Parallels acquires 2X. A deeper analysis.

As you probably know by now, Parallels Inc. has acquired 2X Software Ltd, one of the smaller players in the VDI/SBC space, in case you did not know that.

Like Brian, I always have a soft spot for the smaller vendors out there like 2X and Thinspace for the simple reason I truly believe there is no perfect product for all the use cases out there. What I do believe is using the right tool for the task and in many environments we ended up using Thinspace and 2X as Citrix was indeed overkill and the customer needed a little bit more than plain RDS.

If you were not even aware of these smaller vendors I highly recommend you to watch my BriForum 2014 Boston presentation. Main problem is I have no clue where Brian and Gabe put it. So please head over to http://www.brianmadden.com and ask them where it is.

To make your life a little easier I will just mention the usual small vendors we deal with:

2X itself is probably the one I have the softest spot for. The reason for that is back in 2005 2X acquired my own Terminal-Services.NET and all the Windows intellectual property we had became what is known today as the 2X Remote Application Server and the 2X LoadBalancer. No matter what Alex (yes, that guy that organizes the most disorganized and shittiest IT conference for alcoholics – E2EVC) tells you, the products were good, reason why customers like Hilton Hotels and John Deere used them… So I do know these products well.

Back to the topic, there is more to this acquisition and let me explain why.

First of all, pretty much everyone that has a Mac is aware of Parallels. They were the first company to release a decent type-2 hypervisor for OSX so you could run Windows VMs on your Mac, something that probably 90% of all Mac users out there do on a daily basis. Sure VMware later joined the party with VMware Fusion but Parallels was always perceived as the leader on this space. At least based on my own tests (I have both products) Parallels was always better on the graphics department and faster in general. Things may have changed with the latest and greatest releases though. The point here is not who is the best but the simply fact Parallels is a well known brand with regular people, end-users and IT geeks.

Then Parallels released Parallels Access, a solution to allow you to remotely access your Mac/PC, like many other products on the market (i.e. GoToMyPC, LogMeIn, etc). Difference is they pretty much nailed the whole translation of a desktop GUI to a mobile/tablet device GUI making accessing desktop apps on any device a much easier thing. If you have no clue what I am talking about, take a look at their YouTube channel.

Finally there is the Parallels most people are not aware of. The company behind Plesk, Parallels Automation and Virtuozzo. If you are an IT geek or someone working for a hosting provider I can bet you have heard of that Parallels.

To make a long story short, Parallels is used at probably 10,000+ hosting providers out there on a daily basis, reaching millions of customers. What they do is automate the whole management layer required at that level (i.e. provisioning the required services subscribed – web servers, wordpress, etc, handling customer creation/permissions/etc, provisioning the required software stack, etc) and also provide a robust and potentially much more efficient virtualization layer with their container approach (that is what Virtuozzo is). They have it for both Linux and Windows.

So they do have the end-user/consumer reach with their SOHO virtualization offerings AND do have the cloud (yes I will use the pretty word that everyone likes these days) providers on-board, with 10,000+ of them as active customers. This is something that both Citrix and VMware lack. Sure they may have made their way into the cloud space with things like Desktone and CWS. That is different than having 10,000+ of these under your belt and more than that, that have been using your solution for several years. It is proven. It is robust. AND customers like it. This by itself is something not all Citrix and VMware customers say about their solutions after having buying and deployed their products. Not saying they are bad products. Just saying there is a lot of very unhappy Citrix/VMware customers out there, for one reason or another. And please do not tell me you cannot please everyone. You and I know this goes way beyond that.

Now Parallels can introduce a product that will allow you to publish individual Windows apps out of RDSH or do the brokering to VDI based desktops potentially running on containers or any other hypervisor as 2X was indeed hypervisor agnostic, all this on the cheap. And they can leverage such robust and proven platform to all their hosting providers very quickly. With some engineering they can actually leverage your OWN PC to a provider out there and allow you to seamlessly connect to the one you have at home or to a much more powerful one (more CPU, more RAM) in the cloud, when you need it. Fully synchronized with your home machine.

