Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Citrix Systems (CTXS) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: MikeM54321 who wrote (6508)	5/1/1999 11:44:00 AM
From: Mike Buckley	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 9068

MikeM, Seeing your most recent response, I think you and I are fundamentally on the same page. We could go on and on with the nuances and possibilities about what lays ahead in the future, but what really matters is what happens, not what might happen. Only time will tell. For me, I'm betting on the wave of Windows NT and the use of ICA with Java for additional, incremental business. As I mentioned a very long time ago, owning Citrix stock right now is riskier than it might otherwise be because it is an enabling technology that has not yet entered the tornado phase of product adoption. That's why I will continue to keep a very close eye on things, with your help of course. --Mike Buckley

To: MikeM54321 who wrote (6508)	5/6/1999 3:12:00 PM
From: MikeM54321	Respond to of 9068

Re: ORCL Thin Client Comments Thread, I kind of chuckled at this blurb from Larry Ellison (Oracle). He was asked a question about what he would do if he was MSFT's CEO. And the biggest advocate of thin client computing forgot to mention NT's Terminal Server Edition. Q: If you were president and chief executive of Microsoft, how would you run the company? A: Microsoft thinks their future popular operating system is Windows NT. I think their future popular operating system is Windows CE. People want simpler. So I would aim NT totally at the very high end and stop worrying about NT on the desktop. They need to worry about Windows CE for low-cost appliances, because the world is going to be made up of big servers and low-cost, easy-to-use appliances. I'm sure Larry Ellison is very well aware of NT4.0 Terminal Server Edition but, of course, he neglects to mention it. If you really want true thin-client computing, then ICA is a superior way to achieve it(IMHO). I wish I could find a reporter who would directly ask Ellison his opinion of Terminal Server Edition or, better yet, about Citrix's ICA. Now that would be an interesting answer Q&A. Here's another comment from the article of interest to thin client computing followers: "Ellison, who founded Oracle in 1977, has used the network model for his own company, moving human resources information and employees' email onto the Internet, making them accessible through Web browsers. He's also Web-enabled every Oracle product, from its market-leading database to applications." MikeM(From Florida)

To: MikeM54321 who wrote (6508)	6/4/1999 3:30:00 PM
From: MikeM54321	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9068

Re: Thin Client Alternatives -- Java / Oracle8i MikeM wrote: Now I'm slightly confused. Are you saying in the latest wave of Internet Java applications, like Oracle's "i" initiatives, the processing of the applet is not done on the client? I couldn't figure this out from reading the Oracle information. That was my only guide….. I guessed the processing was done on the client. In other words, the entire Java app itself had to be sent down the pipe to the client. Then the client had to do the processing work and spit the results out via it's browser. jkb wrote: You are correct. Essentially though - Java applets are somewhat server based computing as the application is distributed centrally from the Web server - and on-demand. Not entirely server based as the remote java client is required to have processing/memory power. Andrew Fenic wrote: The complaints seem to come from people who are using Java as a replacement to Visual BASIC or Power Builder for fat client application development. Their points are valid. Java's AWT is a relatively weak class library and the Java IDE's are still fairly immature. Fat client applications written in Java tend to be unimpressive for those reasons.......Those arguments miss the point of Java, however. Larry Ellison is pushing network-centric computing where Java components reside primarily on the server and most user-side content is delivered as dynamically generated HTML. As a language for stored procedures and server side components, Java is great. The inefficiencies of the GUI libraries are not a factor and Just-In-Time (JIT) compilers can really show off their muscle.......It is absolutely the right time for Oracle to embrace Java on the server. Developers who use that technology today will not be disappointed with performance. Servlets, particularly, are an awesome replacement to CGI; much faster and more elegant. I believe most of the misconceptions regarding Java have come from its use on the client for GUI stuff. ----------------------------------- Hardly / jkb / Andrew, Thought I would post some interesting comments from all of us concerning Java as a thin-client solution. I just recently learned more about it from browsing the Oracle thread. Between that thread and what I learned here I'm finally getting a grasp on Oracle's Thin-client push via Java. This is pretty interesting. So Larry Ellison (LE) is pushing a thin-client model kind of/sort of similar to the Citrix screen refresh model. It now appears LE is planning on doing most of his processing on the server. As jkb mentioned (in our earlier discussions), he believes Citrix's Java product will have the server act as the Java client. And this appears to be kind of the same plan LE has for his 8i product. The LE vision is that 8i will be sending to the client only updated HTML pages of the clients requests. So very little processing has to be done on the client. Interesting idea because this overcomes a lot of the complaints Java has gotten in the past as Andrew has pointed out above. Now the primary difference (from a very basic analysis) between the two different thin-client solutions is Oracle's vision of the thin-client world means having to re-write, or write, apps specifically for Java. Whereas the Citrix view of the thin-client world means standard Windows apps don't have be re-written to deploy as thin-client. If I have this whole Oracle Java thing somewhat correct, it's pretty clear that Microsoft sure would not want Oracle vision of the thin-client world to come true. Maybe if the 8i product takes off, we will see MSFT lining up behind the CTXS alternative (or at least the RDP alternative). MikeM(From Florida)