[THIN] Re: if you could only choose one...
- From: "Wilson, Christopher" <CMWilson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 17:06:14 -0500
Good point. In this case, app deployment across all platforms is not a
requirement. It is just for the Citrix environment.
I see app virtualization adding a lot of value. I wasn't considering
Citrix "client side virtualization", I think it's called, for this.
Perhaps I should. What I would rather avoid is a case of trying the
citrix solution to see what I get, and then being faced with local
install or a second app virt solution if the packaging success rate is
too low.
So to frame it another way, is the performance gain from 64bit Windows
2008 significant enough that I would want to live with what app virt
XenApp can buy me and live without App-V all together?
________________________________
From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Andrew
Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2009 4:47 PM
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [THIN] Re: if you could only choose one...
To be fair the original question was appv vs 64 bit - everyone keeps
moving the goalposts :)
While ctx app streaming is indeed free isn't it only 'free' if you've a
ctx solution
Ideally IMO you need an application delivery method that'll work across
your platforms so you've a consistent delivery method be it a terminal
server as the device or a laptop
Sent from my iPhone
On 19 Aug 2009, at 20:18, Matt Kosht <matt.kosht@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I am only experimenting with app virtualization, but initial
thoughts are yes it can do what App-V can do. App-V does seem to have a
lot more options/flexibility than Citrix does. Citrix solution does seem
to have a lower learning curve. I am no expert so I would certainly get
more educated opinions than mine.
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 2:21 PM, Christopher Wilson <
<mailto:christofire@xxxxxxxxx> christofire@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Okay so on that angle, would you put XenApp streaming on the
same level as App-V? I've not used the former, but employed
softgrid/app-v with great benefit in the past.
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 12:53 PM, Matt Kosht <
<mailto:matt.kosht@xxxxxxxxx> matt.kosht@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Also under Xenapp 5 with SA I believe even the Advanced Edition
(needed Enterprise Edition before that) now allows application
virtualization.
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 1:32 PM, Greg Reese <
<mailto:gareese@xxxxxxxxx> gareese@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
or use XenApp to virtualize your apps which runs just fine on
64Bit gear and is included in the priced of licensing XenApp already.
Why spend for features you already paid for.
Greg
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 12:28 PM, Andrew <
<mailto:andrew.wood@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> andrew.wood@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
App-v; separating apps out and creating a transportable app
deployment across devices (servers/desktops/laptops) is of greater
benefit than 2008r2; and I can migrate to that when appv goes 64bit
Sent from my iPhone
On 19 Aug 2009, at 17:09, "Wilson, Christopher" <
<mailto:CMWilson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> CMWilson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Windows 2008 R2 is 64-bit only. App-V is 32-bit only
(presently). If you had to pick one which would it be - 64-bit arch or
app virtualization? (and why?)
64bit means more memory and more users per server, but
possibly some compatibility issues
App-V means less app conflicts and hence less silos, but
32 bit only.
I'm planning for a Citrix farm upgrade and curious about
your thoughts.
Other related posts:
