[THIN] Re: if you could only choose one...
- From: Christopher Wilson <christofire@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 13:21:12 -0500
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 thoughts.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
Other related posts:
