Alternatives to Citrix Remote Computing?

Dysfnctnl85 asks: "The company I work for relies heavily on remote computing through a Citrix MetaFrame server. The reliance on this stems from the structure of our accounting software and the fact that we have 2 remote sites that need to access this data all day, everyday. We are investigating alternatives to the Citrix system we currently operate. How do companies of similar structures deal with this type of problem? Is it feasible (or practical) to use Windows Terminal Services to achieve everything Citrix is capable of doing? This includes, but is not limited to, the ability to print from the Citrix session to a user's printer, the ability to access network drives from the Citrix session, access the user's local drives through the session, and the ability to use published apps. The main concern with this type of setup is the ability to print. What alternatives are there to Citrix?"

Lots of stuff

[Daath (225404)]

Lots of stuff, some might not have what you are looking for... But hey, sift through these, and see if there is anything of interest :-)

Genuit's ThinWorx [thinworx.com]
Tarantella [tarantella.com]
Provision Networks [provisionnetworks.com]
HOB [hobsoft.com]
Prospero [propero.net]
Win4Lin [win4lin.com]
Konect [desktopsites.com]
GraphOn's GO-Global [graphon.com]

HTH :)

Re:Lots of stuff

[Tontoman (737489)]

For completness of discussion, a product that deserves mention is PC Anywhere [symantec.com]. It has some additional features not found in TermServ, like X11 compatibility

Re:Lots of stuff

[Holi (250190)]

Pcanywhere, isn't really a multiuser environment, It it really just shares the console so it really doesn't work as a multiuser system.

Re:Lots of stuff

[Kohath (38547)]

GO Global is nice. We don't use the Windows version though.

We haven't found anything better for remote X sessions.

Re:Lots of stuff

[rafelbev (194458)]

There is also a product by 2X Software called Application Server [2x.com] which handles the Published Applications side of things as well as the Load Balancing [2x.com] of Terminal Servers.

However they are still working on integrating the two, this should be added in the near future. The products target directly Citrix customer's base and are slowly implementing almost all if not totally all Citrix features and more at 1/10th of the cost.

MSTS

[TheTrueELf (557812)]

Seeing as I use MS Terminal Services to do everything you mentioned, I'd say you could fairly easily kiss Citrix (and it's relatively large licensing fees) goodbye. I've migrated 99% of my company to Thin Clients RDPing to MSTS2003 servers, and could not be happier. Four branches nationwide, and (excepting servers, of course) less than 5 non-thin-client systems, 2 of which are mine. It is salient that MS and Citrix have cross-licensing and other business-partnership-type agreements, which I believe include code sharing. MetaFrame is built on top of TS.

-ELf

Re: Um... no

[by Anonymous Coward]

RDP stems FROM Citrix and the ICA protocol. Citrix was suckered into sharing technology with Microsoft so they could get direct access to the underlying API's a few years back. Citrix was smart in that they didn't share the ICA protocol with MS. MS then developed RDP as their thin protocol. Problem with that is that RDP has a 25k footprint where ICA can cruze just fine on 14k or even less. I guess if you have fewer users and don't care about bandwidth and server costs, then MS Terminal Services are for you... /rolls eyes....

For your Total Cost of ownership... Citrix is the way to go... I can't tell you how nice it is to publish an Application and not the entire desktop. That saves you from dealing with users who delete things or generally like to tinker. Add automatic printer creation and it's a no brainer.

MS did what they always do... they stole the technology and branded it as their own. Remeber in the beginning of Citrix (on NT 3.51 and Winframe 1.6), you didn't need MS terminal services at all... in fact it didn't exist!!!

Re: Um... no

[Bert64 (520050)]

You can publish a single app, but be very carefull what apps you publish...
If you publish any of the msoffice apps, or anything which can bring up help pages using IE, then your pretty much wasting your time and may as well give them a full desktop anyway.

You really need to publish custom-designed kiosk style apps, and if your having to write the apps from scratch anyway there are much better ways you could provide them than letting a native binary execute on one of your servers... Java springs to mind, the

Re: Um... no

[cyb97 (520582)]

In all fairness if the users are on the level that they manage to create havoc with the desktop, their skills probably wouldn't extend to adding two and two and figure out that the "open"-dialog is pretty much the same as explorer, etc.

