Which direction to go?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
The bigger issue I will undoubtly get is - this is a business and we need to function, and we need to read XRays to function, so I don't care what you have to do.. make it work
Business decision, not an IT one. I would avoid getting involved as there is really no technical input needed here it seems.
yeah - I'll admit, I'm mostly whining here because I don't want to have to support yet another piece of software where if the other side did their job correctly I wouldn't have to worry about it.
In that case, I don't even need to talk to anyone - I might as well just deploy said XRay reading software because that is what they will tell me to do anyway.
-
Makes sense. I think just supporting it, if you know that that is going to be the decision, is the way to go. Or go and make them make that decision, but be like "I'm sure you'll want me to manage this software for this and that business reasons, but I just wanted to run it by you first because obviously it is extra work for me and if there is a reason that you did not want it supported that I did not know about I'd hate to have wasted the effort."
-
LOL - nice!
As it turns out, the hospital did recently update their software, but they missed at least one cd burner in the update process. So hopefully soon it will be a non issue.
-
That would be a nice resolution to this problem for sure!
-
@Dashrender said:
Patients often bring in DVD's that contain XRays that were taken at other clinics. These disks typically include a viewer built into the disk so no local software is required to see the DICOM images.
Last spring Microsoft released a patch that broke most of those viewers. The manufactures of those viewers very quickly put out a (in most cases) not free update that customers could purchase to solve this issue.
My office purchased this update at my prompting immediately (it wasn't bad - I think it was $300 or so and brought us 4 years newer to the current version).
My dilemma - do I solve the problem internally by deploying DICOM viewing software everywhere that I have to now maintain - or push back and make the continuous calls to these hospitals and clinics telling them that they need to update? (Frankly I want the pissed off staff to call them so the pressure is even hotter on the other hospitals and clinics)
Pass thru DVD drive into VM running working unpatched version of OS and live happily.
-
@KOOLER said:
@Dashrender said:
Patients often bring in DVD's that contain XRays that were taken at other clinics. These disks typically include a viewer built into the disk so no local software is required to see the DICOM images.
Last spring Microsoft released a patch that broke most of those viewers. The manufactures of those viewers very quickly put out a (in most cases) not free update that customers could purchase to solve this issue.
My office purchased this update at my prompting immediately (it wasn't bad - I think it was $300 or so and brought us 4 years newer to the current version).
My dilemma - do I solve the problem internally by deploying DICOM viewing software everywhere that I have to now maintain - or push back and make the continuous calls to these hospitals and clinics telling them that they need to update? (Frankly I want the pissed off staff to call them so the pressure is even hotter on the other hospitals and clinics)
Pass thru DVD drive into VM running working unpatched version of OS and live happily.
that would require either a VDI setup, or SA on every workstation, Both options as more costly than me maintaining the patched version of the software on the workstations directly.
-
@Dashrender said:
that would require either a VDI setup, or SA on every workstation
Running a VM locally requires neither.
-
@Jason said:
@Dashrender said:
that would require either a VDI setup, or SA on every workstation
Running a VM locally requires neither.
no, running a VM locally requires a second full license purchased for that machine.
-
There's always the option of terminal servers.
-
it's all a moot point now. The hospital is going to get this fixed for us.
But i would never pay the price for a TS/RDS server to support this one app - plus I'd have to map the cd drive into the session, etc, etc... uh.. no thanks - to many hassles.
-
@Dashrender said:
But i would never pay the price for a TS/RDS server to support this one app
We pay for ones just to support flash/java.. Keeps that crap off the desktops.
-
@Jason said:
@Dashrender said:
But i would never pay the price for a TS/RDS server to support this one app
We pay for ones just to support flash/java.. Keeps that crap off the desktops.
How did training go for users that needed to use TS/RDS for somethings, but not others? How do you manage favorites between their desktop and the RDS session? Do you only publish IE for those things? of a full desktop?
It's still pretty darn expensive no matter what way you slice it...
-
@Dashrender said:
How did training go for users that needed to use TS/RDS for somethings, but not others? How do you manage favorites between their desktop and the RDS session? Do you only publish IE for those things? of a full desktop?
It's still pretty darn expensive no matter what way you slice it...
It's no different than users than need to use other RDS for GreatPlains and other applications via RDP. We don't do published apps as it causes some issues with some apps, it's all full desktops. We don't do anything with their favorites, they just copy paste a link to it if they need something with flash or java, It's not meant to be their main workspace just for sites that get blocked at the network firewall (Palo Alto's in the datacenter) level for desktops because we block flash and java. Doesn't really cost much to add an additional RDP server (you just need user cals for max concurrent users, not for all users) , and the cost is very minimal compared to the impact on security java and flash have, many infections come from those anymore, and we have to report any infections or breaches publicly as a publicly traded company. IMO a RDS is what in most cases should be considered over VDI, a VDI only needs to be looked at if there are limitations that RDS could not handle.
