Better Seamless Windows?
Wilco just posted his review of the Ericom PowerTerm WebConnect software on his website. What I still do not get it is why companies are still working on improving/fixing their own seamless windows engines.
Windows Longhorn, as everyone knows, has built-in support for that and it works very well, way better than any of the third party implementations out there. So from a development perspective makes no sense whatsoever to invest any money of improving/fixing your own engine, unless it is something that is screwing up your users big time. If that is not the case, ISVs out there, do NOT invest any more money on your shell replacements. Focus on what you can do for Longhorn. Remember they will have most of the stuff you guys (2X, Ericom, etc) offer now like published apps, web interface and HTTPS gateway and many customers will simply use them because it is free and it comes with the OS. Plus it is supported by Microsoft, a much larger company.
If you guys do not have in-depth knowledge of the TS market and do not have the vision for what is ahead, you will be in troubles. Trust me.
Peter Ghostine Says:
August 22nd, 2006 at 8:22 pm
Hi Claudio,
I agree with you to some extent, but can you please define “very well” when you describe the seamless windows engine in Longhorn, or even the application publishing methodology for that matter? What use cases have you subjected it to? At Provision Networks, one of the deciding factors for our clients has been our detail-oriented approach to implementing the seamless windows hook, among other things. In fact, there are some aspects of it that we’re in the process of patenting. Perception is everything. There are more than one way in which seamless windows can be implemented, and the same goes for how apps are published, load-balanced, and accessed. Yes, one could build extensions on top of the upcoming Longhorn features, but considering Longhorn is one and a half years away and companies won’t even start implementing it for at least 6 months to one year following its release, it makes sense to perfect what we have to offer today, especially if we plan to continue to support Windows 2000/2003. For example, Many clients of ours are still managing a Windows 2000 TS platforms today, and there’s no guarrantee they will upgrade a year and a half from now.
Yes, in order to thrive in the post-Longhorn era, ISV’s must focus on many last-mile technologies that to this day have not yet been untackled. But this doesn’t mean they shouldn’t also perfect their existing technologies.
Peter Ghostine
Provision Networks, Inc.
www.provisionnetworks.com