There does not appear to be a way to download an entire folder from the vSphere Web Client (or from the Embedded Host UI fling) whether or not the Client Integration Plug-in is installed.Use the Windows VPX client instead.Here's how to tell if the Client Integration Plug-in is active. Note that it can be installed but not active, depending on whether it's being blocked by your browser and other factors. It's one of the things about the Web Client that drives people mad!This checkbox will be lit if the Plug-In is active. There does not appear to be a way to download an entire folder from the vSphere Web Client (or from the Embedded Host UI fling) whether or not the Client Integration Plug-in is installed.Use the Windows VPX client instead.Here's how to tell if the Client Integration Plug-in is active. Note that it can be installed but not active, depending on whether it's being blocked by your browser and other factors. It's one of the things about the Web Client that drives people mad!This checkbox will be lit if the Plug-In is active. I appreciate the info Jeff, and I'm glad to know that I'm not alone in my frustration, lol.I have to say though that I'm confused about your screenshot.
![]()
Download VMware vSphere. Run fewer servers and reduce capital and operating costs using VMware vSphere to build a cloud computing infrastructure.
What does the 'use windows session authentication' checkbox have to do with the client integration plugin Oo? My server was setup to have one single set of credentials, and I never configured anything to allow it to actually work with the 'use windows session authentication' option - but even if I did, I still don't get why that would have anything to do with the client integration plugin:-/. I apologize in advance for my ignorance. The Client Integration Plug-In has a number of functions that it adds to the Web Client.
Two of those, for example, are supporting OVF deployments and allowing standalone console sessions (not browser embedded). I think the original function of the Plug-in, however, was allowing you to use your currently logged in Windows credentials to log into the Web Client. Just so you didn't have to type your domainusername and password.If you add your Windows domain as an identity source in the Web Client, you can connect using Windows credentials.
With the Plug-in running, that becomes just a matter of checking the box and clicking the Logon button.
Today we have two important announcements. First, the C# client (AKA Desktop Client/thick client/vSphere Client for Windows) will not be available for the next version of vSphere. Current versions of vSphere (6.0, 5.5) will not be affected, as those will follow the standard support period. You’ve heard this from us in the past, but we’ve been waiting for a sufficient replacement before finally moving forward. Second, we want to talk about the recent vSphere HTML5 Web Client Fling, user adoption, and VMware’s focus on bringing a great user experience.
Like the Embedded Host Client Fling (which made it into vSphere in 6.0U2), we plan on bringing this product into a supported release soon.We’ll be referring to the new client as the vSphere Client, as it better describes the product, and isn’t a ten syllable mouthful (vSphere HTML5 Web Client). Looking to the FutureVMware has been working towards the transition to HTML5 with the Platform Services Controller UI, vCenter Server Appliance Management UI, and the Host Client.
All three of these were very well received and have become the official interfaces for their respective components. The last (and biggest) one to tackle was the management interface for vCenter Server.vSphere Web Client has always been intended to be the replacement for the Desktop client, and many of our users have tried to embrace this during the vSphere 5.5 and vSphere 6.0 periods, spending their time working within the Web Client even with the Desktop client available.While there were certainly issues with the 5.5 and 6.0 Web Client, many users that committed to the experience came to enjoy many of the new features and usability improvements. We also continued to listen to our customers, making further efforts to improve the Web Client experience have been made across 5.5U3, 6.0U1 and 6.0U2, including VUM (vSphere Update Manager) in 6.0U1 Web Client. We have made the Desktop client available during this period, which was much longer than originally planned. But now that time is ending.Additionally, due to the shift in backend services going from vSphere 6.0 to the next version, updating the Desktop client would have required a huge investment.
This may have been okay in a vacuum, but the required resources would have severely impacted the progress of the new vSphere Client, only to end up with four clients for users to juggle. We decided to focus on bringing the new vSphere Client (HTML5 based) up to speed as fast as possible, simultaneously offering a great user experience and getting off of Flash.
