01-24-2003, 09:00 PM
|
|
Contributing Editor Emeritus
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 8,228
|
|
Citrix ICA Client for Pocket PC 6.30.1061
http://www.citrix.com/download/bin/license.asp?client=ce
Citrix has released a new client for all Windows CE based clients, including the Pocket PC. It is 6.30.1061. I think the previous version was 6.3.1051. I don't know what was fixed, but there were some welcome enhancements to the UI.
(Don't ask about the Capture menu - I don't know why that was captured on some of the images and I didn't have time to redo it. I guess that'll teach me to use Developer One's ScreenSnap in the future.) Notice the three icons in the lower left? Those zoom in, out and toggle the grey cursor box in the upper left for scrolling.
This doesn't fix the VPN problem. I still have to manually launch VPN before this will connect.
Note: This only works on Windows 2000 or Windows NT servers that have Citrix Metaframe installed, a product that has an entry price of a few thousand dollars. It will not work with Windows 2000 or 2003 with Terminal Services installed nor will it work with Windows XP Remote Desktop. Two totally different protocols, so unless your company has Citrix Metaframe installed, don't bother downloading. I too wish I could use this instead of the Pocket PC Terminal Server client to connect to my XP desktop, but you can't.
|
| |
|
|
|
01-24-2003, 09:33 PM
|
|
Thinker
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 468
|
|
Huh. I always thought Remote Desktop (aka Terminal Services) was based on the Citrix technology and that the two used the same protocol.
|
| |
|
|
|
01-24-2003, 09:40 PM
|
|
Pupil
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 20
|
|
1- I think Citrix uses a different protocol.
2 - what vpn software do you use ?
|
| |
|
|
|
01-24-2003, 09:42 PM
|
|
Editor Emeritus
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 15,171
|
|
No. Citrix developed ICA first and built it into WinFrame, which was a specially hacked version of NT 3.51. For the next generation stuff, Microsoft struck a deal with Citrix and developed a reduced version of ICA, which became RDP, for NT 4 Terminal Server Edition. Citrix continues to improve ICA, which has more support for high-bandwidth applications (including things like video playback), plus support for a much wider variety of platforms. The Citrix product, Metaframe, now runs on top of Win2k (and presumably over WS2k3).
--janak
|
| |
|
|
|
01-24-2003, 09:52 PM
|
|
Thinker
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 468
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Janak Parekh
No. Citrix developed ICA first and built it into WinFrame, which was a specially hacked version of NT 3.51. For the next generation stuff, Microsoft struck a deal with Citrix and developed a reduced version of ICA, which became RDP, for NT 4 Terminal Server Edition. Citrix continues to improve ICA, which has more support for high-bandwidth applications (including things like video playback), plus support for a much wider variety of platforms. The Citrix product, Metaframe, now runs on top of Win2k (and presumably over WS2k3).
|
I learn so much from this website! 
Here at work, I use both on my PC. Remote Desktop for managing some servers I run, and Citrix (in seamless mode) to run some applications. Both work tremendously well, and are so much better than the remote applications of just a few years ago. (I used to use PC Anywhere, and that was often frustrating!)
|
| |
|
|
|
01-24-2003, 10:21 PM
|
|
Editor Emeritus
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 15,171
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Perry Reed
much better than the remote applications of just a few years ago. (I used to use PC Anywhere, and that was often frustrating!)
|
Well, that's because ICA/RDP are fundamentally different than remote control-like products like pcANYWHERE. The latter interceps calls to the monitor and replicates them on a remote display, whereas the former is integrated much, much lower in the GDI layer as a "virtual" display, and can therefore optimize what it's sending across. That is, ICA/RDP have an idea of what the content of the screen updates are, while pcANYWHERE is just replicating your monitor remotely. pcANYWHERE is still useful for remote-control environments where you want to take over the console and still let the user interact at the same time (although XP's Remote Assistance is a good step towards being able to simplify this).
--janak
|
| |
|
|
|
01-24-2003, 10:39 PM
|
|
Pontificator
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 1,043
|
|
If you want screenshots minus the menu, then why not configure GigaTask (that's what you're using there, right?) to have the 'Delay Capture' on the menu instead? Gives you about 4 seconds before the BMP is grabbed. Same in GigaBar. And then there's the much more flexible screen capture aspect of PQV...
__________________
Gerard Ivan Samija
|
| |
|
|
|
01-24-2003, 10:56 PM
|
|
Thinker
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 433
|
|
what this software used for actually??
|
| |
|
|
|
01-24-2003, 11:04 PM
|
|
Contributing Editor Emeritus
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 8,228
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Janak Parekh
Well, that's because ICA/RDP are fundamentally different than remote control-like products like pcANYWHERE. The latter interceps calls to the monitor and replicates them on a remote display, whereas the former is integrated much, much lower in the GDI layer as a "virtual" display, and can therefore optimize what it's sending across. That is, ICA/RDP have an idea of what the content of the screen updates are,
|
That is because RDP/ICA actually are running the user session. Citrix pushed Windows NT into doing something it wasn't designed for - multiple user sessions. Our server is running multiple copies of WINLOGON.EXE., has multiple user registry hives loaded, everything. It is literally becoming a separate machine for each login, just like Unix and mainframes do for their user sessions. You can see this with XP and Fast User Switching. FUS is simply Terminal Services set to run locally only. For each user logged in, there is a virtual machine running. Remote Desktop uses this as well, but again, on XP Pro, it is limited to one connection, and when a user is remotely connected, the local session is locked out so only one user at a time can use the OS. The other is on hold.
It is really quite cool. I have Terminal SErvices running on all of my Win2K servers in remote admin mode (no licensing needed and 2 administrators can be on the box simultaneously - both remote or one remote and one locally) except our Citrix Server, which runs in application mode, and there the user count is only limited by your pocket book for licensing.
More info than one human could digest starts at http://www.microsoft.com/technet/tre...chnol/win2kts/
|
| |
|
|
|
01-24-2003, 11:24 PM
|
|
Ponderer
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 113
|
|
XP Remote desktop
Thats the one thing that sucks about WindowsXP Pro, A remote desktop session locksout the user on the desktop itself.
But I guess, microsoft wouldn't want people to use XP Pro as a multi-user/session server. Noone would buy XP Server.
But I wonder if I can have multiple VNC servers running on different ports as different users logged into XP Pro? Anyone tried this before?
Of course the resource usage would be high.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Linear Mode
