I am thinking of deploying Citrix in my network rather than purchasing full desktops for my users. We are on a tight budget and I am the only IT person for about 50 users. The Citrix solution seems to have a lot of positive attributes and wondered if anyone has gotchas they've experienced? My migration would not migrate all users, but more like 1/3 at a time. The first targeted would be those with slow machines. Thanks, Eric

Despite their slick marketing, Citrix is plagued with issues and is way overpriced! First thing I would ask is why do you need Citrix as opposed to plain W2K Terminal Server? Citrix has a steep learning curve and most environments will actually see an increase in support issues. With the low cost of PC's today, I just don't see the need or reason to go Thin client? except for high security environments where HD's, floppies, CD's are a no no. Do you have little pockets of special apps like accounting, marketing, etc. that will require local installations? Also, Citrix causes a nightmare when it comes to manageing local/network printers.

Thanks for the input. For the most part, we use standard apps but do have some specialized accounting and management apps that are currently installed on those needed workstation. What is the big difference with Citrix and Terminal Services then?? Will Citrix allow more efficient bandwidth utilization?? We can purchase cheap PC's locally, but they are a pain to manage if one dies. With the large diversity of machines, ghost is useless. The idea of all my users environments residing on one machine makes their downtime minimal if a machine bites the dust. For some users, thin clients would be fine and others they would need more. Roaming profiles would solve some of my problems, but it would be nice if a machine died, and all I did was swap it out and the user logged back in. Any ideas??? Thanks, Eric

So if a user machine dies, it can quickly and easily be replaced with another dumb thin client right? True, but what if the server dies? Rut Row! Now everyone is down! You could cluster and or create a farm but then your cost jumps bigtime! You have to install W2K Terminal server to install/run Citrix. Most environments can get by with just Terminal server, in fact, it is much simpler and in your case, it appears that less is better, especially for only 50 users. Citrix has advanced features such as multi protocol client support and enhanced load balancing. It's been a while since I compared the two so please do some research. However, every Citrix implementation I've seen has had more "Cons" than "Pros" so if thin client is a must for you then try to stick with plain old W2K Terminal Server. Last time I checked, a Terminal Server client cost ~$60 per user, a Citrix client costs an "additional" ~$275 per user and then you still have to buy the Citrix server software for another ~$7,000. You do the math... :) Also, back to your Ghost problem, While I never recommend applying a ghost image to different hardware, W2K or XP with PnP actually do a pretty darn good job of it! Also, if you go with a vendor like Dell, their business class hardware changes very little over time if you buy the same model... Hope this helps!

David, Excellent points!! I wonder if going with dual terminal servers is a better idea for redundancy and load balancing. We would be retaining our existing hardware until dumb terminals are needed for replacement. I'll check into a Terminal Server only solution with the vendor to see what they say. Thanks, Eric

If you have the money a redundant system is always a good idea... If money is tight, at least add things like redundant power supplies, fans, NIC's and RAID. I really like the Dell Poweredge server line... really good bang for the buck. Compaq/HP are nice too but a little more cash. One final caveat, don't always believe what the "Vendor" tells you. After all, if you were working on commission, what would you rather sell the client, a $10,000 solution or a $50,000 solution? Caveat Emptor!! :)