The new vSphere Client (HTML5)(Try it here: )This decision is about VMware trying to provide the best user experience: a fast, reliable, scalable modern interface that allows you to get your work done is our primary goal. The new vSphere Client is the best way to achieve that goal. Many have already tried out the Fling , with approximately 40% of survey respondents deploying it into Production and using it daily to manage their critical environments. With this Fling, we’ll keep the user experience mostly the same as the Web Client, which we’ve improved, based on your feedback.
We also plan on making additional improvements to make it easier for C# users to transition.One benefit of the Fling delivery model is very fast turnaround. We’ve been able to release a new version of the Fling every week, with new features, bug fixes, and performance improvements. More importantly, we’ve been able to quickly incorporate user feedback into the product. Sometimes this means simple bug fixes, sometimes this means changing our priorities to better address user needs. While this pace and model of delivery may not be used for the fully supported releases, due to testing time required, we likely will continue to use the Fling releases to stay on track with users.
A fundamental part of this high touch engagement model is users staying as up-to-date as possible, and most of our Fling users are doing just that, so thank you!PluginsWe also recognize how important plugins are, and the transition from Web Client to vSphere Client will take second and third-party plugins into account. We’ve already started engaging with plugin developers of all sorts to get them moving to the HTML bridge, which will allow the creation of a single plugin that is forward and backward compatible with both the vSphere Client and the Web Client, creating a smooth transition path.
If you require more information on plugin migration, please contact us. One great source of information is this site which contains a lot of future looking information about vCenter. This site will be updated as more information becomes available, so keep an eye on it:We do expect the plugin transition to take some time, and this means that we expect to ship the Flex based Web Client and the HTML5 based vSphere Client side by side for some uncertain period.
Everyone is very eager to have the new vSphere Client as the only client, but we want to respect the porting development time our partners require.Seeking your FeedbackHopefully these announcements come as a shock to no one – they are simply a reiteration of the message VMware has given for years. We are continually working to make vSphere Client a fast, reliable, and scalable product that provides a great overall experience.
If you have any comments, please post them below. We’d like to hear feedback from all points of view, as we look to the future instead of the past.Dennis LuProduct Manager, vSphere Clients. May 18th, 2016I’m going to throw my.02 and I’m sure it matches many customers out there.
I’m glad you have a web client, but I hate that you’re forcing it down our throats. Client / Server interfaces just run better. Ask most people who have an exchange environment if they’d rather use the full outlook client or OWA and you’ll overwhelmingly find that using the full client is preferred. This is even after countless improvements to the web interface. For you guys, I find this no different.
Even if the html5 interface is fast, it will never be as fast / snappy as a new c# client could have been. I get that you probably have an increasing number of folks using Mac’s and maybe even Linux for client access, so web makes a lot of sense to make it easy to offer a single interface. However, I see no good reason why we can’t have a full featured, REALLY fast c# client and a web client. I’d bet every windows admin would still rather use a c# client for their day to day administration over the web client. May 18th, 2016I’m going to throw my.02 and I’m sure it matches many customers out there. I’m glad you have a web client, but I hate that you’re forcing it down our throats. Client / Server interfaces just run better.
Ask most people who have an exchange environment if they’d rather use the full outlook client or OWA and you’ll overwhelmingly find that using the full client is preferred. This is even after countless improvements to the web interface. For you guys, I find this no different. Even if the html5 interface is fast, it will never be as fast / snappy as a new c# client could have been. I get that you probably have an increasing number of folks using Mac’s and maybe even Linux for client access, so web makes a lot of sense to make it easy to offer a single interface. However, I see no good reason why we can’t have a full featured, REALLY fast c# client and a web client. I’d bet every windows admin would still rather use a c# client for their day to day administration over the web client.
Ryan Roland May 25th, 2016Eric, the reason I believe most people prefer the C# client (from my own experience to hearing others’ opinions) is that you can never completely trust the web client. By that I mean that the information displayed in the web client is always suspect. I never know if what I’m looking at is actually accurate or is just a cached reflection of information from several minutes ago. From powering on/off VMs and waiting 4-5 min before the interface shows the status change, to seeing paths go dead in the C# client, but the web client continues to show them as active, etc. Having to hit the giant on-screen refresh button every few minutes to ensure I’m looking at up-to-date information is completely unacceptable to most people.Functionality aside, ridiculous flash requirement aside, different organization aside, that single reason is enough for me to want to continue to use the C# client.RR. TJ Zimmerman May 18th, 2016Respectfully sir, I disagree with you.
