Talk:DirectAccess

Internet Low‑importance

	Internet portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Microsoft: Windows Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Microsoft, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to Microsoft on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MicrosoftWikipedia:WikiProject MicrosoftTemplate:WikiProject MicrosoftMicrosoft articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Microsoft Windows (assessed as Low-importance).

Software: Computing Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing (assessed as Low-importance).

What is it for? (DirectAccess)

Definitely sounds like it was written by a Microsoft programmer who is familiar with the internals, but they should have invited someone from Marketing to join in and explain what DirectAccess is for. Why would anyone want this feature? What's the motivation for regular people?

For what (little) it's worth, I'm here because I'm trying to get an impartial assessment of Windows 7 (even though I don't see any real alternatives). Not a high priority item, but something I've been researching for months, and I *STILL* haven't found a single significant positive reason to switch, though there is the big negative reason of the EoS for Windows XP a few years down the road... (The main thing that struck me in my research so far was that the two EOSs (for XP and 7) are rather close together. Maybe I can skip over Windows 7 just as I ignored and avoided Vista?) In today's research, this DirectAccess was so far the only potentially positive and valuable feature of Windows 7--but based on this article (as it stands now), I don't see the value. Shanen (talk) 02:38, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DirectAccess is supposed to be a replacement for VPN.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:32, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DirectAccess is usually used in corporate environments, the technology and infrastructure required to make it work is not suitable for the home environment at the moment. Its good because you can use it to connect to corporate resources instantly if you have an internet connection. As Jasper said it is a good replacement for VPN. Come see me if you want some more information! Ben Carroll 12:45, 2 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bencarroll (talk • contribs)

DirectAccess is intended to be a replacement for a Citrix VPN. 'Open Source' VPN's operated at user-level, and require system login as user before VPN login. Traditional Citrix and Windows VPN's operate as the Operating System level, which allows the VPN to start before user login, which allows user login over the VPN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.224.212.199 (talk) 00:40, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality

This article's tone is way too overpromotional, especially in the introduction.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly the intro then. The words and phrases that might be improved are:

"seamless" should be more specific and evolve on what is really seamless,
"Unlike most traditional VPN connections, which must be initiated and terminated by explicit user action", could be more specific that those VPN connections are old style,
"which simplifies[1][2][3] the deployment of DirectAccess" could be more specific on what is simplified,

otherwise the article is pretty much NPOV and pretty much factually correct, AFAIK. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 10:13, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It appears neutral enough to me

It appears as though "seamless" has been removed, which I agree was too general.

I believe "Unlike most traditional VPN connections, which must be initiated and terminated by explicit user action" was neutral enough to being with, as it does specify "traditional," which, to me, already means not the newest or "old style." Slavery, for instance, was a traditional social and economic system in the US and other countries, but isn't any longer.

On the last point, I believe UAG should perhaps be elaborate upon in it's own small section, but is acceptable for the summary. --63.80.193.9 (talk) 19:19, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"must be initiated and terminated by explicit user action" is false history. It refers only to Open Source VPN's, which is not what enterprise traditionally used. Traditional Citrix and MS VPN's didn't work like that. The problem is two-fold: Microsoft never refers to past technology when talking about new technology ("feature of new Operating System" is not the same as "New feature of Operating System"), and Open Source references are not familiar with MS enterprise technology.

Whatever the reason, the lack of accurate reference to existing and past MS and Citrix technology makes this read like a MS tech briefing.