The REAL benefits of Citrix

[phagoort]

For my study EDP-auditing in Erasmus University Rotterdam I am writing a thesis (on which I will hopefully graduate). The thesis is about the real benefits of Server Based Computing (or Terminal Server, Thin Client Computing, …). We all know what the “theoretical” advantages are (cutting cost, easier management, safer, …), in all advertisements and seminars these are used to pursuade potential cutsomers, but what I would like to find out is what happens in real life.
Why did you implement Server Based Computing? What was your businesscase and how did it work out? Dit you cut costs, or finally ended up with a mixed environment?

Specific areas I am interested are:
- cost reduction
- security matters
- software distribution
- systems management (software upgrading, client hardware maintenance, …)

Your input will be highly appreciated. Thanks.

 

[mjbrown]

We implemented Citrix to reduce the need to maintain individual PC installs of applications. By doing this and having 30 servers house applications for 1000 users, maintenance of the application is greatly enhanced. By this, I mean, we only need to maintain 30 software installs rather than 1000. In the case of an application update, Service Pack etc, we can remotely update the software on the servers usually in one day rather than needing to drive around and manually touch all of the PC's on the client side.

Mike Brown CCA

 

[JohnTcolo]

Check back on prior threads in this forum. This topic has been covered ad nauseum many times.

 

[phagoort]

For mjbrown: have you also considered using a fat managed client, controlled bij a tool like microsoft SMS or ZEN? Did you end up with a real Server Based environment, or are you still also use local applications?

for JohnTcolo: Thanks for the tip, will search for it. Any hints?

 

[jimbopalmer]

Many of our PCs are 2500 feet underground (140°F) investing big bucks on those PCs seems counter productive. Investing in big buck servers on the surface, and using used PCs underground seemed wiser until we used them up, now we use Wyse thin clients. Everything underground dies eventually, but no sensitive data is actually underground.

I tried to remain child-like, all I acheived was childish.

 

[terrywilson]

I've worked in both thin and fat client environments. I must say administration isn't really that much easier with a dozen citrix servers than it was with two thousand desktops. Now I just apply the patches to each of the servers in a cycle, whereas before I could do anything I needed via sms.

Its cheaper in that you can reuse old hardware. However, this adds a bit of extra overhead as old stuff breaks. And when it does its sometimes difficult to locate the drivers/parts to get underway again. Cost is a bit doubtful as sure we get to use cheaper pc's but now we need to keep our frame circuits at a higher cir between sites to keep them running nicely which costs a lot more. Also you still have to buy a ts cal, a citrix cal and a server cal. Which easily adds a few hundred dollars per client.

 

[Traver]

Another cost issue is licensing.
We use a expesive software, that cost 2000$ a year. But if we install it on a citrix server, we only need to use 1 license for 20 users.

 

[Rinnt]

As it may have already been covered:

1. Save $$ in licenses
EXAMPLE: Symantec AV does not count a thin client as a "license". However, a PC DOES count as a license

2. Save $$ in travel time and exenses
EXAMPLE: Much easier to shadow a session then to drive 3+ miles down the road...

 

[JeffHicks]

The issues with SMS are that often in a large user environment PC's will not remain identically configured. When you try to deploy application installs to PCs that may or may not be identical, you can imagine the results you get. A lot of the benefits of SMS or Server based computing are a result of a company's politics. I have worked for a company in which the CIO would not allow us to restrict user rights on PCs beyond making them non-administrators. Thus, the users could (and did) download stuff rom the internet and install it. In that environment, you can see significant results by using Citrix to deploy applications. The Citrix servers existed in a controlled environment with strict testing and deployment procedures that were not always adhered to for non-Citrix applications. In an environment where the desktop could be fully restricted and standardized, SMS begins to look like a better solution.

Another reality is your IT staff's expertise. If you have a guy on staff who is very knowledgable about SMS, then the initial investment of time to research, design, and implement a SMS deployment is much less. The same is true for Citrix. That is probably why most of the places I have worked have chosen Citrix. They have the knowledge in-house so they can realize significant time and cost savings versus the struggle of SMS.