Talk:Citrix XenApp

Old AfD

 * This article has been listed on Votes for deletion in the past. See /deletion for the discussion archive.

Why was this article listed for deletion? Was it by some nOOb? This is important information. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.137.28.156 (talk • contribs) 20:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know. I couldn't find a record of this debate in the AfD or VfD archives.  The important thing is that the article wasn't deleted. &mdash; EagleOne\Talk 19:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Looking at the history, there was a deletion request right back when the article was first created, as at that stage it was merely a copy-paste of an advertisement for the Citrix software.http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Citrix_XenApp&oldid=3934721 The article was promptly rewritten in encyclopaedic tone by DropDeadGorgias Adacore (talk) 09:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC).

RDP based on Citrix tech?
Windows NT 4 Terminal Server Edition and Windows Terminal Services are based on Ctrix technology (WinFrame?) but I thought Mircrosoft developed RDP on their own. Argel1200 00:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I can't find any reference anywhere to suggest that RDP was based on Citrix, they seem to have totally separate code bases. I suppose it is possible Citrix played with a new protocol (what became known as RDP), and licensed it to MS, but they certainly didn't use it in their products. The statement about RDP seems to be almost completely out of place in this article, since RDP is definately not based on the ICA protocol. I'm going to remove the line unless someone says otherwise in the next while. --Zaf(t) 05:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it is not. See the link to MS RDP - the RDP protocol is based on T.128, which is why the rdesktop-project was able to reverse-engineer it since the T.128 spec was available. The only thing Microsoft licensed from Citrix was the server component (which is stated in the Competition section) 202.47.247.130 01:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The referenced document (of the sharing agreement between Citrix and Microsoft, ref [2] at the time of writing) indicates that Citrix would use their protocol (ICA) while Microsoft would stick to theirs (T.share).  The Citrix main article says the code implementing the T.share protocol originated at PictureTel and Microsoft gained it from its acquisition of PictureTel licensee NetMeeting.  T.share was a draft which later became the T.128 standard, according to the T.120 article.

UNIX
I went and created a brief UNIX section. I did this because it is not a direct port off the Windows version, it used to be a separate product, and still is for those with Subscription Advantage. I also wanted to cover the MFU 1.1 FR2/MPSU 1.2 rebranding as it caused me a lot of grief (Citrix licensing support did not realize there was a distinction and I spent a month going back and forth over this). Argel1200 01:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Deleted text
I removed the following text from the article because it talks about the benefits of application hosting in general terms, not specifically about Presentation Server: "Centralizing applications also makes it easier for administrators to manage them." &mdash; EagleOne\Talk 02:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Am I making things up or was there a reference to the Apache open-source alternative on this page until recently? If there was, any explanation for why it was removed. &mdash; Mcswordfish 13:52 21 Nov 2007 (GMT)

Name Change
Citrix will be changing the name of this product soon:

On Monday, February 11, 2008, Citrix will publicly announce that it is changing the name of its flagship application virtualization product from Citrix Presentation Server to Citrix XenApp™. This announcement will be made as part of our launch of Citrix Delivery Center™, a new, overarching product family brand for our premise-based application delivery infrastructure solutions.

The Citrix Delivery Center product family includes four primary product lines:

Citrix XenServer™, server virtualization product line, Citrix XenApp, app virtualization product line (formerly Presentation Server), Citrix® NetScaler®, Web app delivery product line, Citrix XenDesktop™, desktop delivery product line

