Opinion

VMware: What are you doing? (AKA The VDI War Rages On)

2008-05-25T15:36:00Z

Childish? Asinine? Short-sighted? Arrogant? All of these?
Those were just some of the words used by many of the VMware partners who attended Citrix's synergy this past week in Houston, TX.

At Citrix Synergy (Citrix's client convention), Citrix announced the availability of Citrix XenDesktop and it was a major focus of the event. At the keynote, the demo of XenDesktop started off well. Then during the demo of high def video over Citrix XenDesktop, it ran into an issue and it failed. We've all been there with live demos. After the scheduled keynote break, they resolved the issue and showed the remainder of the demo of high def video over XenDesktop.

VMware sent an email response to all of their partners concerning the failed demo during the keynote, as if it was one of the major reasons to not deploy Citrix XenDesktop. The email also had few false statements that were just blatantly false and misleading. All of the Citrix partners that implement VMware solutions were all discussing the childish nature of the email. If VMware thought they were gaining some points with its partners... they were highly mistaken. Any partners wooed by the email are probably not the partners that VMware should be banking on to deliver their messaging.

Virtual desktop infrastructure (VDI) is a hot topic. Citrix XenApp (formerly Citrix Presentation Server - Don't get me started, but we will save that one for another day) has been providing virtual desktops for years. Citrix's XenApp is a shared infrastructure (1 os with multiple users) with very limited capabilities for users to perform any personalization of their environment. This benefit for administrators vaulted Citrix Xenapp to the leader in large scale application deployments and for small and medium organizations to lower their administrative costs. These same benefits were eventually realized by most organizations and though growth of XenApp deployments was not slowed more and more companies were identifying apps they couldn't deploy on XenApp or the users required more rights and personalization ( such as rights to install updates or their own personal apps). The reality is that tight control is great but more and more users and applications are requiring that personalization that Xenapp can't always deliver.

In comes the concept of VDI!!! Yeah (multiple OSes to 1 physical server). More personalization for everyone. More rights in the user hands to install software. More rights to modify the system. Hey... Wait a second. That might mean more work administration or hardware/storage costs. That statement is correct. You still need to manage and patch the OS, and the applications. Install all of the same anti-virus tools, remote management, etc and then when a new OS comes out, you get to do it all over again. If you don’t have your current PC management down pat, then VDI doesn’t help a whole ton. Just because VDI sounds cool, doesn't mean it solves everything. Imagine picking up the low end $1000 PC that sits underneath someone’s desk that is low cost real estate and putting it your most expensive real estate (your data center) on the most expensive hardware and storage. While this example may be extreme, just look at your current PC administration capabilities, and ask yourself “How would moving my desktops into my datacenter help decrease my costs?”. (Note: One might say VDI is machine to drive more virtualization and more data center centralization - thus more virtual infrastructure, more storage, more of the latest server hardware, more of the latest core networking, etc... And I for one wouldn't stop you from saying that.)

Now, that is not to say there are not ways to mitigate these desktop administrative costs. What if 1 image could be used to deploy 100’s to 1000’s of desktops? What if administrators can choose the best delivery method of applications (maybe some are hosted, some are streamed, and some are installed in the image)? What if the applications that need to be upgraded to the latest version can still be delivered without breaking existing applications? Some companies are trying to figure out how to decrease administrative costs of VDI (Citrix and Provision Networks), while others are not. Ask yourself “What is a desktop without any applications?” (read http://alsolorzano.com/blogs/opinion/archive/2007/04/25/why-do-even-need-a-desktop-os-aka-why-do-i-need-vista.aspx)

Debunking time. DeFUDing time. Let’s just make the water a little less muddy.

Myth 1 from the e-mail - Citrix XenDesktop requires Citrix XenServer for the OS virtualization component
False - Citrix XenDesktop can utilize virtual infrastructure from any of the major solutions : VMware ESX, Microsoft Hyper-v or Citrix XenServer. The exact line from the e-mail: "Customers who deploy XenDesktop will use a virtualization platform that has an uncertain future". That is just horribly false and inaccurate.

Myth 2 from the e-mail - VDI solves everything
False. The exact line from the e-mail: One of the main value propositions of a virtual desktop is that all your applications work in a VDI environment. Sure it installs but can RDP (remote display protocol used by VMware Virtual Desktop Manager) support the application over the WAN? What about from home? What about high end graphics? What about CAD based applications?