That is killer.

I am a huge believer that VDI will only become what Brian and others have been predicting (and failing year after year) when it becomes a consumer product. Something end-users will want and use it. And not the niche thing it is today. Yes, no matter what you say your 10,000 VDI deployment is a niche compared to the 130,000,000 physical desktops shipped last year alone. I wrote about that years ago, here.

If there is one company now that can pull this off, under the radar, while Citrix and VMware fight their battles for niche VDI supremacy, is Parallels.

Time will tell if I was right or wrong. Of course a lot here will depend on what Parallels and Jack Zubarev do with 2X. But knowing they like a good fight and do love to innovate I do not expect anything less than a great outcome from this acquisition.

CR

2,747 total views, 2 views today

Flash and RDP7.0. Still relevant?

In the age of Windows Server 2012 and more than that, 2008 R2 SP1 that brought you RemoteFX, why the hell is someone (me) writing about RDP7.0 and Flash?
Well for many simple reasons. First of all, I get asked about this on a daily basis. My wife, my kids, my dogs. They always ask me that, before I even sit down in the morning to get my cappuccino going.
Seriously, there is a ton of Windows XP out there and more than that, a LOT of Windows Server 2008 R2 as not everyone took the leap and went all the way to 2012 RDS and its mighty RDP8.
So all that said, RDP7 is still out there and strong, thanks to legacy clients (XP) connecting to it. In this case does not matter RDP7.1 and RemoteFX are on your server as the client cannot handle it and will fall back to RDP7.0. You can see this here:

RDP7.0 Client on XP SP3
RDP7.0 Client on XP SP3

Now, is it possible to run Flash on RDP7? The final answer, video to prove, is…

YES.

It is possible.

But there are some caveats and potentially HUGE ones. Before anything let’s watch a quick video (well not that quick) I recorded last night. It does cover YouTube, Flash and Windows Media HD on a 2008 R2 SP1 RDS Session, through a Windows XP SP3 box.

As seen on the video the main issue here is indeed bandwidth. I passed the connection through my loyal and reliable Apposite Linktropy Mini2 and monitored the bandwidth in all three cases. This is what I found roughly:

Youtube: consistently over 30MBits. Some spikes over 37.5Mbits.
We Chose the Moon Flash Website: Stage 1. Peaks over 25Mbits. 10s average close to 20Mbits.
Windows Media HD: 10s average in the 7.5Mbits range.

The key thing to understand here is, Flash is accelerated but NOT redirected while Windows Media HD is indeed redirected and decoded on the client. Just watching the video you can see WMV HD 720p playing full screen. No lag, nothing. Pure beauty.

Even YouTube/Flash played extremely well (my recording software, iShowU HD, for some reason introduced some audio stuttering with the latest version – pretty bad – and an older version was much better but still not perfect like the one I had before). Very smooth, great frame rate and audio in good sync. Also note I probably recorded at 15fps. Again, real life looks really good.

The problem really gets down to bandwidth, link quality and of course CPU (for Flash) with RDP7.0. If you want to run 50 people over a 10Mbits link to watch YouTube (like one of my customers DID want to do), no way it will work. This gives in a perfect case scenario around 200kbps per user. As long as the YouTube video is sized 32 pixels by 24 pixels, yes, it will work perfectly. They will need magnifying glasses but that is another story…

And if we factor latency and loss, well than you are screwed. Seriously.

The lesson here is, RDP7.0 on older clients against 2008 R2 SP1, can deliver Flash as long as you have infinite bandwidth with very little latency.
As far as I know such connection does not exist yet as of 2013. Maybe in 3102 but by then RDP 308 will deliver Holographic 4D content, with a separate virtual channel for smell, no problem.

Until then, please avoid Flash on RDP7.0.

Keep an eye for another post now showing the effects of latency and a comparison between RDP7 and RDP8, from a Windows 7 SP1 endpoint.

Cheers.

