Citrix Winframe vs. Metaframe (AREV Specific)
At 20 OCT 1999 02:34:14PM Wilhelm Schmitt wrote:
We are currently in the process to define a WAN running an ARev 3.12 application under MS NT4.0, Service Pack 5, NT Service 1.5, with workstations in Win95. In the first phase, the remote clients (over ordinary phone lines) are expected to be around 50 with permanent connections and up to 100 dialing in sporadically.
According to information from Citrix's representative, Winframe is going to be discontinued in their product line and it also could not be guaranteed under NT4.0 since it has been specifically developed for NT 3.51. Therefor we should use MetaFrame together with MS Terminal Server.
The comments about Citrix on this discussion line have been very helpful, although we could not get a clear picture on the following:
a)Is there any known risk to use Winframe under NT4.0?
b)Being ARev a DOS application, is there a significant improvement under Metaframe + NT Terminal Server?
c)Is the AREVFIX.COM patch the only one you need to run Citrix - or are there any other changes to be made within the ARev application?
d)Is there any preference Winframe vs. Metaframe?
Any suggestion, comment or recommendation will be appreciated.
At 30 NOV 1999 06:37PM Jason Christ, TotalLink USA (800) 875-6900 ext 132 wrote:
I have training with both WinFrame and MetaFrame and know the differences between the two.
1. WinFrame already has the NT 3.51 Archetecture built-in, so it doesn't need an operating system. Thus MetaFrame, being a better choice because of it's performance, reliability, and being up to date, is a better choice.
2. We are experiencing running Arev via MetaFrame 1.8 on NT Terminal Server 4.0 without problems.
3. The NT service should be purchased from A.R. because it prevents data corruption, with respect to the way that NT handles memory and the DOS-based program.
4. See #1. WinFrame is old technology. MetaFrame with NT Terminal Server 4.0 represents more functionality, compatibility, and better support.
5. Consider using an ASP, like TotalLink USA to host and maintain the AREV, because that is their core competency. The ASP model allows businesses to focus on what they need to focus on and is 63% more cost effective over 5 years than in-house solutions.