Myth 3 from the e-mail - The exact line from the e-mail: VMware VDI is mature and much simpler to deploy than XenDesktop
True and False. Notepad is simpler than Microsoft Word, but does that mean it is better. The first part of the last sentence is true, but the rest of the sentence was false. And concerning VMware VDI being more mature... I'm not really sure the 3 month old baby is that much more mature than then 1 day old.

Myth 4 from other conversations - Citrix XenApp doesn't give you any personalization.
False - Citrix XenApp does give you personalization for many components. Anything stored in your profile or home directory. Personalization can be defined in many ways. Citrix XenApp admins shouldn't let you install applications, but you can change the option in Microsoft Word and have it stick with you. So a developer may think Citrix XenApp can't be personalized, but I can't point to a lot of task-based users who would speak otherwise who have enough capabilities for them to do their job

Myth 5 from other conversations - Storage of virtual disks is not a concern.
False - Storage costs are a large component of costs when deploying virtual desktops. Data de-duplication isn't a feature on every SAN and even then only works on "de-duping" on the same volume/LUN. A large or enterprise deployment would require multiple LUNs to run efficiently. Citrix Provisioning Server is way to decrease the costs of storage and not tying you into a particular SAN manufacturer or model. I'm not saying it is the only way, but there are multiple ways to skin a cat.

Myth 6 from other conversations – Citrix XenApp (and other Server Based Computing) will be going away.
False – If that were true, then we wouldn’t have needed it years ago to attempt to get away from distributed PCs. One can think of VDI as an evolution of Server Based Computing (SBC), but others look at as a step back. Either way you look at it, I think they join hand in hand. Not many clients were 100% SBC due to application issues or network connectivity requirements. VDI still has the network connectivity requirement and now tries to prop up RDP as a better protocol. I’m sure you will see the next evolution be offline desktops or the ability to check out your desktop while traveling. Maybe it will be a new protocol for remote display or more ubiquitous network connectivity. But until that happens, more implementations will probably be a hybrid of SBC and VDI to keep costs low (SBC) but provide flexibility and increased desktop control (VDI) when necessary.

In conclusion,

if you work for VMware sales... please don't quote from that e-mail. You will just embarrass yourself.

if you work for VMware software development... just go develop a better product (better than what you have now and potentially better than Citrix XenDesktop) and let your code do the talking.

if you work for VMware marketing... show some class.

if you work for Citrix, don’t think this lets you off the hook. You have plenty of work to do yourself. "Desktop Appliances are not thin clients" and "On Demand Desktops" are great tag lines for selling, but when I have to explain the technical behind the marketing, it usually leaves the client a little sore.

Just stop gloating and trying to out do one another in the community and just go make better products to help with real client issues.

My 2 cents.

Citrix XenDesktop vs. VMware Virtual Desktop Manager - Round 1

2008-03-24T16:02:00Z

Just did some installations of the Virtual Desktop Infrastructure solutions from Citrix and VMware and I wanted to a "versus" article to have a comparison between the two. There are some other ones there like Provision Networks (now Quest) and LeoStream, but with two large vendors like Citrix and VMware who also have direct access to the developers and code for the underlying products (like Citrix's XenApp, XenServer, Provisioning Server, and VMware's ESX, Virtual Center, Thinstall), I just have to be realistic about the players in this space. I can't look at every solution out there and put it through its paces, so I have to work with what I have can easily access. Right now, that is Citrix's and VMware's solutions for VDI. Also I spent about 1 day reviewing the solutions, and then I wrote this article. As I spend more time with the solutions, I'll deliver more insight, but I wanted to share what I have seen so far. If I can get access to Provision Networks or Leostream anytime soon, I will update the article. Microsoft also recently bought something in this space (http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2275524,00.asp) but there needs to be more information before we can really see what this technology does.

Virtual Desktop Concept
A virtual desktop is a desktop OS that is running virtually on server class hardware along with other virtualized desktops. In a Server Based Computing (SBC) model, you have 1 OS shared for multiple users, with a VDI model, you each have your own OS to do whatever the user wants. Now that the desktop OS is virtualized, there are some great advantages. Information security is kept within the data center. Desktop performance may be increased as the OS is in the data center with the back end applications reside. You are utilizing the latest and greatest server class hardware. Remotely access your desktop from any location. Maintenance of physical desktops is greatly decreased.

