Solved: Re: Access Point Vs. QV Desktop - Qlik Community

Report Inappropriate Content · ‎2012-11-14

Hiya Guys,

Can anyone outline the pros/cons of using the online Access Point to host Dashboards, rather than giving each individual User the free QV Desktop application?

All of our Users access Dashboards via the Access Point - and we are hitting issues such as differing screen resolutions, server resource allocation, reduced functionality (ie: no Macros) - would these all be solved by installing the QV Desktop application on each Users' PC?

I'm sure there's a valid reason our QV implementation was set-up this way... but I'm not sure what it is! 🙂

Cheers,

Steve.

Anonymous · ‎2012-11-20

Ah, I see what you mean. Thought you meant passing out copies.

Yeah, opening in server from the standalone client would be equivalent of using access point. However, this means the users are still using up server resources similar to using the IE Plugin for example.

One drawback would be that the users need the software installed and updated whenever the environment is upgraded, compared to the installation free Ajax client for example

View solution in original post

Report Inappropriate Content · ‎2012-11-20

*BUMP* 🙂

Does anyone have any ideas?... surely there must be pros/cons to each method?

Cheers,

Steve.

Anonymous · ‎2012-11-20

For one thing - making sure that everyone is looking at the same version of the truth and the most recent data.

I can imagine many situations where people would look at old versions of their local copies and get different numbers from other users.

Report Inappropriate Content · ‎2012-11-20

Hiya Johannes,

Thank you for your reply. However, if Users open the Dashboards using the "Open in Server" route - then surely this would mean they are accessing the most recent data? (data is updated once a day during the early hours - ready for the business day ahead).

At present I am stuggling to see the advantages of the Access Point - as using the Desktop Application seems to be better in every way... please tell me if I am wrong! 🙂

Cheers,

Steve.

Anonymous · ‎2012-11-20

Ah, I see what you mean. Thought you meant passing out copies.

Yeah, opening in server from the standalone client would be equivalent of using access point. However, this means the users are still using up server resources similar to using the IE Plugin for example.

One drawback would be that the users need the software installed and updated whenever the environment is upgraded, compared to the installation free Ajax client for example

Report Inappropriate Content · ‎2012-11-29

*BUMP* (again!) 🙂

Does anyone else have any more ideas?... surely there must be pros/cons to each method?

Cheers,

Steve.

Report Inappropriate Content · ‎2013-02-01

Thanks Johannes,

I am going to upgrade your answer from "Helpful" to Correct" - as, basically, the main reason for us using the Access Point is for ease of management.

You are completely right that, if each User had the QV Desktop Client installed, then any new upgrades would require each installation to be managed separately.

Many thanks,

Steve.

Report Inappropriate Content · ‎2014-11-12

With the free QV Desktop (personal edition) you cannot open the documents created by other users. Sharing of document will be a challenge. Also you will need a good PC with RAM to support large volume of data.

Server implementation allows to share resources, documents, security. Additional publisher will allow scheduling and reloading the document, distribution etc.