<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Remotefx on myvirtualcloud.net</title><link>https://myvirtualcloud.net/tags/remotefx/</link><description>Recent content in Remotefx on myvirtualcloud.net</description><generator>Hugo</generator><language>en-us</language><copyright>Andre Leibovici</copyright><lastBuildDate>Wed, 24 Mar 2010 23:33:00 +0000</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://myvirtualcloud.net/tags/remotefx/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>Did Microsoft &amp; Citrix just say No to Cisco UCS?</title><link>https://myvirtualcloud.net/did-microsoft-citrix-just-say-no-to-cisco-ucs/</link><pubDate>Wed, 24 Mar 2010 23:33:00 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://myvirtualcloud.net/did-microsoft-citrix-just-say-no-to-cisco-ucs/</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;More details on &lt;a href="http://www.brianmadden.com/blogs/brianmadden/archive/2010/03/24/understanding-the-role-of-client-and-host-cpus-gpus-and-custom-chips-in-remotefx.aspx" target="_blank"&gt;&lt;strong&gt;RemoteFX&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt; are revealed,&amp;#160; and unless I have missed something on the way I am presuming that the joint desktop virtualisation strategy between Microsoft and Citrix is saying a big &lt;strong&gt;NO&lt;/strong&gt; to the high density blade systems such as Cisco UCS.&lt;/p&gt;</description></item></channel></rss>