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 thoughts. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >