Microsoft MED-V a quick overview … when APP-V, when MED-V? January 4, 2009
Posted by Roel Gydé in Application virtualization.Tags: App-V, MED-V, Terminal Services, ThinApp, XenApp
add a comment
As posted earlier in October last year, mystery remains around APP-V and MED-V of Microsoft. John Savill has released an easy to understand FAQ on MED-V
The highlights:
- Aimed at solving compatibility issues between applications that do not run correctly on a certain OS. User with VISTA can run an XP application within a MED-V environment locally (which means that an OS is required next to the local OS of the user)
- MED-V integrates within the local OS and builts further on Virtual PC and it nothing more than a local VM.
- It includes the necessary functionalities for image updates of the VM and iamge distribution
- Currently the roadmap only contains support for Vista and XP 32bit
- Availability is foreseen first half of 2009
If I look at it, MED-V is nothing more than a client-side virtualization approach next to APP-V. Furthermore it still means that all the apps run locally within a VM (see image). From a management perspective this gets really complicated.
- The local OS requires updates, patches, …
- Applications that are physically installed on the local OS requires updates, patches, …
- Applications that are virtually delivered through APP-V require updates, patches, …
- Applications running within MED-V require updates, patches, … as well as the OS.
Altough MED-V offers some nice features when looking at application compatibility issues it does not solve any issues of management, maintenance and for sure not on ROI and TCO. Instead it will increase the TCO. Also ‘imaging’ of all the applications might get hard
For those that have SA and have the possibility to get into MDOP another aspect remains when to use MED-V versus APP-V. In short APP-V virtualizes an application while MED-V virtualizes at OS level. John formulates as
“If your problem is that applications are incompatible with one another or you need to deploy apps quickly with minimal testing, you want APP-V. If you have applications that won’t run on a new client OS or you want to manage VM images then you want MED-V”
Personally I believe that it is better to look at it from a consolidation point of view. Try to centralize as much applications as possible on a server-side application virtualization solution such as Citrix XenApp or Windows Terminal Services. Those applications that are not multi-user, multi-session can be delivered to the user through a client-side application virtualization solution such as Citrix XenApp (Streaming), Microsoft APP-V or VMware ThinApp.
In those case that you are running a client locally which requires an older application that is not compatible with the current OS (for example a SAP report which is coded in an old application running on an even older OS) you might look at MED-V. Altough that rescripting the report might be also a good alternative.
The full articles by John Savill can be found here and here.
Application Virtualization Comparison Chart – Sept 08 September 10, 2008
Posted by Roel Gydé in Uncategorized.Tags: App-V, Appstream, Bufferzone, InstallFree, LanDesk, RingCube MojoPac, ThinApp, Trigence AE, XenApp
add a comment
Sven Huismans and Matthijs Haverink have released their ‘Applicationon Virtualization Comparison Chart. It compares Citrix XenApp, InstallFree Bridge, Microsoft App-V, Symantec Appstream with SVS, VMware Thinapp, Xenocode VAS
The following vendors didn’t make into the comparison: Ceedo, Endeavors Technologies Application Jukebox, LanDesk Application Virtualization, RingCube MojoPac, Trigence AE and Trustware Bufferzone.
Full report here.
Thinapp got upgraded to 4.0 June 10, 2008
Posted by Roel Gydé in Uncategorized.Tags: ThinApp
add a comment
Apparently VMware makes a lot of noise about two new features:
- inter application communication between applications made available through ThinApp
- update system in which the application checks with the server if there are updates
Why make such a fuss about things that are mandatory ! Brian Madden was exactly right in one of his previous posts: It’s becoming a new baseline feature,” he said. “But because it’s coming from a lot of vendors, I don’t see people dropping their existing product and running to VMware.”
ThinApp suite comes on the market with 50 perpetual clients at 5000 USD, additional clients are available at 39 USD.
Addition Channel-V – 11/06/08 ♦ The final product will be available around July 10th, in the mean time you can find a review of the release candidate here.
VMware ThinApp 1.0 and Server 2.0 release? May 28, 2008
Posted by Roel Gydé in Uncategorized.Tags: Hyper-V, ThinApp, VMware
add a comment
Both products will probably be released at the end of July / beginning of August. Probably VMware release end of August, the period in which Hyper-V is foreseen.
Addition Channel-V – 10/6/8 ♦ Apparetnly the definite version of Thinapp will be 4.0 and not
1.0 as indicated previously
VMware behaves like a 2-year old child ?! May 22, 2008
Posted by Roel Gydé in Uncategorized.Tags: Citrix, Provisioning Server, ThinApp, VMware, XenApp, XenDesktop, XenServer
add a comment
VMware tries to kill XenDesktop on its release-day (article at Virtualization.info) :VMware sent a letter to its partners completely destroying the value of the Citrix solution. Among the other claims, VMware states that the product marketing message is misleading and confused the press, that the software is complex, poorly integrated and most of all built on a platform that has an uncertain future.
There is one thing that I do not get at all, everytime Citrix makes a strategic announcement or rebranding VMware follows with kindergarden-response.
- Citrix moves to XenServer, XenDesktop and XenApp, VMware suddenly decides that Thinstall is not a good name and rebrands it to Thinapp
VMware indicates that the Citrix solution is poorly integrated, yet Citrix has purchased companies that have been around in virtualization for over many years and integrated these company to offer a complete portofolio. Furthermore these companies have shown to be market-worthy.
- Citrix offers provisioning services for desktop OS & server OS under the name of Provisioning Server. This was the result of the acquisition of Ardence. Currently VMware can not offer the same flexibility with that little needed storage as Citrix Provisioning Server.
- Citrix offers paravirtualization services for servers under the XenServer brand. This was the result of the acquisition of XenSource, the open source company that actually had an important position in the XEN open source project, which still exists and to which Citrix often commits code.
Probably VMware is a little afraid of the joint-development that is taking place between Microsoft & Citrix, which will result into the possibility to move Hyper-V VMs to XenServer and vice versa. VMware is not invited to that party. Furthermore Microsoft employees often indicate that Citrix is the best party to work with when Microsoft solutions do not fit as Citrix is Microsofts’ largest ISV worldwide.
End-to-End Virtualization does not end with Server-, Desktop- or Application virtualization it also requires good network access (secured, f.e. Citrix Access Gateway), optimized traffic (Citrix Wanscaler), secured DMZs (Citrix Application Firewall).
Before I lower myself to a 2-year old kid, like VMware is currently doing, I am going to round of this post. Probably this fighting will go on for a while. But remember VMware is getting agressive into the following market: 7% of de servers in the world are virtualized and 0,01% of the desktops (a guess). That means that there is an open market of 192,99% and they behave as a 2-year old kid. What a shame for a public company. They should know better !
