "early" date.
that sounds about the right time scale, just in time for IForum, I think that it will be coupled with the release of CPS4.5 as well.
You couldn't be more spot on about the iForum part, but actually CPS 4.5 has already been released. I was actually poking fun at their new naming convention of "Platinum" for the latest bundle of offerings. I think it's officially out as of just a few days ago though.