I see why some might prefer the fat client. However, after using the C#, HTML5, Flash, and Fusion clients, I can certainly say that the HTML5 client is the fastest, sleekest, and overall best tool to get the job done.Unfortunately throughout the beta phase it has been lacking in some integral features. But, as we all are sure to know, these will be delivered in the final release. Making the HTML5 client the best option for interfacing with ESXi servers. Dennis Lu May 18th, 2016Thank you for your feedback.
The unfortunate reality is that it’s not possible do have both products fully featured. The C# client has some fundamental tradeoffs within its design that prevent it from achieving the speed and scale goals for vSphere. Also, since nothing occurs in a vacuum, any work done on one product detracts from another.These announcements today show our intention to focus all our resources on making the new vSphere Client the best of both worlds: fast AND scalable. Dennis Lu May 18th, 2016We are looking at different schemes, but have to get our base one set a little better first. Second most requested has been “Dark theme” for being easier on the eyes at night (or in the dark).C# theme has been thrown around too, so we’ll keep it in mind.
It really shouldn’t be that hard for us to build, the theme switcher stuff is the harder part.The bigger part is getting in a ‘tight’ theme, for those that really want as much data on screen at once (ie. Most inventory in the tree showing simultaneously). We’re working on that too, but as with all things, no promises of when. AK May 20th, 2016+1 on ‘tight’ theme. If I really take a step back on why we have ‘avoided’ the Web Client, there are 2 main reasons.
Speed (Which it appears is starting to get addressed in the HTML5 client) and amount of data on the screen.I think honestly, FEATURE-Wise, the Flash web client is there. (and I assume the HTML5 one will get those features). The main struggle is when the $h!t hits the fan, the most important thing you need to be able to do is see as much as possible at once. Especially when it comes to Tasks/Events and Alarms. Even if in the webUI, it could pop open a full screen Events or Tasks view for the node you are viewing, that could help. Need some really good filtering options as well.
Would be nice to almost separate out tasks/events into a proper viewer (e.g. Windows Event Viewer).AK. Dennis Lu May 18th, 2016We have tested it ad-hoc as you say, and we intend on keeping an eye on this. Most of the functionality works, but we may do some styling changes to achieve better touch usability (you may see this already in some of the bigger buttons), but we could make them even bigger.We did notice the console issue but haven’t root caused.If you have specific pieces of feedback about the iPad experience, please submit them through the Feedback tool (smiley face) and include “IPAD:” at the beginning of your feedback, that will help us organize. Dennis Lu May 18th, 2016Hi Gregory,Sorry for taking so long to reply, busy day.It’s highly unlikely that we’ll be able to get it to work on any version of vSphere 5.5. Web Client is designed to work with 2 versions (the one it’s released with, and one version back for upgrade transitioning), and vSphere Client will likely follow the same model. The truth is that the backend APIs change so much from one version of vCenter to the next that even carrying 2 is quite a bit of development time, and even more testing.But, we’re trying to listen to customers on the entirety of vSphere Client.
If we hear enough demand for 5.5 support, we’d look deeper into it. That’s not a call to bombard me with requests on this page, but if you start a thread on the Fling feedback page and get everyone to post to it that certainly would be a sign. Andrew May 18th, 2016Great post Ross, much of what you said embodies many of the concerns that myself and other administrators I know have had with the web clients.WebClient will never be faster than a custom C# application. It may be easier to make changes and updates, but saying it will be faster is just fanciful dreaming. I’ll make another point about the use of WebClients, the platform they run on aren’t solely used for the management of VMware (you have those 20 other reddit tabs to the right as well).The move to HTML5 might be by choice, but they would be force to do so anyway. Flash and Java are being removed from the browser space, Chrome flat out wont support it in the coming future.
Which means the whole thing your building will be dependent on browser support.Which brings us to another point about changes in the browser environment. Moving to the browser is all fine. Until an organization decides not to upgrade or buy any more support from VMware and a browser update breaks your ability to manage your systems (this is a huge problem for hardware appliances that used Java). Of course you could get an update from VMWare. If only you still had contract support. Today if someone wanted to they could still be running ESX 3.0 using the C# client to manage it. They paid for it, they can still use it.