This isn't securing, it's simplifying. If your secretary only needs Word, why give her a full desktop so she can get stuck on a ton of stuff instead of just giving her exactly what she needs.

Your little Java thoughtexperiment however completly breaks with the whole idea behin

Re: Um... no

[cyb97 (520582)]

Or you could get a thinclient (e.g. Compaq Evo Txx) that doesn't have any moving parts at all (ie. no harddrive that fails, no fans that make noise, etc.), nobody wants to steal it, it takes less than 10 minutes to get working on your network with your company setup.

This also means no floppy, cd, etc. which reduces the possibilities for industrial espionage as it's harder to move data "unseen", not to mention it makes it easier to keep a homogenous client environment as upgrades and end of lifes are pretty

MS RDP

[b0lt (729408)]

Microsoft's Remote Desktop Protocol, also known as Terminal Services, is basically a Microsoft licensed version of Citrix ICA. Microsoft basically built RDP on top of ICA. IIRC, Citrix sued Microsoft for the feature, which is why Windows XP Pro is only supposed to allow one user logged on at any time. Anyway, Terminal Services should work for you needs, since it supports all of the noted features.

-b0lt

Re:MS RDP

[JoeShmoe (90109)]

No, not quite.

RDP is old and busted, ICA is the new hotness. RDP is basically like pcAnywhere or VNC...it relies heavily on sending bitmaps back and forth of screen changes (not always, but with the foofy windowing effects of even certain business applications, it's increasingly become the standard case). It must also operate in a separate session window that floats above the user's actual desktop. Cut and paste is sloppy, file transfer is kludgy, and data shuffles back and forth on the RDP connection in

Re:MS RDP

[by Anonymous Coward]

Actually, RDP is much like ICA, in that it sends over the window commands rather than screen scraping. That's why a TermServ is usable over a dial-up line, while VNC is painful over a T1. The only real difference is the protocol used to send the data. As a matter of fact, if you run Vista on a computer that doesn't have the power to run Aero, you can RDP into it from a computer that does have the horsepower, and get Aero in your RDP window.

As for the reason that it was integrated into the kernel, it wasn't

Re:MS RDP

[pla (258480)]

RDP is basically like pcAnywhere or VNC...it relies heavily on sending bitmaps back and forth

Uh, no. Have you ever actually used RDP as more than a "oh gee, nice of them to finally include that"? Doing VNC on a machine on the local network crawls. RDP even over a dialup feels almost as responsive as sitting at the remote machine (except you quickly gain a full appreciation of just how often networks "hiccup").


Citrix essentially invented the technology behind RDP and ICA.

If by "invented" you mean

It's all about the printing....and multi-platform.

[NetJunkie (56134)]

You use Citrix for a couple of reasons. The biggest is printing. Citrix has a pretty solid print system that can handle about any printer. You don't have to worry about specific drivers in most cases as you can use the Universal Print Driver (UPD). This also applies to other platforms. So, I can jump on my Citrix farms from my MacBook and still print without ever doing anything unique. You can also attach to Citrix from almost anything.

Citrix also allows more in depth clustering and load balancing tha

ProPalms TSE

[scarpa (105251)]

ProPalms TSE server is definitely a viable alternative to Citrix. I have been using it for about three years and even though the product has changed owners a few times - NewMoon to Tarantella who got bought by Sun who sold the product to ProPalms - the product has been performing great all along, with every feature you listed.

It functions using a client that extends Microsoft's RDP protocol, allowing for seamless publishing of apps from multiple load balanced app servers. The backend servers compromise vari

Terminal Services / Remote Desktop

[quan74 (451034)]

Windows Terminal Services (now known as Remote Desktop) will let you map your local printer AND drives to the remote machine, so you can copy files & print from the remote system to the local system.

The downside is mainly in licensing, you'll need to purchase a CAL from MS for each user you want to "remote connect" (Not sure how you had citrix licensed). I'd also reccomend locking down access, either through a roubst firewall system or preferably a VPN.

