
Application Virtualisation
Application Virtualisation can be realised using many different vendors' technologies - Microsoft, Symantec, VMware and more.
A comparison of the technologies available in 2009:
Symantec Software Virtualization Solution Pro 2.1
Platforms
Requires Windows Server 2003 (for AppStream), supports Windows 2000, XP and Vista as clients.
Overview
SVS gains in partner AppStream a much-needed streaming capability to support its already robust virtualisation layer. The combined solution allows applications to be launched from a Web browser and headless services are supported.
The level of integration between the OEM components, however, is imperfect and simple deployment tasks require too many steps, not to mention the slow initial response time for virtualised applications. Still, it's the closest thing to 'click-n-run' on the market today.
|
 |
|
Microsoft App-V
Platforms
Requires Windows Server 2003 with Active Directory, supports Windows 2000, XP, Vista and Windows Terminal Services as clients.
Overview
Strong points are tight integration with Active Directory and a well-optimised streaming model. It suffers, however, from usability quirks and an overly complex sequencing process, and it lacks support for headless services.
Nevertheless, Microsoft's acquisition of App-V and its decision to de-couple the client from the server, point to an important role for the underlying technology in future Microsoft products and services.
|
 |
|
Thinstall Virtualization Suite 3.2
Platforms
Supports most variations of Windows 2000, XP, 2003 and Vista.
Overview
Thinstall deliver a no-frills solution that makes the process of packaging and deploying virtualised applications almost trivially simple. The completely self-contained virtualisation environment requires no client agent or back-end server and it delivers excellent runtime performance.
Previously overlooked deficiencies, like the lack of client-side caching and the inability to stream over non-SMB connection types, will become magnified in the light of the newly competitive landscape.
|
 |
