There are a lot ways to serve applications to end users working from PCs and other devices, and Citrix Systems thinks it has come up with the right combination of options: mix everything together and let companies and end users decide. With XenDesktop 4, announced Monday, Citrix is adding 70 new features to its virtual desktop …
Citrix should be almost dead by now
Most apps are web delivered now, no need for Citrix and it's extra choking infrastructure costs.
Should be only old mainframe apps that can't be web-enabled that need this solution now.
'most apps are web delivered'
WTF? We've got over 100 apps in use here, do you know how many of those are web delivered: 1.
Citrix have a huge market. I mean, even if we forget Office, Outlook, etc, you still have CAD software, image viewing, specialist apps, accounting software, none of which are web based. You seem to be confusing what's theoretically possible with what actually exists in the real world in the majority of companies.
Great news - greater clarity for customers
This will greatly reduce the amount of confusion in the market. There were too many complications in the previous model – what we see here should simplify things going forward. One of the roadblocks to tehe adoption of desktop virtualization is a lack of clarity from the vendors. This greatly simplifies matters from a Citrix perspactive.
From AppSense’s perspective it is also good to be the only recommended personalization solution too. Pete Rawlinson, our VP Marketing, has covered our thoughts and views in more detail on the AppSense blog:
Martin Ingram (AppSense)
how does this combo compares to Sun's and VMware's VDI?
I know Sun's combination of Secure Global Desktop, Sun Ray Server Software and VirtualBox (or ESX) let's you do most of this stuff, working with windows, linux and solaris machines, only leaving aside offline work and app provisioning... same with VMware's ESX, View, vCenter together with Thinapp for provisioning and even it's combination with Sun's SRSS (http://blogs.zdnet.com/virtualization/?p=435)... what are the differences?.. what's new?
You could always use ManageSoft for the non-web enabled apps.
The original point of Citrix was to remove the need for sneakernet, and the possibly large associated costs.
Man, you must have a huge Citrix farm and probably several silos!
....people have been floating the idea that web apps will kill the adoption of Citrix technology (and MS terminal services) for years now. So, why is it that web apps have not taken off as some might predict?
I'm sure there are many reasons, but as I write I can think of two - cost and usability. First, coverting a desktop app to its web app equivalent can have a development cost higher then purchasing Citrix technology. I'm sure that Citrix know this, and so set their pricing accordingly. Second, desktop apps are often 'feature rich' when compared to their web app equivalent - as a simple example, would you prefer to use Outlook 2003/2007 or Outlook Web Access on a regular basis?
The fact remains that there are currently 100 million Citrix users worlwide and growing, so the adoption of web apps over citrix technology is well and truly not happening anytime soon.
- Vid Reg bloke zips through an iPHONE 6 queue from ZERO to 60 SECONDS
- Anal-ysis Buying memory in the iPhone 6: Like wiping your bottom with dollar bills
- Teardown Pop open this iPhone 6 and see where the magic oozes from ... oh hello again, Qualcomm
- Competition Your chance to WIN the WORLD'S ONLY HANDHELD ZX SPECTRUM
- Analysis Apple's warrant canary riddle: Cock-up, conspiracy, or anti-Google point-scoring