CR

9,971 total views, no views today

RemoteFX, PCoIP, ICA in a WAN world.

Last week as you all know Microsoft announced RemoteFX, the name for all the work/technologies they acquired from Calista a couple years ago (amazing how long it took them to get here. Subject for another post). All nice and great for VDI and I am certain, with the licensing changes announced as well, it will help the industry moving forward towards the adoption of such model in a larger scale.

The main problem now is simple. As Shawn Bass mentioned on Twitter, ‘WAN is King’. And that is definitely true. With the rise of mobility, either on mobile devices like the iPhone/iPad or on full blown PCs connected through 3G cards, several companies do rely on these to connect back to corporate and more than that, are willing to expand such option for an ‘always connected’ solution. The problem is, once you hit the 3G/EVDO data network, latency and packet loss will be there. Guaranteed.

The end result is a much worse experience over the WAN, no matter what kind of magic Citrix, Microsoft or VMWare have as of today. Throw Riverbed and all other products like that to the mix too. They do help. But again, once packet loss/latency is there, they are also in bad shape.

That is where we come to the picture.

After years of development, we now have a hardware (appliance) or software solution (driver) that you can mix (HW-HW or HW-SW or of course, SW-SW) that drastically reduces packet loss (typically to 1/10 of what you had before using us – so to 0.5% if you had 5% loss before) and makes life on the WAN much easier for all the things mentioned on the title of this post.

The good news is this is a mature technology that we developed and that has been in use by some large people out there (no names at this point) for other things (video conferencing mostly) with impressive results. But once we realized how much we could do for SBC/VDI, after testing it internally, we decided to take it to the public, to validate and prove the results we have seen with RDP, ICA, PCoIP and other things. So our BETA program is officially open as of today.

If you are interested on testing our solution, all I ask is you to email us at BETA at IPeakNetworks dot com and of course let us know about your environment so we can assist you on how to get the most out of it. And yes, I do ask you to provide honest feedback. What you have seen before and after. Good or bad. We are here to listen.

For now we do not have our SW solution ready for all platforms but it is in the works (it is Win32/Linux for now) and the HW one we should have available as virtual appliances for all major virtualization solutions (VMWare ESX, XenServer and Hyper-V) shortly.

I do think the VDI battle will be decided on the WAN. Vendors, no matter which one, do realize that but may not want to say it, especially if whatever protocol they have sucks on the WAN. Again, with high speed wireless available everywhere it is just natural that more and more employees will be indeed connected to their desktop/session over a wireless connection. So the WAN is the battle ground. Period. 

We are the ammunition.

CR

11,617 total views, no views today

The main issue with VDI? Windows.

Yes, you read it right.

As the VDI debate continues, now heated up thanks to the iPad (piece of crap IMHO, subject to another post), I decided to write this post that has been sitting here, waiting for me for at least 6 weeks. It goes to the heart of VDI: Windows.

As of today when we talk about a hosted desktop solution, we like it or not, Windows is the OS of choice (the desktop versions is what we are discussing here like XP, Vista, 7). And the reason why I think VDI has a long, really long way to go, unless Microsoft takes action, is this same OS indeed. Windows.

Let me start by saying this. There are several posts and information on the web that clearly show that Windows was optimized over the years to run on, guess what, real, physical hardware. Why? By the simple fact until people started talking about VDI (circa 200X), all Windows deployments were 100% done on physical hardware! That is why the OS was tweaked/optimized to run on real hardware. Kind of makes sense huh?

Now if you look at a post by Ruben on storage  this is clearly shown and stated. And we are just talking about the disk subsystem here. There are for sure several other things/components that were changed/tweaked to get the best performance out of real hardware.

Add to that a very simple thing: Windows was never designed with things like application layering (explained on this post by Gabe), sharing a master image with differential vDisks and so on, in mind. These changes, required to make VDI an affordable, scalable and stable reality, introduce several issues. The main one for any serious, large deployment, will be what? Support. The next one, the simple fact that no single vendor offers all that is needed for a scalable, stable VDI solution. This means you will probably end up with VMWare on your virtual backend, Citrix XenDesktop as your VDI solution and several other pieces from several other vendors like Atlantis, MokaFive, McDonalds, you name it. Yes, McDonalds is jumping into the VDI bandwagon (what leads us to my post about VDI and Patchworking  – worth reading – bringing several issues to the table).

