Will we still need Citrix on 5.1?

Waldo

I know this has been discussed in the sidelines on some threads, but I would like to ask your opinions. Do we still need Citrix (or TS, or ...) if we want to access Dynamics NAV 5.1 over the net? Or will VPN be enough?

David_Singleton

Waldo wrote:

I know this has been discussed in the sidelines on some threads, but I would like to ask your opinions. Do we still need Citrix (or TS, or ...) if we want to access Dynamics NAV 5.1 over the net? Or will VPN be enough?

Its very odd that you ask this question at this time.

I have been asking for some time now, andI was eventually told that "you can get this answer at Convergence". When I was first asked, I was told that over a VPN, you would be able to use the thin client without terminal services. But at Convergence there was no one that couldn answer. I thin you need to do what I was told. i.e. ask you Partner to get this information, as they will know.

But please if you find out the real answer, please post it here.

Waldo

David Singleton wrote:

Its very odd that you ask this question at this time.

Well, I got the question of my customer who pays 20000€ each year on Citrix maintenance.

David Singleton wrote:

I have been asking for some time now, andI was eventually told that "you can get this answer at Convergence". When I was first asked, I was told that over a VPN, you would be able to use the thin client without terminal services.
But at Convergence there was no one that couldn answer.

I think I was with you at Convergence when the question was asked to the MS people. Thanks to all the confusion, I couldn't answer my customer today.

David Singleton wrote:

I thin you need to do what I was told. i.e. ask you Partner to get this information, as they will know.

We are a partner, so that'll be a problem ... :x

David Singleton wrote:

But please if you find out the real answer, please post it here.

I will do so... O:)

ara3n

Since the communication between the client and IIS is xml documents. Which means that every time you make a change to a record, an xml doc is sent to IIS and IIS processes the xml doc and responds with a xml doc, just like ADCS.
So the answer is what the user is doing. And if it's bearable to do the work remotely. The issue is that with Navision every field can have triggers and so there has to be a round call back and forth between the client and IIS. I'm sure they've added something to minimize this so that you only do round trip if there is actually any code. The performance won't be better than browsing. Otherwise offering sharepoint wouldn't make sense.

Miklos_Hollender

I have a feeling that the thin client will rather be a special case for special users, not something to use generally, because if I imagine entering a Sales Order Line on a thin client where each and every field has lots of database communication in the OnValidate... would be quite unpleasant, I think. So I think it's just rather meant for special cases.

Waldo

I don't think the new client will be "occasionally" used. And indeed .. every field can have some validation... . Therefore my question ...

kine

1) Do not forget - 5.1 new client is not "thiny" client but "full, rich client"
2) Yes, there is just communication about "what to display" and "input". But can you imagine the XML with description of the whole screen you know from the presentions (paper piles, graphs, etc...)?
3) Each input of each field will produce some communication. But there will be not too much data in it. Everything will do the IIS. As you can see on the TechEd presentations, the Service Tier will be multi threaded etc.
4) But final answer? Nobody knows now...

Waldo

kine wrote:

4) But final answer? Nobody knows now...

I checked with our PAM ... and he doesn't know either ...

We'll have to wait and see ...

Loyal

Are you asking, in which way "light users" can communicate with Dynamics Nav a answer may also be found in sharepoint. In Copenhagen there was a presentation of the new improved Employee Portal functionality. Nowadays you still have to think up yourself how the webparts have to be made, but with the introduction of 5.1 there might be a updated version of this called Sharepoint Display Target. This is a full thin client solution for working via a intranet solution. Still not business to business or consumer but for your employees.

On the VPN question i do not have a answer for you, i know of some comparable solutions which i can check with your question. I'll update here...

Waldo

I have one question on the Employee Portal part.

At convergence, I saw a posting routine while validating a field. I can imagine, this is not the way to do it. Will there be a solution to have a "post" button on a webpart ... just like in Navision?

Furthermore, I do not think employee portal will replace the 5.0(1) client, because there is too much configuration and setup to be done. One should be able to work with a full client ... remotely.

Nobody

Personally I would think TS would still be necessary, you will just be able to load more users in a TS box than you could with the "fat client"

This opinion comes from the fact that AX already has a Rich Client that connects to a middle tier (The AOS Server) and the only support solution for WAN connections is TS but you can load a lot more users per terminal server. In the 5.1 env the middle tier is IIS so the overall architecture is very similar to AX so I assume 5.1 will also still require TS for WAN connections, but instead of 10-15 clients per CPU core you may be able to 50 clients.