However VDI isn't without its downfalls. If you don't have a good way to deploy applications into the desktop or patch/maintain applications and the OS itself, then VDI doesn't really solve that. Since it is a presentation layer remote display, any network outage or problems will result in uses not having access to their desktop and applications. (At least in most Server Based Computing models, their desktop OS and locally installed applications would still work when there was a network issue). Though there are some capabilities for USB devices, not all peripheral devices will be supported. VDI has really hit the market because standard desktop deployments are too costly and server based computing models (like Citrix XenApp or Microsoft Terminal Server) hasn't address all the user needs for customization, but VDI isn't cheap either. You will be buying server class hardware and storage to give a desktop that usually runs on cheap HW and cheap storage. If are planning on delivering lots of desktops and want save to save disk storage costs, you may need to acquire large to enterprise class storage de-duplication. And as always allowing for user customization (Private Desktops), the risk of something going greatly increases and users can attempt to install/uninstall applications that may jeaperdize the system.

So how did we end up here?
Standard desktop deployments have become too costly to maintain and control. All the application and operating system updates. Then because users have some form of control of their own system, they install an application or run some update that messes up their PC requiring the help desk to resolve. Then some admins remember the "good old days of mainframes" and in comes the next wave of computing: Server Based Computing.

While Server Based Computing (SBC) solutions like Citrix XenApp and Microsoft Terminal Server have solved many application deployment issues, there have always been concerns about delivering a full desktop experience to users. Users are used to having full control and access to everything they can do on their home PC. In a SBC world, users may not be able to plug-in random devices, or set desktop backgrounds or install their own applications. Users have very little to no control in a SBC world.

Because of lack of control, more computer savvy users and evolving computing requirements, SBC has had a hard time keeping up with all the demands a more knowledgeable user demands. Not that VDI fixes every one of the situations because it really only has come to market within the past year, but it can address situations for a lot of clients. So let's look at two of the solutions now.

Citrix XenDesktop Brief Description
Citrix XenDesktop is still currently in Beta. It is expected in Q2 of this year. No pricing has been announced yet. There will be 3 different flavors based on client requirements. The naming scheme is completed, but there will probably be Standard, Enterprise and Platinum edition. Platinum Edition will come with some remote support tools, a remote access plus VPN solution, a provisioning solution to lower the cost of disk storage and some WAN optimization clients.
XenDesktop will provide access to a virtualized desktop running on Citrix XenServer or VMware ESX. The connection protocol will be via Citrix's ICA. So whatever devices and capabilities you have today with the ICA protocol on XenApp, you can expect them on XenDesktop. These desktops can be shared or private desktops. Shared desktops can have their disk space requirements greatly reduced. Citrix's ICA protocol has been the standard for remote display protocol since was first developed in the 1990s but only recently has it made it any in roads to highly graphical based applications.

VMware Virtual Desktop Manager (VDM) Brief Description
VDM was released early in Q1 of 2008. It is priced in two ways.

If you have a VI (Virtual Infrastructure) already deployed with ESX and VirtualCenter, then you just need the VDM connection licenses which are about $50 per desktop plus Subscription and Support.
If you do not have any VI or are planning to deploy a VI that is separate from your existing VI AND will be less than 3 ESX Hosts, you can buy VDI Starter Kits and VDI Bundles which is about $150 per desktop plus Subscription and Support.
Note: If you don't have any VI and expect to need more than 3 ESX Hosts, then you will need to go with the top option AND buy the Virtual Infrastructure (ESX for as many servers as you need and VirtualCenter).

VDM is primarily a connection broker that allows a user to login, possibly be given a choice of desktops and have their desktop remotely displayed to them. That is it. For patching the OSes, VMware's solution is that you already have in place from a 3rd party company or that you implement VI 3.5 with Update Manager (requires VirtualCenter). For application deployment, VMware's solution is that you already have a solution in place or that you acquire their Thinstall technology (not part of VDM at this time). Disk storage can be a major cost in VDI and so VMware is highly recommending SAN solutions that can perform de-dup (De-duplication of data on the storage device since much of the OSes will be similar).