Back to the topic, even though some vendors may say their mechanisms are not that intrusive (like my discussion with John Whalen from Mokafive last night on Twitter), the bottom line is not 100% of your apps may work and more than that, if they apparently work and you find issues down the road and call Microsoft or any other vendor, chances are they will simply tell you to go ____ yourself. You can fill in the blanks.

Some may say that was the case with Terminal Services/Citrix years ago. Yes, in a way that is true. The difference is TS/Citrix was in several ways, way, WAY less ‘destructive’/’intrusive’ on its approach to make things work, than VDI is. VDI has to deal with sharing disk images, dealing with deltas for each user. Dealing with layers. And so on. If you know the internals of any OS you can see right there what sets VDI and traditional SBC apart.

As soon as Microsoft brought TS under its umbrella, making it an OS (NT4 TSE) or a service on Windows Server OSs (since it introduced Windows 2000 Server), things changed. All the sudden Microsoft had to support its own solution and products running on it. Vendors could no more ignore the fact people were actually using TS/Citrix to run their apps. And if you look at Windows Server 2008 R2 you can see how Microsoft changed the OS to make RDS (formerly known as TS) a better solution for hosting applications. Not to mention the release of tools like the RDS Application Compatibility Analyzer.

So at the end, Microsoft changed Windows Server to make it the ideal SBC platform (I will not go into discussing if they succeeded or not – I do think they have done, with Citrix, an excellent job over the years; still room for improvement, like anything else in life).

VDI is no different. The problem is we now have much deeper issues related to the OS than before. And the only ones that can actually fix these is Microsoft. Period.

Windows may need a big redesign to accomodate VDI needs/requirements. I am sure there are several things that could be changed on Windows to make it the perfect OS for VDI (what I do think most of you will agree with me, Windows is NOT perfect for VDI; for God’s sake, even on physical hardware it has its own issues). Once these changes are done (some may be fundamental changes on the OS) I am sure we will be able to scale a VDI solution without all the storage hassles, disk image sharing, disk deduplication and so on. And it will be supported and (knock on wood), stable.

Of course I assume you want VDI to be scalable, stable and supported. If you do not need all three, for sure you can deploy a VDI solution today. It will be scalable and stable but unsupported. Or scalable and supported but unstable. Pick your two options.

If you think I am nuts, go ahead and leave your comment or email me directly. The bottom line, at least for me, is simple: Windows was never designed with VDI in mind AND VDI has deeper ties than TS/Traditional SBC had at lower level OS components and these two little things introduce several issues.

And that is why, as mentioned several times, thanks to these issues that companies like MokaFive and Atlantis exist and the reason why VDI as a solution keeps moving forward (honestly, I think we all owe a lot to these guys, the ones trying hard to make the virtual world less virtual, more real).

This is simply put, people taking matters into their own hands, while we wait for the day Microsoft will release Windows-V, the first release tailored for virtualization.

Windows-V? You heard about it here first.

CR

10,720 total views, no views today

Is the Sun shining?

Today Brian posted about Sun and their Sun Rays and thanks to that and to some comments from crazy people (yes, me), it caused quite a reaction within the Sun community.

First of all, it was simply a post, not a review of anything. And my comment there was specifically tailored to Craig Bender, a guy that I had great conversations in the past and for some reason (not sure if I pissed him off, if I said something not to be said, etc) he simply vanished. I knew if I mentioned anything like ‘SunRays suck’ or ‘SunRays are the reason why Sun had net losses of US$ 1.677 Billion in the first quarter of 2009′, I would be able to check if he was still alive. So minutes after my comment, BINGO. The fish got the bait. 🙂

So history and jokes aside, here is the deal. I know some people think that heterogeneous environments are the norm out there these days but in a way I disagree. At least based on my work on the field doing consulting services, most of my clients are indeed a Windows shop. Some do still have Novell (surprised?) but in most cases getting rid of it. And some do have some Unix but usually only for very specific back end requirements.

