ThinRDP 2.0 Improves Virtual Experience for Remote Users while Providing Industry-Leading Flexibility and Security

Cybele Software, Inc. announces the release of ThinRDP 2.0, the industry-leading tool for secure, high-performance, remote access to desktop sessions and terminal services using any modern Web browser. ThinRDP 2.0 enables mission-critical business continuity by providing remote users the most flexible technology to remotely access their programs, documents, files, and network resources.

With ThinRDP 2.0, users can choose any access device they prefer, including iPhones, iPads, Android tablets and devices, ChromeBooks, PCs, Macs, Linux desktops, RIM playbooks, and even locked-down workstations. Regardless of the end-point device, ThinRDP provides secure access and a consistent, intuitive user experience.

In addition to supporting the widest variety of devices in the industry, ThinRDP 2.0 works with every major Web browser, including Chrome, Safari, Internet Explorer, Firefox, and all other browsers that support HTML5 and WebSockets. ThinRDP 2.0 has built-in intelligence to switch automatically to HTTPS if WebSockets are not available, for example in Android native browsers and Microsoft IE9.

ThinRDP 2.0 runs wholly inside the browser: there is never any need to install or configure Flash, Java, ActiveX, Silverlight, or any other software on the end-point device. ThinRDP 2.0 is fully integrated with SSL VPN: no SSL VPN client is needed. ThinRDP 2.0 enables pure Web access to all Windows applications and desktops running Microsoft RDS/Terminal Services and VDI platforms, including Microsoft Hyper-V and other Hyper versions. ThinRDP 2.0 is also integrated with the leading enterprise portals as well as custom portals.

ThinRDP 2.0 sets a new standard for RDP client performance, delivering content dramatically faster than any other Web-based RDP client while generating 25% less network traffic than Microsoft’s own Remote Desktop.

New Features in ThinRPD 2.0:
• Sound: Users of Chrome and Firefox browsers can listen to the sound playing on the remote machine in real-time.
• File transfer: Users can map remote drives to easily exchange files between the remote machine and their portable device.
• Ppdated user interface: The redesigned Start page allows users to quickly assign pre-designed icons to remote computers and/or applications, making ThinRDP more intuitive to use. The connection toolbar simplifies navigation to the remote machine.
• Remote printing: Users can print from the remote host to the handheld device.
• Extended usability: Touchscreen users can use familiar finger gestures to easily page through presentations, quickly scroll through documents, and complete standard navigation tasks.

Visit the ThinRDP v2.0 demo.
Read more at: http://www.cybelesoft.com/thinrdp/

4 thoughts on “ThinRDP 2.0 Improves Virtual Experience for Remote Users while Providing Industry-Leading Flexibility and Security

  1. Pingback: Windows: ThinRDP 2.0 veröffentlicht | Andy's Blog – Linux, Mac, Windows

  2. The person who suggseted logmein (or whatever that remote control service is) needs to read the question again that’s a fine solution for ONE USER at a time. This person needs SEVEN users.Server 2003 is a little cheaper but you have to think about what you are doing with it and if there will be any growth. A terminal server should have LOTS of RAM I like as an absolute MINIMUM 512 MB per user prefer 1 GB per user. BUT 32 bit versions of Windows Server Standard only support 4 GB of RAM TOTAL. You could go with Enterprise but that’s $3000+. So you’re left with 64bit Versions of Windows which you need to check your software on MOST 32bit software will work fine under x64, but NOT ALL. (64 bit versions of Windows go at least to 32 GB of RAM Enterprise 64bit, I believe, goes to 2TB).As for parallels or another virtual platform, you still need windows licenses AND licenses for parallels In the end, for 7 users, the total cost may be SLIGHTLY more expensive for a Windows solution instead of parallels, but if you ever need to add more stations, it will rapidly become cheaper with Windows. The exception to this is if you end up with software that is not compatible with Windows Server 64bit versions. Then parallels will likely be worth the cost.By the way 2003 and 2008 have the same 4 GB limit for 32 bit versions of Server standard. I’d go wtih 2008, as it will last you longer and offers some advanced RDP (Terminal Services) features, like Terminal Services Gateway.

  3. If purchasing a new sesytm, take a look at the latest version (no point in starting out on an operating sesytm that will end of life sooner than the other). Also keep in mind that you’ll need to purchase Terminal Server Client Access Licenses (CAL)for each sesytm connecting to the server.$999 Windows Server 2008 Standard$749 Windows Server 2008, TS Client Access License 5-pack (you’ll need 2 of these if you go this option)$2,979 Windows Server 2008, TS Client Access License 20-pack (only 1 of these if you go this option)I’m not sure if this includes the software so you can remotely connect or just a license to connect so you may have an additional fee for the Mac portion of the Terminal client software.As an alternative, take a look at running Apple Parallels if you need to run Windows applications on the Macs. Not sure of pricing, but the above seems pretty steep.** Edit **Bishop While it is true that you can connect to Terminal Server without additional licenses, this is only for 2 licenses for Administrative Access. To access with more than 2 users, you’ll need to enable the licensing option and install the license packs.

  4. it requires a peniutm 4 with 512 mb of ram. I have it running very fast, faster that 3.6 on a peniutm 3 with 256mb of ram. 3.6 r were only 128 mb of ram. I figured the recommended system requirements would double between 3.6 and 4, but not quadruple. If I had read them before hand I would not have bothered installing firefox 4. I think you are turning off many people by making them so high, and that you did not actually test the minimum system specs but just guessed. You realize that the system specs may be dependent partially on the system specs of the os. So vista and windows 7 will run much higher than xp and 2000, or win9x with kernelx.I am running ubuntu with the light lxde desktop so my system reqirements are lower than someone running it with the default gnome desktop.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>