With the WebClient. Yeah that wont be the case. Once the browser no longer supports your version of ESX or vsphere. Hoobaju May 19th, 2016Dennis, you and VMware miss some fundamental concepts.First it is possible to have multiple fully featured products when you actually keep PROGRAMMERS employed (i.e. Stop firing so many) in lieu of SALES people. This speaks to the “benefit” as you called it of being able to release new versions of your product each week. Let’s think about this for just a secondWith less programmers, yet with more sales folk pitching functions to get you more customers, your current programmers will continue to push out code with terrible bugs.
Look at some of the recent issues you have had with other related products like, oh I don’t know the early versions of 6 and the boondoggles in 5.5u3 (vSphere products).Second. High rate updates will actually make you less enticing to gov’t entities as their code review is so slow and must be done for each major revision. Release high volumes of updates and you will be dropped simply because they can’t afford to use you, while more stable offerings (think anyone else that listens to customers) will become their bread and butter.Third. Since when does a 40% adoption rate and approval rate equal listening to customers. It seems there is a bigger 60% that thinks your path is terrible and all the comments here should shine a little light on that.
The sad part is the so called supporters posting here aren’t posting support but WORKAROUNDS. Your product is so bad that the supporters have to advise workarounds. Even Apple isn’t that out of touch.Fourth. Who can call a business plan intelligent that specifically cuts out a product that is used and viable on 90% of all computing systems (see Windows adoption rate)? The difference between VMware and Microsoft is simple. When MSFT forced Win 8 on the masses and they did a foolish thing like take out the Start Menu what happened?
They put it back. You take away the beloved thick client, all the while customers are saying, “don’t take it away, your other solutions suck”. What do you do? You double down the gambitwowgood plan.Just like when you had to cave on the editing VMs with HW version 10+ in the thick client in 5.5, expect a problem and have a team ready to resurrect the client. You may lose more important business over something like this than you gain. Keep in mind who sends the requests, the recommendations, etc. To the CIOsthe workers.
VMware is no longer the only or best game in town. You want to be best again, go for stable and reliable, not so much emphasis on shiny new colors and branding. More programmers and less people thinking up new works that start with a “v” to replace words already being used across the world. That is an Apple fail that the world laughs at yet you seem to think is a good idea. Krento May 19th, 2016“Additionally, due to the shift in backend services going from vSphere 6.0 to the next version, updating the Desktop client would have required a huge investment. This may have been okay in a vacuum, but the required resources would have severely impacted the progress of the new vSphere Client,”Solution to this would be to reduce executive pay by 2% and use that money to hire a team of developers dedicated to updating and maintaining the C# client.Need a web client for your increasing number of non-windows admins? How many of these non-windows “admins” actually need a full featured client?
If my environment were any indication of the norm, the non-windows admins are users that only need basic VM level administration abilities. Our day-to-day vSphere admins are all windows users. Build a basic functionality web client for delegating basic admin tasks, but keep the full featured C# client for the heavy day-to-day admins. Feed BAck May 19th, 20166.0.u2 with FirefoxAdd iSCSI storage adapter.
There’s no option to add at all.Menus pop up and cannot be dismissed/eliminated without closing and reopening Firefox.Datastore browser file transfer is slow and hangs 4 times out of ten. Transfer a large VMDK, guaranteed fail.These are the ones that jump right out at you. There are probably a ton of other similar items. My point is, don’t be so quick to dump the fat client.
The HTML5 interface, while nice, has a long way to go still. Samson May 19th, 2016We still running Vsphere 5.1 (because our HP EVA has no support for 5.5 or newer). A new Netapp is currently in pre-production.Anyway, we don’t like that web client at all:– We had to disable IE’s protected mode to get the C# plugin (!) working (this is a no go).– Many tasks are a “click orgy”, compared to the native client.– Update Manager is not available (Ok, this is “fixed” in 6.0U1)We don’t understand, why VMWare force us to use this web stuff.Please follow customer requests. Ken May 19th, 2016Dennis,Frankly this sucks. I hate web only management clients. Regardless of the “standard” of HTML5, each browser seems to act on it slightly differently.