This brings us to this: for the user, even though there may be Novell, Solaris, HP-UX, etc behind the curtains, he has a Windows desktop and/or accesses one hosted either on TS/Citrix or as a VDI offering. His apps, even if they access data on a database running on Solaris, still has a Windows or web front end (running on a browser on top of Windows). So for all the user cares, this is a Windows environment. Does not matter you tell him all the databases are on Solaris running Oracle X. He does not give a crap and does not know it. I guess it is from this perspective that Brian made the comment he was a Windows guy.

For sure on the backend it is another story. It can be a mixed environment and probably is, considering Linux is free and I think even Solaris is free now. But even in this case what I see is usually the ‘Unix guys’ are not the same ones managing ‘Windows’. Same for the ‘Oracle’ people and so on. So still, you may be indeed a ‘Windows’ guy in a place where all the databases are hosted on Solaris servers running Oracle. You simply do not touch/see them at all, even as an administrator on the ‘Windows’ side.

Back to the title, after seeing all the losses Sun posted, no matter what they say they were probably not doing good. My accountant tells me if you are doing great you usually do not post a US$ 2.234 Billion net loss for the year with total net revenues reduced by US$ 2.4 Billion (compared to 2008 revenues).

Now with the Oracle acquisition, what can Sun really do? I have always seen their Sun Ray products as a big niche but there are no numbers out there to compare them to other thin client vendors (again, I am just trying to compare units moved and not really if they are better than the competition for reasons A, B or C). May be Craig will jump in and provide us with some numbers for comparison so I can prove (or proved wrong) they are a niche, on a niche market.

The bigger question I have is, is there anything Sun can really do to make an impact on this market (SBC/VDI) or is their fate to always be ‘another minor player’, ‘niche solution’ and so on forever? Maybe Craig is correct in all they may need is good marketing. Their Appliance Link Protocol is indeed cool and lightweight but is that enough to make SunRays widespread? So far, in 10 years since their introduction that is not what I could see. But again, if it has been a commercial success or failure it depends who you ask. Not sure how much money they invested over the years to get to what they have today and what was their revenue with such product line since 1999. This kind of number they usually do not post…

Technically I would love to spend a lot of time with their stuff, if Craig is willing to help me on that end. In exchange I would write an ‘Honest Opinions’ article, like my presentations at BriForum. An unbiased, no bullshit review of whatever I see, pointing out the strengths and the weaknesses. Or even present a session about my findings on the next BriForum! Why not?

If anyone has links to the products I will need to download to try their stuff, please go ahead and post them. For the hardware, again, I will need help from Sun to make it happen, assuming they want to make it happen.

And Sun people, my apologies if I pissed you off with my comment on Brian’s website. It was just really a joke to grab Craig’s attention.

CR

1,793 total views, 1 views today

Not a Microsoft MVP anymore.

Well before you go ahead and read this post, please note this is not a rant about it. It is just what I honestly think about how Microsoft is evaluating the work people like myself have been doing on the Terminal Services communities over the past year (that is all that counts when Microsoft comes up to a decision if they will or not re-award you).

So what have I been doing in the community this past year? Some may say a lot, some may say not too much. So here you have my take on that.

– I wrote and made available at no cost an 80-page guide about Terminal Services. It describes everything you need to understand what it does, how it does and how to properly set it up from start to finish. It is based on Windows Server 2003 (and I am now updating it to Windows Server 2008 R2). You can download it here.

– I posted about the industry in general here on my blog and on other places several times.

– I presented a session again at BriForum regarding Windows Server 2008 R2 RDS (as I have been doing since BriForum’s inception).

– Helped people through my website (direct emails) and on the Microsoft public newsgroups.

