Comments on: The VMware PCoIP ‘Killer App’ http://www.jimmoyle.com/2009/09/the-vmware-pcoip-killer-app/ An insight into the world of desktop and application delivery Sun, 07 Mar 2010 03:09:41 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Amanda Dahl http://www.jimmoyle.com/2009/09/the-vmware-pcoip-killer-app/comment-page-1/#comment-134 Amanda Dahl Tue, 27 Oct 2009 21:20:57 +0000 http://www.jimmoyle.com/?p=77#comment-134 Jim, This is absolutely the issue I saw when viewing Teradici at the IPExpo in London. Nobody wants to talk about the double cost on hardware for the server and client. And it's a huge implementation hurdle. It seems like the hardware zero client may go a ways to fixing that issue. However, the bigger elephant in the room that I've discovered is bandwidth utilisation. I've been told that it can be throttled on the client end. Perhaps Stu can comment on this? Jim,
This is absolutely the issue I saw when viewing Teradici at the IPExpo in London. Nobody wants to talk about the double cost on hardware for the server and client. And it’s a huge implementation hurdle. It seems like the hardware zero client may go a ways to fixing that issue.

However, the bigger elephant in the room that I’ve discovered is bandwidth utilisation. I’ve been told that it can be throttled on the client end.

Perhaps Stu can comment on this?

]]> By: Simon Bramfitt http://www.jimmoyle.com/2009/09/the-vmware-pcoip-killer-app/comment-page-1/#comment-96 Simon Bramfitt Mon, 07 Sep 2009 05:25:32 +0000 http://www.jimmoyle.com/?p=77#comment-96 Very interesting idea Jim. The server-side implementation of PCoIP was always hamstrung by the requirement for a dedicated PCoIP processor for each session. Moving to a s/w based solution should open up the data center to PCoIP in a way that was simply not possible in a h/w only inplementation. However, I'm not sure that a h/w assisted client implementation would reach killer app status. Getting the price of a conventional thin-client down to acceptable levels is still an uphill battle, adding another proprietary processor to the mix will make that battle even harder. But assuming that manufacturers can address the cost, the big concern I have when dealing with any proprietary hardware (I used to design hardware BTW) is that once it is baked it can't be modified. Upgrading a thin-client to support the latest enhancements for ICA/HDX is easy, but if you rely on dedicated h/w to manage the PCoIP implementation you are locked in at a fixed point in time and any protocol improvements made after that point are only going to be accessible by throwing out the old thin-client and buying a new one. I'd be far more accepting of a solution that didn't have to have proprietary silicon to delivery acceptable performance. Regards Simon Very interesting idea Jim.

The server-side implementation of PCoIP was always hamstrung by the requirement for a dedicated PCoIP processor for each session. Moving to a s/w based solution should open up the data center to PCoIP in a way that was simply not possible in a h/w only inplementation.

However, I’m not sure that a h/w assisted client implementation would reach killer app status. Getting the price of a conventional thin-client down to acceptable levels is still an uphill battle, adding another proprietary processor to the mix will make that battle even harder. But assuming that manufacturers can address the cost, the big concern I have when dealing with any proprietary hardware (I used to design hardware BTW) is that once it is baked it can’t be modified. Upgrading a thin-client to support the latest enhancements for ICA/HDX is easy, but if you rely on dedicated h/w to manage the PCoIP implementation you are locked in at a fixed point in time and any protocol improvements made after that point are only going to be accessible by throwing out the old thin-client and buying a new one.

I’d be far more accepting of a solution that didn’t have to have proprietary silicon to delivery acceptable performance.

Regards

Simon

]]> By: Stuart Robinson http://www.jimmoyle.com/2009/09/the-vmware-pcoip-killer-app/comment-page-1/#comment-93 Stuart Robinson Thu, 03 Sep 2009 18:27:37 +0000 http://www.jimmoyle.com/?p=77#comment-93 Hi Jim, I completely agree the VMware View with software PCoIP to a hardware zero client makes a lot of sense. This is exactly what we are showing at VMworld this week. It will be in the video interview that Brian took a couple of days ago. Also, I will take some video myself and post to TeradiciLabs on Youtube. Don't forget the client antivirus... since the hardware PCoIP zero clients are PCoIP algorithms baked directly on the chip silicon. There is no need to load an anti-virus software since the hardware zero client is already secure. One less thing to update (and worry whether your clients have enough memory etc...) Would be happy to discuss the roadmap for these devices directly with you. Cheers, Stu Director of Biz Dev, Teradici Hi Jim,

I completely agree the VMware View with software PCoIP to a hardware zero client makes a lot of sense. This is exactly what we are showing at VMworld this week. It will be in the video interview that Brian took a couple of days ago. Also, I will take some video myself and post to TeradiciLabs on Youtube.

Don’t forget the client antivirus… since the hardware PCoIP zero clients are PCoIP algorithms baked directly on the chip silicon. There is no need to load an anti-virus software since the hardware zero client is already secure. One less thing to update (and worry whether your clients have enough memory etc…)

Would be happy to discuss the roadmap for these devices directly with you.

Cheers,
Stu
Director of Biz Dev, Teradici

]]>