Citrix features

[MeanMF (631837)]

Terminal Services doesn't have published applications like Citrix does, so if you have multiple applications running on the server you'll have to figure out a way to handle that. Load balancing and server management are also easier in Citrix. You'll also lose the "seamless window" thing. You can set up a session to automatically run an application at login, but it'll always appear as though you're remoted into a separate Windows desktop. I don't think there are any other options out there for you.. You

Terminal Server

[sid crimson (46823)]

We use Terminal Server 2003 and have had no difficulties. Server 2003 made a very nice improvement compared to 2000 since the color depth is now greater -- it's really as good as having a local desktop so long as the connection is fast and reliable.

Local printing from a Terminal connection is handled nicely, and most printers are supported via printer driver redirection... for example you will map the user's HP Photosmart xxxx printer to the Windows Driver for the "HP 950c" printer.

This package makes printer redirection easier: http://download.microsoft.com/download/9/f/2/9f237 742-e057-4e00-a0d5-62de2ebf9fbd/TSPDRW_Package.exe / [microsoft.com]

My understanding is Citrix reigns supreme WRT USB and availability. You simply cannot sync your USB Palm pilot via Remote Desktop. And clustering for Terminal Services is limited relative to Citrix.

As for other options... you might check out Linux Terminal Server Project. Without know the specific software packages you use Windows might be your only real option at the moment.

-sid

Re:Terminal Server

[Bert64 (520050)]

The trouble with the inbuilt windows remote desktop support, is that although it encrypts the data stream, it doesn't verify the authenticity of the host your connecting to...
This makes it trivial to man in the middle, and there will be no warning (unlike ssh for instance, which will tell you the host key has changed). There are point and click tools available (google for cain + abel, available from oxid.it i believe) for doing this too.
Aside from that, remote desktop is a lot more bandwidth hungry than cit

WTS is good enough

[potHead42 (188922)]

I work in a company which does mainly Application Server Providing, and we switched about 2 years ago from Citrix MetaFrame (1.8) to Windows 2003.

Printing works well enough, you just have to install all the necessary drivers on the server and make sure the clients use the same drivers (though universal printing engines like ThinPrint and others will work too).

Local drives work like a charm (although only since 2003), you can even copy files with Ctrl+C and then paste it in your local explorer with Ctrl+V (I don't know if the newest Citrix also supports this). Network drives work as expected.

We don't use published applications, and as far as I know Windows doesn't support this. You *can* specify an application to run in the client, but I never used it.

Our customers all connect over the internet, and the performance is pretty much the same as with Citrix. We did some tests with Presentation Server 4.0, and it performs a little better with images because it has a better caching mechanism, but the difference wasn't enough to warrant the (much) bigger licensing costs.

I also tested the NX server from NoMachine [nomachine.com], which supports proxying RDP sessions. The site claimed speedups from 2-10 times, although in my experience it was between 1 to 2 times, and because printer and drive redirection needed additional setup, we didn't continue with this. But for X11 sessions NX is currently the best thing (IMHO better than UNIX Citrix).

So, if you only need to provide Windows applications, WTS is a good enough replacement for Citrix. There's also an official client for OS X and an Open Source client [rdesktop.org] for UNIX (which supports RDP 5.1 as well as printer and drive redirection).

Remote Access

[brendan0powers (939524)]

Have a look at NoMachine www.nomachine.com. Its a linux based remote acces client/server, that allows access to windows terminal servers over ssh. It even has a java based web applet, witch allows access to applications from a web browser. Also have a look at Netilla SSL VPN.

SunRay

[green pizza (159161)]

SunRay terminals consume less real-world bandwidth on average than Citrix-based devices. The servers currently need to be either Sun Solaris or PC Linux, but there's talk of Windows support later this year.

http://www.sun.com/sunray/sunray2/ [sun.com]

Pretty slick stuff and Sun's been doing it for about 5 years or so.

It's an Application Problem

[Bacon Bits (926911)]

We had a fairly extensive Citrix farm at my last job. There were several reasons for an application to be made available on Citrix:

1. The application required WinNT 4 and would not run on Win2k or WinXP.
2. The application conflicted with other, more critical applications that were required to exist on the same network.
3. Liscensing. Some applications were cheaper to run from a Citrix server.
4. Access to the application was required off-site, and Citrix works over the web.
5. Configuration of the application was so difficult and fragile that it was easier to admin the Citrix server rather than the clients. This was typically web applications that required you to set your IE security settings to "rape me".