Apparently, this is not enough for Microsoft. I just wish they had a more palpable, clear policy on what is indeed required to get your MVP status renewed. Several other MVPs did probably way less than above and are still MVPs.

Will I be back next year? Assuming all I have been doing means nothing (as it is the case as I have not been renewed), then no, I am not coming back (as I see no need to do more than I am actually doing and more than that, I do think I have done a lot for the TS community over the past year AND over the years).

See you guys!

CR

2,737 total views, no views today

Why all this drama now?

If you have been around the SBC space for a couple of years, you are probably aware if you had a Terminal Services/Citrix solution in place at your company you were treated in a different way. Not necessarily a good one.

In most cases the ‘Citrix’ solution was left on its own by the ‘Server’ guys. The ‘Citrix’ guys were the ones responsible for setting it up, making sure it was up and running, that performance was good (at least from their end – you cannot do much regarding Outlook performance when your ‘Server’ guys decide to run a 1000 maiboxes Exchange 2007 Server using VMWare Player) and so on.

That of course caused some interesting issues. When you had a performance problem the ‘Server’ guys almost automatically would blame ‘Citrix’. As the tools available evolved, it became much easier to prove to these douche bags the issue was actually on the way they setup their SQL servers (all in one single disk!), their Exchange boxes, their AD and even their switches/routers. And not on Citrix.

Fast forward to today’s world, where VDI is the next big thing (well, funny pause here: years ago, when everyone started talking about VDI, the CEO of a very large company that is a MAJOR player in the SBC space told me during BriForum that for him ‘VDI was one of the dumbest ideas ever but as everyone is talking about it we are now supporting this…’), and now people are all concerned about how to treat the ‘VDI’ guys at the datacenter. Read Gabe’s post on the subject here.

My point here is simple. Why all this now? ‘Citrix’ people have been used to this for years and in most cases, the guys pushing VDI forward are the EXACT same guys that had to push ‘Citrix’ forward years ago.

These people are used to that and learned how to deal with that separation at the datacenter at the time. In the past the user’s desktop was hosted on a server at the datacenter (that ran Windows Whatever with TS enabled and Citrix WinMetaXen or QuestProvisonvWhat) running on server grade (hopefully) hardware and users would access it over RDP/ICA. Today’s hotcake, VDI, has the user desktop hosted in a datacenter, running on server grade hardware and they access it over RDP/ICA. So where is the difference?

There is no difference. The ‘Citrix’ guy is now the ‘VDI’ dude (as guy is really ‘out’ – dude is ‘in’). And the same way the ‘Citrix’ guy had to fight his battles with the ‘Server’ guys and had to find his way to manage his loved puppy, all the ‘VDI’ dudes need to do is basically the same.

With a huge advantage: they have all the history, everything we, ‘Citrix’ guys, had to go through, discussed/documented/explained all over the web.

If these ‘dudes’ can learn with our past mistakes/battles/history, they will see this is not rocket science and that in several ways they are no different than what we were 5, 10 years ago.

Grow up guys. VDI is not that different from TS.

Before you thank me for this post, You are Welcome.

CR

872 total views, 1 views today

Keeping yourself up to date.

With so many changes happening in the Virtualization/Server Based Computing space these days I noticed most of the technical people, especially IT staff, are having a very hard time trying to catch up on everything that is going on out there. From simple things like VMWare Studio 2.0, Citrix WorkFlow 2.0 all the way to Citrix XenApp 5.0 Feature Pack 2.

And just for your records, in the middle you may have all the application virtualization stuff (Thinstall, App-V, Altiris SVS, etc), the OS virtualization (ESX, Hyper-V, XenServer, VirtualBox, etc) and things like Windows Server 2008 R2 with all its new TS/VDI features, Quest vWorkspace and so on!

How can you make intelligent decisions about all this when the landscape is changing at such fast pace? After some internal discussions and giving my passion for speaking and training people, I decided to create what I called a ‘Crash Course’ on Server Centric technologies.

