Testing performed by Kyocera
Kyocera (KTD1) performs Windows 2000 Terminal Server/MetaFrame XP Presentation Server testing on all Drivers.
Kyocera selected three (3) printing devices for Citrix testing reflecting the current product line. These three devices are representative of all Kyocera devices, using the same base code common to Kyocera Products. All data derived from these three devices is indicative of all Kyocera models. As a result of tests performed, all Kyocera Printers and Multifunctional Devices and print drivers listed in the matrix of this document are supported in Citrix MetaFrame environments.
Initially devices and drivers were tested during a functional testing phase. All applicable category actions were passed during this initial phase. For the actual testing phases a variety of documents were printed from various applications. Inside each application, files of different sizes were output. The file sizes were classified as small, medium and large. Classification was based on page number, not actual file size.
All clients in the test (40) ran the applications and printing concurrently to simulate a large MetaFrame environment.
read more
More...
Kyocera (KTD1) performs Windows 2000 Terminal Server/MetaFrame XP Presentation Server testing on all Drivers.
Kyocera selected three (3) printing devices for Citrix testing reflecting the current product line. These three devices are representative of all Kyocera devices, using the same base code common to Kyocera Products. All data derived from these three devices is indicative of all Kyocera models. As a result of tests performed, all Kyocera Printers and Multifunctional Devices and print drivers listed in the matrix of this document are supported in Citrix MetaFrame environments.
Initially devices and drivers were tested during a functional testing phase. All applicable category actions were passed during this initial phase. For the actual testing phases a variety of documents were printed from various applications. Inside each application, files of different sizes were output. The file sizes were classified as small, medium and large. Classification was based on page number, not actual file size.
All clients in the test (40) ran the applications and printing concurrently to simulate a large MetaFrame environment.
read more
More...