Installation: Citrix is a disadvantage right now as the installer for their product I'm testing with is currently in beta, but it is all I have access to at this time. Citrix's beta doesn't have a single installer, but rather multiple installers that must be deployed in a certain sequence. Citrix also seems to require you to use Citrix Provisioning Server. So even if you didn't want to deploy it, you couldn't keep going. I know this may change later, but beta code is all I have. VMware's installer was much easier and within just a few minutes with very minimal reading I was up and running. I like to test each technology and installer once with a cursory look at the admin guide. I fully really the admin guide before any deployment, but I look to know what areas they address during the installer versus what they address in pre-config or post-config. VMware wins.

Configuration: VMware's configuration is also very simple. Create a VM with a desktop OS in VirtualCenter, install the VMware Tools and VDM Agent, convert to a template, add VirtualCenter into VDM and away you go. From there you can decide on the minimum and maximum number of desktops always available for use, and assigning templates to users or groups of users. Users can either connect via a preinstalled VDM Client or via the ActiveX Control on the connection broker web site. Citrix's solution is a little more complex and requires multiple interfaces to get setup. One interface is for assigning a desktop. Another interface for creating the desktops. Another interface for creating the vDisk (what Provisioning Server calls its disk files). The steps to configure are about the same (create VM, install tools, make it a template, add into interface, assign to users), but due to multiple interfaces and having to know each different interface can be confusing to a new admin. VMware wins.
Note: Some may argue that less configuration means less features. Yes, that is true, but I'm addressing that later.

Display Protocol: Basically this is Citrix's ICA vs VMware's RDP. Just google for "ica rdp site:youtube.com" or "xendesktop vmware site:youtube.com" to see some of the videos. ICA blows RDP away. As the application requirements and user requirements grow, the display protocol will become more critical. With Citrix's extensible virtual channel system, not only can Citrix adapt their technology but other 3rd party companies have and wil continue to write products for it. While RDP is serviceable, it is not anywhere near ICA. Additionally, VMware has already written one add on component for Extended USB support to add additionally functionality to RDP which means VMware has identified weaknesses in the RDP protocol and may found more limitations as they continue down this path further. Citrix also has many capabilities with SpeedScreen to speed up Flash, IE, Keyboards, etc. Citrix wins hands down.

Pricing: Citrix is still in beta and has no public pricing so... VMware wins by default for now.

Application Delivery: VMware has only recently purchased Thinstall so some speculation has to come into play here. VMware will assume that you already have an application delivery system to get apps installed or deployed into the virtual desktops (think SoftGrid, Citrix, SMS, Altiris or maybe it is just part of a base template image). If not, then VMware's Thinstall will be a solution they will offer to complement their solution. Thinstall's roadmap has been fully released but I'm sure they are working on a better system to get to the apps/updates to the system and how the applications can interoperate. Until then, Citrix has a solution with XenApp or with Application Streaming technology. Though there might be additional cost for Thinstall or XenApp/App Streaming, Citrix has been delivering applications like this forever. Also since Citrix can deliver Applications only to partners or to many types of devices, they clearly standout. Citrix wins.

Administration: VDM is administered via VirtualCenter and a Web Site. Citrix's solution is administered via mutiple interfaces depending on what you have to do. Citrix will probably have way more options when it goes GA (general availability) since it will probably tie in with their End-point Analysis capabilities, Policies and Rules Engine. So do you like simple is better? or do you like more options and capabilities which means a little more complexity to the interface? I have to give the nod to VMware right now even with less options. It is a lot cleaner right now. VMware wins.