On this 5-day training we are covering all these. Sounds crazy heh? Yep. But I am sure it will be a great course for everyone out there that wants to get to the bottom and save a ton of time reading what all these things do, how they compare and what they can do for them.

As you can imagine the idea here is not to give you a deep dive on any of these things so you become a guru overnight. Instead, as mentioned we will give you the no-BS, real world view of all these, based on all the work we have been doing with all these technologies and products for years.

If you are interested, please check our training section at http://www.wtslabs.com/training.asp.

And as always feel free to email me directly with suggestions, opinions and so on!

CR

821 total views, no views today

What is going on with Thin Clients?

One of these days after a discussion about how cheap hardware has become (and the power that is now available on your $400 desktop/laptop) I started to think, especially after winning that Wyse notebook/terminal at the BriForum GeekOut show, what is going on with Thin Client hardware.

No matter what the vendors may say these should be cheaper and have way more power that what we see on the market these days. To start, they are pretty much all x86 based. Ok, they may have a different, fanless power supply, and something else. But why these things have not dropped in price while increasing their power as PCs/Laptops did?

I do understand these devices do have flash memory and several other things your regular PC does not have. But in my opinion there is no reason why these are so underpowered and at the same time, overpriced when compared to regular PCs.

And that in a way kind of slows down the adoption of server centric solutions. Note I am not using the term ‘Server Based’. Server centric means any solution that runs off a centralized server model, whatever that is a TS/Citrix farm or a VDI hosted solution.

With overpriced and underpowered clients at the user end, the overall experience is reduced and more than that, IT starts to question what the benefit is on having on someone’s desk something that costs as much or more than a full blown PC. Ok I do understand things like power consumption and so on. But these are usually variables that most IT people are not even aware of. And regardless of all these arguments, even if it sucks 1/10 of the power a PC does, does it need to cost more and be that underpowered? I am sure there is room for improvements on thin clients. But as I see it, the manufacturers are kind of trying to maximize their gains by selling something that has indeed an outdated design that for sure has not changed for years! So why invest money to come up with the killer thin client that can provide PC like experience to SBC/VDI environments and still use way less power than a PC, having no moving parts if we can still sell that 10 year old design and make way more money?

Well what do you think? To me, if this industry wants to become mainstream in what they do they must change. The same way companies like Citrix and Microsoft are changing the way we access our applications today.

CR

2,793 total views, no views today

Quest for VDI

I do respect Brian. And a lot. For sure he was the guy that brought the whole TS community at the time together (Ron Oglesby, Shawn Bass, Tim Mangan, Jeff Pitsch, Benny Tritsch, myself and several others) and kept it like that. BriForum, the child of endless discussions among everyone mentioned above is now a well known conference and a great place for everyone looking for SBC/TS/Citrix/VDI/Virtualization info.

If you read his website he is always saying something (well at least lately) about VDI. Even the discussions we have with Microsoft and their RDS team (sorry, most stuff under NDA otherwise I would post about these here) are now moving towards VDI. For God’s sake, even the lady that comes to clean my house every once in a while is now talking about VDI. So in a way, it is becoming mainstream. Wait. I do not mean people are actually using it. I mean it is mainstream in terms of discussing it, talking about it. Not implementing it.

Problem is even on these discussions with all the other Microsoft MVPs (I think all mentioned above are part of this group) I am not sure exactly what every single one of them think about it. So today when thinking about it I decided it would be a good idea to talk to every single one of them, one-to-one talk, record all that and then publish every day/week these conversations here on our blog. Once I have all the recordings I will then create some sort of final analysis, based on what all these guys said, resuming all that, and publish it here.

The reason for that is in a way I want to know what all these big shots in the industry think and see if they actually agree on something. 🙂

Secondly, I want to stop talking about VDI for at least six months. Why six months? Well that will bring us to 2010, the year when according to Brian, VDI replaces the whole world and we throw everything we know/have out of the window.

And the most important reason: that will give me a six months break discussing VDI with the cleaning lady.

CR

833 total views, no views today