![]()
That gives each browser, on each OS, a different feel, and often things don’t work across different browsers. I do understand wanting to consolidate development into a single line, but again, this sucks. I personally run vSphere 6 and only use the web client if I absolutely have to. I live in the desktop client and if I have to start doing everything in PowerShell I may do that rather than the web client. Maybe I’m old fashioned but that’s my opinion.Ken. Dennis Lu May 19th, 2016This was definitely true back in the day, and one of the major reasons we originally choose to use Flash!Now with HTML5 standards published, widely used, and widely implemented by browser vendors, this is much less of a problem.
We do test on multiple browsers, and are keeping an eye on any variations in both functionality and appearance.Any user that does notice a problem, we encourage them to report them using the Feedback tool, and provide all the details they can (for example, if it’s an issue only in browser X but not Y). Ginginho May 20th, 2016we’re trying to listen to customers on the entirety of vSphere Client. If we hear enough demand for 5.5 support, we’d look deeper into it.But you are not the slightest bit interested in the overwhelming demand to retain the C# client??? I never thought I’d see someone out-Microsoft Microsoft in their pig-headed determination to force such an unpopular change on their customers.
It really does beggar belief!Can I ask what percentage of your customer base you think want to retain the C# client? I’m assuming that you’ve done some research into this and the result must have insignificant. Craig Lindsay May 20th, 2016Does VMware not have enough resources to work on 2 clients?
Let me answer, they do, but are choosing not to. I find this unacceptable. My company pays nearly 100K a year for support and I know I am not alone. I have been vocal about disliking the flash client but my feedback is regular met with we placating but “too bad” type responses.
While the HTML5 client will be a welcome change to the flash/virus client that is currently out, I would still prefer the C# client. Dropping development for it simply means we as a company drop VMware support because this is a sign of a larger VMware problem of NOT LISTENING TO YOUR CLIENTS. Dennis Lu May 24th, 2016This poll was launched by a user several hours after the article was posted.
Without violating the laws of temporal dynamics, we would not have been able to include this information into the decision itself.We have put a lot of time and research with customers into this decision. Showing the Twitter poll was simply an expedient way to show you some information that was not sourced by us, avoiding as much perceived bias as possible. We have tons of positive response, including from many of the Pingbacks on this page, other articles, and other sources of public information. Onedee Tentee May 24th, 2016@Dennis Lu: This is in response to your reply below, which somehow has ‘Reply’ disabled.I’m aware of people that use the HTML client and are ambivalent to it, and some who prefer it, but not for ease of use. Since it’s not a controlled poll, it’s meaningless. As suggested above, try a poll of your constituents and see what the response is. You haven’t mentioned that as part of the “ a lot of time and research with customers into this decision”.
I believe it’s purely a cost decision, since maintaining 2 clients is expensive.You’ll win me over of you can create an HTML client that allows all the control with the keyboard that the C# client does. Otherwise you’re making our jobs harder, not easier. If we ever meet in person I can regale you with the story of Major Utiliy LDAP root vs computer Mouse.
Craig Lindsay May 20th, 2016Vmware has failed again. They stopped adding (in reality removed) functionality from the C+ client in recent versions while the html/flash disaster client was, to be generous, an alpha quality product at best. They are now repeating the same formula proving they can learn nothing from the past by providing yet another incomplete solution.The way this should have been done would be to have overlapping fully functional clients and transition customers to their new direction over time, not 2 or 3 simultaneously crippled choices. Michael Baranski May 22nd, 2016HTML5 may be a standard but the way browsers interpret pages is not always the same.
So you may be standardizing on a common platform for development but end user experience per organization will still differ due to browser usage at customer sites. The C# client may have been Windows only but it always worked because it just needed the libraries to make it function. It also worked great on a Windows machine hosted by Horizon View. This news coupled with vCloud Suite 7 Ent losing SRM and your support not impressing and causing us several issues lately makes it really hard to stay loyal.
