Sorry for the lack of information. I'm currently researching LAN-less technology and was looking at thin clients just for funsies. We would be using ZT already and I was just wondering if thin clients would even work over the WAN. This is something I would possibly implement. We used to have them on mobile carts at the hospital I used to work at (LAN based). Bear with me here. I came in to get my cup of coffee today and someone didn't re-fill the Keurig so my life is meaningless for the next five minutes.
Well thin clients are used over a WAN all the time. Think about any time you RDP into a remote server. Remember a WAN isn't a different technology from a LAN, the devices can't tell them apart. It's all just the same TCP/IP network to the devices.
And when you use ZT, there isn't a WAN, it's all LAN.
We run E10.0.700.3 at the moment (1 Server 2012 VM that runs SQL 2012, 1 Server 2012 VM that runs the E10 appserver, and 1 Server 2012 VM that runs RemoteApp for the E10 client - all on the same ESXi host) and will likely move to E10.1 in the next few months. We actually found that at sites with low internet bandwidth, RemoteApp is a little slower than when the client is installed locally. One site running a T1 told us that, and we confirmed it to be the case. It may have had to do with the nice metro interface in E10. The sites with 35/5 coax or 10/10 fiber seem to run RemoteApp about the same as installing the client locally.
I actually heard someone say at Epicor Insights 2015 that Epicor 10 ran better when installed locally on client machines connecting over site-to-site VPN. We never really had to test that theory other than at the site with a T1 that I mention here.
So do you direct your users to the site where the RemoteApp gets published to use to connect to it, or do you put a shortcut on their desktops for the RemoteApp as well? I'm assuming there is no difference in functionality but don't really know at this point.
I push a shortcut. You cannot trust users to find anything via direction.