Talk:RemoteFX

Untitled comments
This article needs to "be adopted" by other articles (make it no longer an orphan) and expanded.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:38, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This article should probably be adopted by Remote Desktop Services and redirected, and a small snippet/blurb/whatever added to Hyper-V indicating the hypervisor side implementation. It appears to be Microsoft's intention to sell this as a VDI solution that is enabled by Microsoft's virtual machine technology, that is, remote access solution first, cool virtual technology second. 23:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.18.86.157 (talk)

Sorry, this article should be deleted in light of the PCoIP article being removed?? This competes head to head with PCoIP, why is that article verboten but this isn't?  On the PCoIP article some of the tech end users offered to re-write the article to not be a PR spin YET it keeps getting deleted. --75.5.10.59 (talk) 03:48, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This protocol is much more notable than PCoIP, and just happened to have been written better.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:51, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

"workload"?
The intro para says: "It is a part of the overall Remote Desktop Services workload." What, in this context, is a "workload". Gwideman (talk) 02:23, 26 October 2018 (UTC)