The one thing I noticed again and again: the applications that we wanted most onm Citrix were those that did not do the job we wanted them to do. They were old, poorly coded, intended for different environments, or simply did not do what we required them to do. It was common knowledge that analysts would go out and buy software and then hand it to use and tell use to make it work, even when it was clear to us that the software was never designed to do what we wanted it to even before we put the CD in the tray.

This accounting software you have seems exactly like the same kind of situation. You're being asked to wedge an application into a role it was neither designed nor intended to perform. Consequently, you might wish to consider looking at a different accounting app instead of a different remote app server.

Re:It's an Application Problem

[Bert64 (520050)]

Strictly speaking, windows was never designed to run remote terminals... By using it in this way you are wedging an application into a role it was neither designed nor intended to perform. Windows NT was intended to be a single user workstation OS - one user sitting at the console.

protocol-level acceleration

[ArbitraryConstant (763964)]

Riverbed [riverbed.com] makes an appliance that may be suitable.

Basically, it's an appliance that sits between your WAN connection and the rest of your network. It understands most protocols that send bulk data over the network, and does transparent caching such that the clients on your network don't notice anything (except improved speed), and the server on the other end still thinks it's sending the data.

I saw a demo at a CUUG [cuug.ab.ca] meeting, it was quite impressive.

Software...other than Citrix or Remote Desktop

[usurper_ii (306966)]

Other Software Options at a fraction of a cost:

WinConnect Server XP enables a Windows® Small Business Server 2003 or Windows® XP computer (Host PC) to allow up to 21 remote desktop sessions. It allows Remote Desktop Protocol (RDP) 4.0, 5.0 5.1 and 5.2-enabled Thin Client devices (such as Terminals, Internet/Information Appliances, Tablet PCs and PDAs) to connect to a Host PC to run Windows® applications simultaneously and independently. Price: WinConnect Server XP can be purchased for US $299

Re:Software...other than Citrix or Remote Desktop

[usurper_ii (306966)]

This software has been out for quite some time.

From the company's FAQ:

http://www.thinsoftinc.com/products_wcs_faq.html#f aq8 [thinsoftinc.com]

Do I need to buy additional software licenses?

The WinConnect Server XP allows multiple users to simultaneously and independently share the same hardware and software installed on the Host computer. Some software is licensed for use on a single computer while other software may be licensed for single or multiple users. It is the responsibility of the WinConnect Server XP purchaser/user

Re:Software...other than Citrix or Remote Desktop

[Wiseleo (15092)]

For the record.

TS CALs are less than $100/user if without software assurance, and about $141/user with software assurance.

Win XP Pro licenses you'd need would have to e purchased as a retail package, at $299/user. Neither OEM nor any volume license would work.

On the other hand, Windows Server can be licensed through volume channel for significant savings.

As an example:
Open Value - (1) Win 2003 Std Server, (5) CALs, (5) TS CALs, (3) year software assurance: $2238
Same scenario but with Open Business, no softw

Fix problems printing from Citrix & Remote Des

[usurper_ii (306966)]

The deal with printing from Citirx and Remote desktop is that you must have the same pritner drivers installed on the server that the client is trying to use. Some printers work and some don't. For instance, unless they have some update I don't know about, MS Remote Desktop will not print to a printer working from a TCP/IP port. Also, some cheap USB printers have drivers that won't install on the server's OS, so there goes the requirement to have the driver on the server.

While there are some solutions that

Re:Fix problems printing from Citrix & Remote

[Bert64 (520050)]

I like the way CUPS handles itself...
The drivers are on the server, the client doesn't need to know or care about the specifics of the printer... It just needs to know the paper size, porttrait/landscape and wether or not to print in color.
The client sends the print job to the server in a standard form (postscript i believe) and the server converts it to whatever the printer requires.
The server has the drivers, the clients don't need any drivers... I use this method to print from linux and other unixes, to

Re:Fix problems printing from Citrix & Remote

[usurper_ii (306966)]

Forgive my ignorance, but what is CUPS? I'm open to anything that works and doesn't cost a fortune.