Until they cut the C/Side database and break away from the ODBC cursor archtecture and go to stored procs they will not be able to cut down on the client server round trips so WAN links will always require TS. A buffer and a "SAVE" button would reallty help too epecially on the validates. :-)

ara3n

Nobody wrote:

Personally I would think TS would still be necessary, you will just be able to load more users in a TS box than you could with the "fat client"

This opinion comes from the fact that AX already has a Rich Client that connects to a middle tier (The AOS Server) and the only support solution for WAN connections is TS but you can load a lot more users per terminal server. In the 5.1 env the middle tier is IIS so the overall architecture is very similar to AX so I assume 5.1 will also still require TS for WAN connections, but instead of 10-15 clients per CPU core you may be able to 50 clients.

Until they cut the C/Side database and break away from the ODBC cursor archtecture and go to stored procs they will not be able to cut down on the client server round trips so WAN links will always require TS. A buffer and a "SAVE" button would reallty help too epecially on the validates. :-)

I agree that ts will be required for wan.


Please no SAVE button.
[-o<

David_Singleton

Nobody wrote:

... A buffer and a "SAVE" button would reallty help too epecially on the validates. :-)

:shock: I do hope you are joking! Microsoft would loose a lot of customer if they did something as stupid as that.

Nobody wrote:

Personally I would think TS would still be necessary, you will just be able to load more users in a TS box than you could with the "fat client"

..

Microsoft have already confirmed publicly that Citrix/TS will still be necessary. There is too much badly written code out there that does extensive processing on forms to be able to just fix it over night.

sknick

Longhorn (or whatever they end up calling it) will has a feature called Remote Programs that looks to be a nice replacement for Citrix. I read about it on http://www.msterminalservices.org.

I can't get Navision to run on LH Beta 3 (it just crashes when you try to launch 4.0 SP3), but this is something I am going to keep an eye on.

themave

sknick wrote:

Longhorn (or whatever they end up calling it) will has a feature called Remote Programs that looks to be a nice replacement for Citrix. I read about it on http://www.msterminalservices.org.

I can't get Navision to run on LH Beta 3 (it just crashes when you try to launch 4.0 SP3), but this is something I am going to keep an eye on.

your url has an extra period after the org so the link doesn't work. might want to edit your post.

My reading of the remote program feature is it still requires the terminal server on the other end. so instead of starting a whole ts session, you start the program only, and don't have the terminal server window with a program running in it. instead it just looks like a program running on your local machine.

Duhast

Mmmmm I don't know how to ask this to you ...

We're now experiencing some poor performance with Terminal Services. A local advisor say that we need Citrix. He's too much interested to sell us Citrix.

First question : How can I evaluate changing from terminal server to citrix?

Second one : If we really need to change from TS to Citrix. Is it wise to wait the upcoming 5.1. I don't want to spend a lot of money now when 5.1 can solve this problem.

[I posted here because "Will we still need Citrix on 5.1?" and my question is about Citrix and 5.1, perhaps a new thread?]

DenSter

Don't wait for 5.1 for that reason. With 5.1, you will still need to provide for the client with some sort of remote application. Citrix is one of the options, so is Terminal Server. Waldo will soon chime in with his preferred option .

Waldo

Would I ever?

<whisper>Jetro Cockpit Server</whisper>

denmark_serrano77

Nobody wrote:

Personally I would think TS would still be necessary, you will just be able to load more users in a TS box than you could with the "fat client"

This opinion comes from the fact that AX already has a Rich Client that connects to a middle tier (The AOS Server) and the only support solution for WAN connections is TS but you can load a lot more users per terminal server. In the 5.1 env the middle tier is IIS so the overall architecture is very similar to AX so I assume 5.1 will also still require TS for WAN connections, but instead of 10-15 clients per CPU core you may be able to 50 clients.

.....

processing will indeed be performed by the middle-tier. this means that the new client will be there to merely display data. depending on how much data you need displayed, you might be able to squeeze in a certain number of users without using TS or Citrix. i am thinking of "cellular traffic" here.

there are no indications on the bandwith requirement for the new role-bsaed client at the moment. as soon as this info is out, i'll post it here.

DenSter

denmark_serrano77 wrote:

processing will indeed be performed by the middle-tier. this means that the new client will be there to merely display data.

That is false information. I can't go into details about what it is, but you cannot make that statement.

denmark_serrano77

DenSter wrote:

denmark_serrano77 wrote:

processing will indeed be performed by the middle-tier. this means that the new client will be there to merely display data.

That is false information. I can't go into details about what it is, but you cannot make that statement.

I stand corrected. It seems that there is more to the new client that I also cannot go into details here.