Is there someone who can convience me than the ICA protocol is more
effecient than using the native RDP protocol of Windows NT 4.0 Terminal
Server, over a WAN using a Frame Relay Network of 128, 254 and 512 kbps,
depending of the remote sites.
Thanks in advance.
Pat Lévesque
plev...@synerg.com
ICA seems to be the better protocol, but not for an obvious reason. Both
seem to use approximately the same amount of bandwidth during normal
usage - ICA might use 1-2k less.
However RDP "bursts" reasonably often, ICA is hard-coded not to burst
over a certain rate of bandwidth, I believe is 18k or around that figure.
I guess you've got to weigh those things up, and then decide if MetaFrame
is worth it....
Cheers
Nathan
--
Nathan Mercer MCSE+I
Wellington, New Zealand
Ph +64 25 2302036
In any case, some features of MetaFrame such as compression and bitmap caching
should make ICA faster even if the bandwith is is the same (~20k). For me, the
other feature of the MetaFrame client such as client side drive mapping and
printing also make it a worthwhile addition to WTS.
-Mark Cawley
Colgate-Palmolive Company
Piscataway, NJ
In article <6vg48t$ipe$1...@news.quebectel.com>,
"Patrice Lévesque" <plev...@synerg.com> wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> Is there someone who can convience me than the ICA protocol is more
> effecient than using the native RDP protocol of Windows NT 4.0 Terminal
> Server, over a WAN using a Frame Relay Network of 128, 254 and 512 kbps,
> depending of the remote sites.
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> Pat Lévesque
> plev...@synerg.com
>
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own