May 22nd, 2016I think it’s a good idea that VMware supports the HTML5 Fling as part of product.At the same time, I think it’s too early/rushy to discontinue the C# Client, which I think is still the best MAIN GUI for vSphere thus should be kept and updated continuously. In fact, the C# Client and the HTML5 Client complement each other well even though there are duplicated development efforts from VMware.A little surprised that VMware didn’t announce to discontinue the Flash Client which is the real trouble maker.I wrote a blog with more analysis and reasoning:. Will May 23rd, 2016This is the best blog post I have read in long time. Not because of the news but the comments.
I am so glad there are others out there feeling the same pain as myself. I have worked with VMware since ESX 3.5 days and the C# client has always been my friend.
I have tried every single “web client” since the original 5.0 release (and promptly uninstalling that one) and been upset with each version. It is now only while running vSphere 6.0 i find myself running both C# and the flash based web client through force. C# for all day to day work and the flash client where I have no choice (SRM or storage and compute vMotions at the same time). The thought of the C# client being removed makes me keen to progress with our CIO’s wish for me to evaluate Hyper-V.I have even advised old work associates to remain on 5.5 with the original linked mode (removed from C# in 6.0 and migrated to “enhanced” flash only linked mode) and to also remain on SRM 5.5.1 and not move to 5.8 to save them the pain of flash.VMware please listen to your customers! HTML5 is a great idea but having an up to date C# client to run with it would make a lot of people happy.
I am sure these comments will make no difference other than making other admins who read it realise I feel the same pain as them!A very frustrated customer in London?. Dennis Lu May 24th, 2016The Embedded Host Client is the tool for managing individual ESX Hosts. It started out as a Fling and made its way into 6.0U2.We will be creating a new version of the vSphere Web Client SDK, currently a work in progress. We are committed to supporting plugins that have been written using the “HTML Bridge” functionality introduced in the Web Client SDK, and this will likely form the basis of the SDK.Any partner that is interested in developing a forward compatible plugin should build using the HTML Bridge. Onedee Tentee May 24th, 2016Awesome. We’ll get to click MORE AND MORE AND MORE instead of actually doing the technical work for which we were hired.
I just love the Microsoft model of this and how all the other lemming companies are following suit. Hello, carpal tunnel! Thank you so much.This is a load of hooey: “The C# client has some fundamental tradeoffs within its design that prevent it from achieving the speed and scale goals for vSphere. ”Your webUI sucks so badly and it’s all over the web how most Admins don’t want it. But why listen to the customer when some exec at VMwhere has decided to make this their next accomplishment?I noticed that usability and intuitiveness it missing from this: “These announcements today show our intention to focus all our resources on making the new vSphere Client the best of both worlds: fast AND scalable”. Comments May 26th, 2016I am not aware of a specific need for them, but in my environment we need to be as conservative as possible during changes. Peter June 5th, 2016Like many others, I prefer the C# client as well.
The web client is slower and provides a less interactive user experience. You have many people saying the same thing, yet the response from VMware is the same kind of patronizing spin you would expect from a big vendor that no longer listens to its customers.Let’s look at what we have for management interfaces:1. A formerly effective, well-performing, but now feature-incomplete and deprecated UI.2. A poorly-received flash-based web client based on legacy technology that major browser vendors have all but abandoned support for.3. A feature-incomplete less than beta version new web UI that uses the so-called latest and greatest technology.
“Trust us, it will be great!”. Have we heard this before?Is this really acceptable from the industry leader?. Mike June 13th, 2016Dennis,VMware can try to spin it as much as they want, but the fact is that every VMware admin I speak with agree with Ross and Simon above. I have been to VM World where the presenter asked who preferred the C# client and 295 of 300 admins raised their hand. I’ve told every one of my VMware account reps about this for the last few years, so they know.
It’s obvious at this point that VMware management does not care what we think and I find it incredible that they would no longer support one of the best apps they have ever created. Like another user above, send an email to all admins that have verified subscriptions and ask them if they desire full featured support for the C# client. This should have been done three years ago and all this mess could have been avoided.Trackbacks/Pingbacks.Comments are closed.
![]() Comments are closed.
|
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
March 2023
Categories |