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 considerin
g Citrix “client side virtualization”, I think it’s called, for
this. Perhaps I should. What I would rather avoid is a case of tr
ying the citrix solution to see what I get, and then being faced wit
h local install or a second app virt solution if the packaging succe
ss 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 <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 <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 <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 <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" <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 th
oughts.
