05240438.txt 24-May-00


Subject: thin client
From: "Yves" <resawin@wanadoo.fr>

I need to use a distant client with (ISDN) with Netware
Is anybody has experience.
1) using adavantageserver
2) using thin client ( pcanywhere ... )

TIA
Yves


Subject: Re: thin client
From: "Jean-Paul Bleau" <Bleau#JP@Hotmail.com>

Yves,

I use both Advantage Server and Terminal Server from
  Microsoft. We used PC-Anywhere before and it is now
  replaced by MS-Terminal Server, which is much faster and
  require only one server for many connections. PC-Anywhere
  was keeping an internal PC from being used while connected
  and allowed only one connection at a time per PC. Using
  only Advantage Server can work with the client software on
  the remote, but on connections at or under 56k it is still
  slower then processing on the server. On VPN over that
  speed, it is fully workable, as Advantage reduce a lot of
  the traffic over the wire.

HTH,
Jean-Paul Bleau
Ordinateurs Laval
http://www.FertiSoft.com


Subject: Re: thin client
From: paulb007@aol.com (PaulB007)

Jean-Paul,

Interesting, would you please expand on the performance
  differences between MS-Terminal Server and PC-Anywhere.
Are you referring to the GUI part of the performance? Or is
  the data processing part also faster.
Our apps use Avantage Server and we also use PC-Anywhere for
  support and training.   PC-Anywhere's GUI seems slow.

Thanks in advance,
Paul Bartlett


Subject: Re: thin client
From: "Jean-Paul Bleau" <Bleau#JP@Hotmail.com>

Paul,

We were using PC-Anywhere to connect Doctors from their home
  to the hospital. It was working fine, but it always need
  one machine on both ends. With Terminal Server, you just

  install a good server (Windows 2000) with a lot of memory
  and you can easily run multiple connections on this same
  server.
Also, you could connect via the Internet and save a lot on
  communication. Differences between PC-Anywhere and
  Terminal server were on th GUI part. Terminal server is
  much more efficient to communicate screens output from the
  host to the remote. Instead of bitmaps like PC-A, it uses
  commands to transmit GUI like dialogs, etc. You can really
  see a good difference in screen drawing speed. NOW. The
  funny part...
The processing speed is all on the server. You need speed,
  you increase the server power. On the client side, no more
  hassle with the CPU types or even the O/S. If it can
  connect to Terminal server, it can run your application. I
  have seen handheld like Compaq Aero 8000 run a full blown
  Windows application at the same speed then a P3 CPU would.
  So you install your apps only once (on the server) if it
  runs ok, it will for all the clients.... You don't have to
  worry about memory on the client machine. That's the way
  to go. I will always use this technology in the future.
  This is much easier to manage. You can run your apps from
  the Internet... etc.
Now, pricing. It is not very much expensive. Windows 2000
  comes with Terminal server built in. You just need the
  client licenses (around $200). You use it for network
  maintenance only, no need for a specific license. If you
  buy PC-Anyewhere, it won't be much less then that and you
  still need to maintain more and to use internal machines
  for every communication.
Try it if you're MSDN, it's there. Or buy a small Windows
  2000 server and test it.

Jean-Paul Bleau
Ordinateurs Laval
http://www.FertiSoft.com


Subject: Re: thin client
From: Jean-Marie Berthiaume <#jiembe@#videotron.ca>

Qu'en est-il de la securite du serveur? What about security?

--
Jean-Marie Berthiaume
Montreal, Quebec

Attention. Enlever les # pour me rejoindre
Please erase the # to reply :
(jiembe@videotron.ca)


Subject: Re: thin client
From: "Jean-Paul Bleau" <Bleau#JP@Hotmail.com>

Sorry Jean-Marie, I was out of town...

La securite ???
It can pass via your firewall. You can set it up. Also, you

  really are authenticated as a Windows User, you have to
  login and then you have your normal user security too.

Jean-Paul Bleau
Ordinateurs Laval
http://www.FertiSoft.com

Subject: Re: thin client
From: "Yves" <resawin@wanadoo.fr>

I have no choice. Server is Netware and only one PC is
  distant. and I dont want to change anything in my VO appli
  (progiciel) it is AS IS
Using TS is not possible (cost to expensive) and my client
  prefer linux
So I see you have experience on pcanywhere.
Is this easy solution ? I think it need 2 PC one as local
  client connected to the distant client.
Is it possible with ISDN ?
Is it simple to install ? does it need some change in appli
  ?

TIA

Yves


Subject: Re: thin client
From: "Eric Hourant" <ehourant@echo-soft.com>

Yves,

We often use PcAnywhere for telesupport for our Vo
  applications.
Another way is to get connected via RAS on your NT
  workstation. With RAS, you just have to make your program
  point to the correct file location.
With an ISDN line the speed is correct. You can even use
  both channels but the cost will be higher. If you cannot
  work with TS, this is a good solution.
Depending of your phone provider and your budget, you could
  also investigate in a permanent connection. I guess you
  are located in Europe where the communication prices are
  very expensive. So if you need to stay connected more than
  4 hours a day, the permanent line is the way to follow.