Features:

VMware Security Server will allow for remote access to deliver a desktop to the user from outside the corporate firewall. Citrix is planning on the same capability using its Citrix Access Gateway functionality that can also deliver a SSL VPN if necessary. I don't know if a Citrix Secure Gateway equivalent will exist but I doubt it. The Access Gateway user license may cost additional money, but the device itself sure will cost something. This part may be the most interesting since the SSL VPN with Citrix will quickly allow Citrix to add additionally functionality for offline capabilities that VMware tries to deliver with ACE. (Note: VMware ACE is different interface and has different capabilities than VDM)
High Availability. VMware assumes you have a HW based load balancer to deliver high availability of the access mechanism and services. The desktop OS HA will be delivered with VMware Virtual Infrastructure's HA capability. Not enough citrix info on this yet other than if you use VMware VI3 to deliver the desktop OSes or if you wait until Q2 for the next XenServer.
Resource utilization. VMware will be using its DRS and Resource Pools to control use of physical resources of the Virtual Infrastructure. If you use VMware VI3 with XenDesktop, you will gain this option, but XenServer does not deliver this at this time (Possibly Q2 or so).
Citrix's Provisioning Server can really help to decrease SAN storage when using shared desktops. VMware will use a lot of storage no matter which desktop type you choose, unless you happen to have SAN technology that can perform de-duplication.
Citrix also will be including a Remote Support tool via GoToAssist. That is pretty cool since you will need something to be able to remotely administer PCs and desktops.
VMware has Update Manager to control Windows Updates (if using ESX 3.5 and VC 2.5). Citrix is assuming you update the base vDisk with all the updates and then perform the deployment. Otherwise you have to use another solution for OS updates.
Citrix will integrate with its End-point analysis capabilities.
Citrix's Session Reliability is a great feature to keep desktop connectivity alive during small network outages. Very critical when everything runs through the remote display protocol and any network link outage or slowness will affect the user.
Citrix EdgeSight (probably bundled with highest version of XenDesktop) will be used to perform application and desktop monitoring for performance and usage.
No super clear winner. But I'm going to give the slight edge to Citrix right now. I don't know if everyone is going to want pay for HA and DRS for desktops so any advantage VMware has with its hypervisor capabilities may not be necessary. Also the remote access solution from Citrix allows for additional features that will easily integrate with future solutions to deliver offline capabilities.

Wrap-up
Citrix's technology solutions are centered on application deployment is far more robust while VMware is the800 lb server/desktop OS virtualization gorilla in the room. So let's follow the money... Citrix doesn't make money from the OS virtualization, they make money from delivering the app. VMware doesn't make money from application/desktop delivery; they make money from virtualizing the OS. It can be safely assumed, that to gain market share in each other's backyard, they will basically give away what they don't do well on the message of its the complete package that is strategic interest to the client and therefore will make the client pay for what they do well. So beware of this. One company may give away its server virtualization to sell their other product and the other company may give away its application delivery mechanism in the hope of getting its other product sold. Don't buy the cow, when you only need the milk. You might not like what you are "not paying" for.

This is just the beginning of this battle and 1 product isn't even out of beta yet. There are still many things left to be decided. Is VDI the holy grail of desktop computing? Is SBC still a viable solution? Will SBC use go down in favor of VDI or will VDI be niche solution for one-offs (like developers or knowledge workers)? No easy answer right now since each solution has it's own pros and cons... Just like VMware VDM and Citrix XenDesktop each have their pros and cons.

Hopefully this article has given you some insight on the technologies and helps to defuse some of the fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD) everyone is putting out. So grab some popcorn, and a soda... it's going to be a fun ride.

My Opinion of the VDI Space
Just to give a little background, I've been doing SBC since 1999. I came into Server Virtualization in 2001. They are both great solutions for my clients. I have been being "sold VDI" since 2006 as it being the solution for desktop deployment. I've seen the good and bad of SBC. The bad has always been around user customization and being able to install your own apps and while yes, VDI does allow for that capability... I'd rather treat that as one off than pushing everyone away from SBC to VDI. For power users, developers, applications that require a specific OS or just intensive gaming/learning applications, VDI is a very good model, but I still see that as a business owner I would want the control of the IT systems... not all of my users. Do admin assistants need to install apps? Does the kitty cat screensaver make you work better? Do you have to listen to a CD on the computer or do you have to use company assets for you iPod? I'm not saying SBC is better than VDI, just that the Total Cost of owning an SBC solution is better than VDI. Just like VDI is better to give users access to a customizable environment. Its all about requirements. What do you need now? What do you currently own now? How much is your budget? What are the issues you are trying to resolve now? What do you foresee in the near future of needing? Only questions like these can really determine what you need.

