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: Hardly B. Solipsist who wrote (6628)	5/28/1999 10:31:00 PM
From: Scott Overholser	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9068

the problem with windows is that it assumes you are an idiot. unix, on the other hand, presumes you know what you are doing. it also does not (generally) clutter up your environment with useless user interface abstractions that always have stupid little bugs. please don't get me started about the lunacy of windows and it's inherent design flaws. i will say one thing tho - i am thankful for one major design flaw: the whole windows "windowing" system is so flawed that a small company called citrix systems was able to create an innovative solution that patches up those flaws enough to make a usable multi-user network windowing system. damn - who'da thunk it?! p.s. i'm not suggesting that X is perfect. it's big, bloated, and full of security holes. at least it's creators can boast that it is scalable, network transparent, and platform agnostic. p.p.s. how 'bout that ctxs action today?! volume increased 10% from yesterday in pre-holiday trade when most other stocks traded very light volume and it was an up day to boot! who knows, maybe it's put in enough time at $45-$50 and is ready to move on.

To: Hardly B. Solipsist who wrote (6628)	5/31/1999 11:04:00 PM
From: Mike Buckley	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9068

Seeing the discussion about the Citrix demo reminded me that I haven't tried it since getting my cable modem. I tried it and found no difference in speed between the demo of Excel and using Excel on my hard disk. --Mike Buckley

To: Hardly B. Solipsist who wrote (6628)	6/4/1999 12:30:00 PM
From: MikeM54321	Respond to of 9068

"It's a viable model, but there is much more O/S dependence built in. If the application is running on a Windows platform, and the client is a Windows client (or until they port their stuff to UNIX, which would probably not be worth the trouble), it will work fine…. The difficulty is that Windows NT is not yet a suitable server platform. Microsoft can probably make it into one, but they haven't so far, and they have tried for a while. The only other problem that I see here is that this looks like a proprietary architecture, and I've seen these things fail repeatedly. MS has had no luck getting widespread adoption of their "standards", any more than IBM did. Sun is hurting Java by trying to control the standardization process, but it is still much more open than anything related to Windows or Big Blue (although IBM is changing their tune and actually embracing free software occasionally)." ------------- Hardly, ICA is definitely not dependent upon the client being Windows. As a matter of fact that's part of it's beauty. It's for those customers who have all kinds of machines that need to access the same Windows Enterprise software. MetaFrame(CTXS primary product) can make this possible. The marketing agreement CTXS had with MSFT was that MSFT was supposed to send all non-Windows client business to CTXS. Well MSFT did next to nothing in this regards (But that's another subject). What's important is to note that CTXS has client software for the following: Macintosh, UNIX (Solaris, SunOS, DEC, HP/UX, IBM, SGI, Linux, SCO), DOS, Windows CE, and Java (JDK 1.0 or 1.1). Well I can't argue your comments about NT not being suitable as a server platform. Except to say IMHO, I wouldn't bet against MSFT eventually dominating this market. They have a lot of resources to handle the complaints they have received concerning their server products. But overall, today, I agree with you. In regards to CTXS being proprietary architecture, I think you may be mis-understanding ICA. You don't, "write" to an ICA architecture. You write standard Windows applications. From there you can launch them to clients on top of a Metaframe operating system. So you don't need developers to, "adopt," CTXS. This is a KEY point that I believe a lot of investors misunderstand. You can take ANY Windows software, and almost instantly, create a Thin Client/Fat Server network. CTXS is surprisingly (I say surprisingly because still very few have heard of them) gaining momentum. According to CTXS, over 3,000 companies, including AT&T Wireless Services, Bell Mobility, Oshkosh B'Gosh, Honeywell Europe, Chevron, Sears and GE Capital Services, and Mott's North America utilize Citrix Server-based Computing. And they have over 2,000 strategic partners and resellers helping to market and distribute ICA technology. I don't quite understand the 2,000 figure? I thought it was something around 10,000? Oh they must have been referring to actual individuals who sell CTXS products at their Shareholders meeting. Recently, to get even greater adoption, CTXS has also done a giveaway program. You see if ICA wasn't given to them, RDP (MSFT's competing product) would have been. This post explains it better: techstocks.com Any further comments(especially devil's advocate ones) welcome. MikeM(From Florida)