Brandonsturgeon (talk) 20:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

2X Software Ltd
This appears to be a direct competitor for the Citrix seamless desktop/remote application features 2X Software Ltd found via a Linux/Win32 VM Tip if anyone cares to add this to the article. 86.13.77.126 (talk) 07:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Name comes from Xen?
Xen? Is there any of Xen in this? 195.224.10.194 (talk) 12:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think so. They just based their product on the open source Xen product. I think there was also some money transfer involved (but what did they "buy" exactly? The "xen" brand? The developers?). That would probably need some development from someone who knows XenApp well. MathsPoetry (talk) 15:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * So far as I can tell, XenApp has no connection to Xen whatsoever. After Citrix bought XenSource they wanted to give their products a consistent branding, so Xen is now a general brand, rather than having any bearing on the technology used. This confused me for some time as I couldn't figure out how a hypervisor could possibly fit in to this system, and the answer is that it doesn't. To Citrix, 'Xen' doesn't mean the hypervisor. I haven't seen any good citations for this yet though, beyond blog discussions (eg. http://www.brianmadden.com/blogs/gabeknuth/archive/2008/02/13/quot-xenapp-quot-is-brilliant.aspx - "the XenApp product doesn't have any pre-merger XenSource code"). In working this out I have finally reached the enlightenment that application virtualisation has nothing to do with virtualisation as I know the word, which makes the whole thing make a lot more sense.
 * Apparently giving unrelated things conflicting names is supposed to make everything less confusing to marketing and management types, or something. 81.178.30.171 (talk) 15:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

XenServer
It seems to me that, in XenApp, only the administrative interface (XenCenter) still lives on a Windows Server. The XenServer (which does the virtualization itself) is now a Linux system of its own.

Also, I think the current technology does not rely anymore on Windows Terminal Services. A consequence is that the paragraph about windows TS client licences needed to run ICA clients would not be not true anymore.

A serious revamping of this page by someone who knows the product well is probably needed. MathsPoetry (talk) 15:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * AFAIK XenServer and XenApp are two entirely unrelated products. XenServer does real virtualisation, and XenApp does 'application virtualisation', which isn't virtualisation at all, just application publishing. The word 'virtualisation' is used just because the client machine isn't running the application, so it's considered 'virtual'. This is explained in the link I added in the previous comment section, but I don't want to edit the main page as I'm not sufficiently confident in this area.81.178.30.171 (talk) 15:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It's really a software thin client solution. "Application publishing" is one aspect of that but it's possible to get a full blown desktop as well. The UNIX version even differentiates between a desktop, an "initial app" (where the application to run is specified in the custom connection on the client), and published apps, and each of these can be assigned a different window manager/desktop. Argel1200 (talk) 22:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Tone
This article reads like marketing copy. Secretlondon (talk) 19:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. See . (Found by a Google search.) Alksentrs (talk) 16:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I also agree. I have nothing against Citrix, but this page's tone is much more hype than encyclopedia.--71.187.10.252 (talk) 00:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Most of the bad edits were made over the past month by . I've left a message on his talkpage, and reverted the article back to an earlier, better version.
 * Of course, the May version isn't that crash hot, either. It suffers from a lot of the corporatespeak that Kurt's additions included, and the article now seems to boost Microsoft Terminal Server.  As a fan of XenApp m'self, I think it deserves a much better article.  Might have a look at that in a few days, if'n no-one else gets in first.  fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 01:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree how about a complaints section? or soemthing similiar.  I've used this product in the past and it's really horrible.  It works nothing like the way they imply it does over and over.  I suppose someone from Citrix wrote this . . .76.123.82.225 (talk) 23:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Not only do I agree that a page like this is nothing more then an ad, and would be more appropriate as a line item on a page about Application_virtualization, the whole section on competition looks like it was added by said competitors for some attention. It even comes with some rather atrocious grammar.  I recommend deletion of this section.Bemeros (talk) 14:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Much of the article seems to be remarkably similar to |the product's entry in informer.com wiki (which may be a problem because of GFDL, depending on which was written first). Unfortunately I don't know enough about the subject to rewrite the article -- just enough to think that it's encyclopaedic enough to warrant an article. Paddles TC 07:19, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Client components
In the article it says there was a "Web Interface for XenApp". Wouldn't the current client component be the Citrix Receiver? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.235.254.204 (talk) 15:28, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

XenApp is now (part of) XenDesktop
While previously XenApp and XenDesktop were distinct products, XenApp has now been integrated into XenDesktop 7. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.235.254.204 (talk) 15:35, 14 November 2013 (UTC)