Citrix XenServer 4.0.1 Review

2008-01-19T17:18:00Z

Recently I've had a chance to partake in Partner Training for Citrix XenServer 4.0 (passed the certification test with a 87%) and to be honest... I was simultaneously impressed and disappointed in XenServer 4.0. Yes, I know it has only had a hand full of developers working on the XenSource code prior and now with the Citrix acquisition, they will greatly increase the numbers of developers. But I can't review what hasn't been publicly released or is currently the "roadmap" for future release.

Background for this article: I've been working with VMware since ESX 1.5.x (sometime in 2002), and I've loved it ever since. I've setup a few Microsoft Virtual Server 2005 R2 boxes (against my will). I've read articles on Virtual Iron and SWsoft Virtuozzo, but never set either up.

I'm not trying to make this document a feature comparison or a "XenServer vs. VMware" ESX article. You can google for that or do your own bake off of their technologies. I'm trying to relate the XenServer technology as to how it would be used in an IT Infrastructure using my background in Virtual Infrastructure design and implementations.

If you want a brief history of XenServer (with its roots in Xen and XenSource), check out this article by Gabe Knuth. If you are looking for more information on XenServer, here are some links to the documentation:

Installation
The installation is fairly simple. The installer is still a text based interface and the only real options are the network configurations (IP, Gateway, Subnet, DNS, NTP etc). There is no disk partitioning screen as XenServer automatically sets the partition table. The "10 minutes to virtual" motto is pretty accurate. During the training, you also boot of a CD and then connect to a HTTP site to install. They also allow NFS and FTP for installation points. You can also use XML to create an answerfile.
XenServer's claim to fame is performance of its paravirtualization model especially in Linux based VMs. I really didn't have time to compare performance or to put a heavy load on the servers, but I thought I would put this out there for someone credible (not paid by Citrix or VMware or MS) to do some performance testing.

Management
All management is performed via XenCenter. XenCenter comes automatically with the product at no additional cost and is a Windows-based application. There is no need for a database server as the configurations are held within the XenServer host(s) or the Resource Pools (master/slaves model). Resource Pools are how XenServer groups hosts for shared storage and identical network configurations to allow for XenMotion (Vmotion for Xen).
XenServer allows you to create templates (Gripe: for Windows you have to perform the sysprep./newsid steps in the Virtual Machine for the new identity on the network) and ships with some Debian pre-built templates for quick deployment. Networks, Storage Repositories, Console access (host and virtual machine), some basic logging, very basic reporting, and of course the management of the Virtual Machines are all performed within XenCenter.
Not requiring a database means the data is stored on the XenServer hosts in a master/slave model (when using Resource Pools). This sounds very familiar... like the early days of Master and Backup Browsers in MetaFrame. There are automated steps and manual steps to recover from a master host failure or temporary outage, but during the outage you will only be able to perform certain emergency tasks. There is currently a recommended maximum of 16 XenServers in one resource pool. I do really like that as XenServer hosts are added to the Resource Pool, they inherit lots of shared configuration information (like Shared Repositories and Network). Citrix should keep expanding on this feature of automating shared configuration to ensure consistent server builds and configuration (very common mistake in Virtual Infrastructure).
To manage the XenServer's via XenCenter, you must have an account on the XenServer hosts. More work for Windows administrators (face it - this is the largest target of users) as they must manage via the command line interfaces to perform many tasks.

Storage Repositories
Storage Repositories are a location to store Virtual Machine disks or ISOs for your XenServer infrastructure. The Storage Repositories for Virtual Machines can reside on local disk, NFS, or SAN (iSCSI Software, iSCSI hardware, or Fiber). ISO Storage Repositories can reside on Windows shares (CIFS) or NFS. I loved having one ISO library available to my VMs and via UNC path without having to configure each host for a SMB connection.
So here is the weird part. It is understandable that certain types of storage result in different features (VMware ESX has the same thing), but XenServer's favors software based connectivity over hardware based connectivity.

iSCSI Software initiators and NFS have more features (both support XenMotion while NFS also support Fast cloning - differential disk of a base disk basically). XenSource calls these connections Enhanced Storage connections.
iSCSI Hardware initiators (TOE cards) and Fiber have less features and neither supports XenMotion. XenSource calls these connections Basic Storage.