HTH
Eric


Subject: Re: thin client
From: nswong@maxis.net.my (Wong)

Hi Yves,

Bellow are an old posting from me, it may help you on your
  decision making.

Regards,
Wong


Hi Stephane,

Even we can adjust package and window size for TCP/IP
  protocol to optimize data through put, the solution still
  is reduce the raw data pass through the network.
For access data from a local harddisk, file will treat as a
  character string(or stream of data). When we seek for a
  record, index file will be read by a cluster basic to
  perform tree search. After retreive record number,  the
  particular record will be read by a cluster basic.  All
  this will same as performing a cC:=SUBSTR(?.dbf,nS,nC) or
  cC:=SUBSTR(?.ntx,nS,nC). The cC is the cluster read to
  memory.
Access data from a file server(LAN/WAN) same as about, but
  unit is measure by package. Try compare with 33mega byte
  per second (Ultra DMA Mode 2) harddisk through put to
  10mega bit through put(LAN) and 33.6kilo bit through
  put(WAN), we will see where are the problem is.
Database server will retrieve data and return the data set
  that matching selection criteria only, even for a single
  record this will avoid passing over index file's data.
Process server will retreave data and process it all at
  server site and return the result only.
Terminal login will get keyboard input and return screen
  output, all thing are done at server site, client just
  doing keyboard capturing and screen update only.
Impliment file server under WAN or large data under LAN are
  not practical due to we have no way to control data of
  index file pass through, and cache/buffer will not work
  for network data, and high band width network are so
  expensive.
Using database server like ADS(Advantage Database Server) or
  through ODBC when doing inquiry/report/processing will
  need high skill programmers to reduce data pass over to
  acheive satifactory response time. E.g. when browing whole
  company employee data, we should request for a screen full
  of data only instead of really request the data for all
  employee.
Terminal login(or PC environment call remote control) using
  PcAnywhere, or Citrix MetaFrame on top of WTS(Windows
  Terminal Server) WinFrame will overload the server but is
  easiest way to acheive satifactory response time.
Implement process server (SOCKET, RPC, DCOM, ADO...
  ) is a real solution under WAN or large data under
  LAN, since when a server been overloaded, we can add
  another server to distribute the workload. We can even run
  a process at NT, and using .dbf record or text file as a
  semaphore to communicate.
For your case I think now you should use PcAnywhere and
  spool report to a file at server site, later using a
  viewer to view or sent it to printer.

Regards,
Wong


Subject: Re: thin client
From: F.Eggenberger <proficonNOprSPAM@bluewin.ch.invalid>

Hi Ives

a) PcAnywhere
a good solution for remote support. You have almost full
  control over the host-system (rebooting, callback to
  remote stations depending on passwords...) If you have to
  transmit big files periodically, the built-in cache
  mechanism allows incredible speed rates (since only the
  modified data within a file is transmitted)
b) TCP/IP via router
even with Advantage Server and locally stored EXE a painful
  experience. We had to change to Win Terminal Server, which
  is very stable now (but as you say not inexpensive)
c) VncServer/VncViewer
Very stable and efficient solution, available on different
  platforms.
If you have to transmit files, you define a network drive as
  you would on a local network (NET USE ....) and use the
  COPY command in the DOS-box or use the explorer.
Best of all: It's free!
Check  http://www.uk.research.att.com/vnc/
for detailed information and for download

Have a nice day.

Florian Eggenberger
PROFICON AG
Triesen, Liechtenstein


Subject: Re: thin client
From: "Yves" <resawin@wanadoo.fr>

thanks

but I dont need tranfert or remote support my config is
  Netware, PCs in LAN and only one PC distant.
PC distant is client and use database like other PCs
Is pcAnywhere can be use to make PC as thin client.
appli exe is executed in Server and PC used as terminal. ?

TIA


Subject: Re: thin client
From: "Jean-Paul Bleau" <Bleau#JP@Hotmail.com>

Yves,
In your case, PC-Anywhere will be good. Just dedicate a
  machine in the office and make it a host. If it is
  accessed from any connection (RAS, Internet, etc.), it
  will do what you need. The EXE will run on the host
  machine and only screens will be transmitted to the
  remote. I had a lot of success with this setup. I moved to
  Terminal server because it's better, but PC-Anywhere is
  still a very good solution.

HTH,
Jean-Paul Bleau
Ordinateurs Laval

http://www.FertiSoft.com


Subject: Re: thin client
From: "Yves" <resawin@wanadoo.fr>

Thanks

I'll propose that to my client