Usurper_ii

Re:Fix problems printing from Citrix & Remote

[usurper_ii (306966)]

Yeah, that is all fine and well, but I work at one of those places where IT is a part time job...and the busier we get the less time I have for pure IT work like that. I knew about the redirection, but finding the time to jack with every cheap printer under the sun and/or attempting to do registry hacks, while I could do that if given the time, wasn't a great solution for me.

ePrinterAnywhere, on the other hand, I posted the client on our intranet for everyone to download and could *easily* explain to them o

Re:Fix problems printing from Citrix & Remote

[usurper_ii (306966)]

Looking back over the link, I do remember looking at this. For computers around the office, this wouldn't have been too difficult, but for distant employees who are not computer literate, I wasn't really interested in trying to walk them through modifying their system registry over the phone. And what is to say I drive 150 miles to fix their registry and then a month later they get a new computer, or didn't tell me they wanted to print from their laptop, too?

And what I don't understand, and MS does not expl

Citrix Runs on TS

[JustASlashDotGuy (905444)]

Citrix pretty much runs on top of Terminal Services nowadays. So yes, all the stuff you mentioned is possible with TS. The fancy bells and whistles are not possible yet tho (IE: Application sharing instead of desktop sharing, Failover/Clustering of apps, etc). At our office, we run Citrix for stuff hosted for external clients, but run TS for internal stuff (primarily for failover). It works well as long as you accespt the shortcommings a pure TS environment. We'd all kill for Citrix all over, but it's

Re:Citrix Runs on TS

[berny@work (57298)]

I think I heard something at one time about the next version of TS having some time of App level publishing built it, but I can't truly recall.

It's a really popular rumour actually, one that probably has some truth to it.. [brianmadden.com]

Essentially the rumour is that Microsoft pushed the working demo of published apps (Or Bear Paw) from Windows 2003 R2 to Longhorn Server (essentially 2007) because Citrix agreed that they wouldn't make Metaframe for Linux.

Nomachine NX

[labratuk (204918)]

You've just described Nomachine NX.

http://www.nomachine.com/ [nomachine.com]

Windows Server 2003 Terminal Services

[djwoodard (944832)]

I've used Win 2k3 TS to print to local printers & access shared and local drives. You cannot use published apps in Microsoft's TS. The remote user gets an entire desktop/profile.

Why?

[NoInfo (247461)]

We are investigating alternatives to the Citrix system we currently operate.

You said this, but didn't state why you're searching for alternatives. Is it because it's too expensive, because you need more features, or because you think there's a better alternative out there?

I think about the only argument you can really have is that it's expensive. There really are no other alternatives out there with more features (other than perhaps value-add things on top of Citrix Presentation Server, the new name for MetaFrame) or more stability/usefulness.

Some shops are able to make-do with the lower costing alternatives, but they have to live with far fewer features (e.g. only allow full desktops, don't do printing very well, have no way to load balance, have no way to isolate bad apps from one another, etc). If your needs for it are lighter then you can try piloting a Terminal Services-only solution which is (necessarily) less expensive than a Citrix one.

It's hard, though, for people to offer something better than Citrix. They've spent their entire lifetime focusing on the whole remoting applications gig. TS and RDP was built on top of code licensed from Citrix, so even MS takes a backseat.

More Info on the Topic at Hand

[Dysfnctnl85 (690109)]

I apologize for not mentioning more about the subject, but I kinda didn't expect it to get posted in the first place.

To address the accounting software...there is no way we will be changing, so that is not a viable solution at all.

As far as investigating alternatives, we are currently running 3 Citrix MetaFrame servers. Right now, they are barely holding us user-wise, so we're replacing the existing hardware with more servers and adequate hardware. In the process, we will be moving away from Windows 2000 for a number of reasons.

So, do we continue to run Citrix and purchase the licenses for additional users as well as a version upgrade, or do we attempt to put a Windows Server 2003 solution into place utilizing Remote Desktop? Or what else?

Our current Citrix setup is not adequate, and not simply because of hardware, but printing is a total nightmare. There are so many levels involved with printing a report from our Solomon accounting software, it adds complexity to the very act of printing, so much that Citrix routinely breaks. Whoever is running helpdesk on a given day fields a significant number of Citrix calls, and generally speaking it is not the user's fault. It is extremely frustrating to say the least.

Hence this investigation. So I hope I shed some more light on the situation and please keep the suggestions coming.

We rely heavily on Microsoft Exchange, so keep that in mind when suggesting other OS-based solutions. I'm instituting a few BSD solutions for other tasks, but making the switch completely is very far down the road.

Re:More Info on the Topic at Hand

[neurovish (315867)]

I can't comment on how well terminal services can handle the thin client thing since I've never used it for that in the first place, but I do administer some Citrix servers, and it really sounds like you're stuck with it. What version of Citrix are you running? Since you're on win2k, I'm guessing it is not the newest release. From what I've seen, the printing system is vastly improved (I know your pains concerning Citrix printing breaking). They went back and redid everything from scratch in that depart

Re:More Info on the Topic at Hand

[Rich0 (548339)]

Honestly, I don't think there are any practical alternatives to Citrix right now. Remote desktop might work - technically, but you lose seamless integration, and you'll need to set up printers on the remote profile. It might be more likely to work, actually, if you just treat the local workstation like a thin client and just have people set up the remote desktop as if it were their workstation.

Printing in citrix is less than perfect, but in recent versions it seems to work reasonably well. I'm not aware

Re:More Info on the Topic at Hand

[sybarite (566454)]

Client printer redirection is fussy and a pain. I manage several Citrix based networks. I always attempt to eliminate client printer redirection by insisting on network based printers instead. Much easier and more reliable.

Re:More Info on the Topic at Hand

[sid crimson (46823)]

We use Exchange lots too. My users are well versed with it, and love the integration with Project and Sharepoint. Ugh. Therefore Windows is our option.

I never used Citrix... but I know of two other operations very similar to my own that switched away from their Citrix installs and went with Terminal Server 2003 instead. Their reasons? Server 2003 was "good enough," printing "just worked," and Citrix "was complicated."

They found TS2003 easier to deal with for their needs.

While I cannot give you have ins

Re:More Info on the Topic at Hand

[jpostel (114922)]

We did use the PDF printing/emailing option for one of the main user applications at a company I used to work for. We actually installed Acrobat on each server. It was our backup method for anyone with issues. We came out with a recommended printer list for remote users, and worked around most of the issues with funky legacy printers, but we were told that we had to support everything anyway, because IT is just there to fix the f*ing computers and not actually contribute to the business.

Citrix printing was

Re:More Info on the Topic at Hand

[berny@work (57298)]

try dropping me an email with a few more details, I will tell you what I can.

Run a test. Its easy

[mnmn (145599)]

Have you run a simple terminal services test between two machines?

Printing to a local printer is easy and reliable. Havent tried much else. I've never been compelled to use citrix for anything.

My solution for remote printing issues

[Wiseleo (15092)]

It's really very simple provided this nightmare is managed by us.

1. Users log on through VPN
2. Users' machines are domain members configured with local print queues
3. VPN Machines auto-register in DNS
4. We provide the remote printers and refuse to support anything else - an HP mono or color laser device
5. We create server-based print queues pointing to those remote printers as \\Machine\PrinterX with appropriate security settings to restrict access
6. Users choose to print to their assigned printers from the

Re:Terminal Services

[Theatetus (521747)]

Incidentally, rdesktop, a Linux RDP client, offers the ability to attach to the root console of a 2003 server, which is very handy if 3 of your colleagues have inconsiderately left RDP sessions running, locking you out of the box. With rdesktop -0 foo.bar.com, you can attach to the root console, log them out, and then get a "normal" RDP session. I've searched high and low for a similar feature in the MS client, but I can't find it. So, I take my Linux laptop to work for the sole purpose of being able to log

NotePad == WTF?

[leonbrooks (8043)]

NotePad seems to be more-or-less reliable, but as you've found, "less" can be unexpected and big-time.

I have a multi-score-element client LAN set up with Linux workstations using the simple and effective but not superfancy rdesktop(1) [rdesktop.org] app to hit the few remaining MakeBux4BillO$ machines left, and some Win16+ apps runnng well on the workstations under WINE. Although the client is a reasonably large (for any WestAus) publisher, OpenOffice.org [openoffice.org] has worked out well in practice for much of their work. They also h