After thinking about it for awhile, it makes a little more sense. XenSource has way more control over software based connectivity and therefore the features can be 100% software based. However, this is something to think about when designing a Virtual Infrastructure for a client and whether XenServer makes sense.
Another interesting one is the lack of support for multi-pathing (redundant connectivity to the same storage location). This creates a single point of failure for any design. Reading some of the forums points to this being handled by the console via command line; it isn't support and can be a pain to configure. (Rumor: a white paper will be addressing this, but it is not built-in to the current release and 4.1 is rumored to have the capability.).

Networking
Networking is fairly straightforward but limited. One physical NIC equates to single virtual NIC or multiple virtual NICs that are VLANed. There is no binding or load balancing of multiple NICs. The host servers are limited to only 4 physical NICs.
Consider the following scenario (which seems to be the recommendation from the admin guide and training course)

Dedicate one NIC to the XenServer's Console
Dedicate one NIC for connection to the VM Storage Repository (since enhanced storage is recommended and that means NFS or iSCSI software).
Leaving one NIC for Production VM network and maybe one for the DMZ or Test VM Network. (assuming no VLANing)

Without VLANing, you run out of physical NICs real quick. Plus either way (VLAN or no VLAN), there is not binding of multiple physical NICs to a virtual NIC. These are additional reasons to consider when designing a Virtual Infrastructure and whether XenServer makes sense.

Templates
XenCenter allows for Templates to be deployed and created. An existing OS can be converted to a Template for future deployment, but XenCenter requires any customization to the OS for the new identity be performed manually. (Example: You need to sysprep Windows 2003 to get a new SID, change its name in the OS, change its IP address, join to the domain, etc). Not automating this is risky and could result in a lot of human error in these steps. Make sure that is known during implementation and is documented thoroughly.
XenCenter does ship with some Debian templates (called Full Templates) that include the entire Operating System and a wizard to perform the new identity (Name Server, IP, etc). That is pretty cool. Wish there were a few more but that is pretty cool. I'd like to see them allow you to also link directly to some sort of web site where additional Full Templates (or virtual appliances can be downloaded). Would Microsoft allow a Full Template with a new identity wizard to be made available for its Operating Systems? A person can dream can't they?

Logs
Logging is very basic. Error logs can only be seen via the console and looking at the end of /var/logs/xensource.log via less or tail. They also have some command lines for exporting support information (xen-bugtool -yestoall) which can then either be copied to a local server or sent to XenServer support when requested (xe host-bugreport-upload host=SERVERNAME)
Logs can also be viewed for XenServer, the Resource Pool or the VM. Don't expect a whole ton of information at this time.

Reporting
Resource Utilization is the only thing that can be gathered for any reporting, but it only keeps the information for 15 minutes. Better hope you get there quick or your stats might be gone. I didn't expect much here, but 15 minutes is really low.

What does Citrix need to add to XenServer to be part of more Virtual Infrastructure Designs

Production Data Center Readiness

High Availability (I hear this a Coming Soon feature)
XenCenter Management

No Security Management rights - There is no way to control what user has access to what VMs, XenServers, or Resource Pools or what they can do to each of the resources.
No Security Integration with Active Directory - This makes an IT Administrators life much simpler when rights can be assigned via AD. The target audiences for virtualization are Windows environments. Let make their job easier.
No multi-user capabilities to XenCenter - No notification when anyone else is on the console. This could make for lots of headaches as environments get larger. At least "Notify" the new user when someone else is using already XenCenter.

Logs/Reporting need to be improved for troubleshooting, event correlation and for identifying bottlenecks.
XenCenter's Master/Slave recovery needs to be designed better.

Networking

More than 4 NICs on the Host - Not everyone has VLANs or knows how to use them. It also limits designs where the client wants to support multiple physical networks (Production, DMZ and Test/Lab all completely separate switches) from one host. Add on top the redundant connections they may wish to use, and 4 isn't going to cut it.
Redundancy - Need redundancy for Networking or to allow greater network performance to the Virtual Machines

Storage Repositories

Redundancy - Need redundancy for path to the storage repositories (multi-path).
Even out the features between Enhanced and Basic - Too many clients have made their choices on storage. It seems odd to clients that they pay the most money for the storage and then find out XenServer doesn't work as well with that type of storage.

Supportability

XenCenter Capabilities

Network Configuration of XenServer Hosts from within XenCenter - Linux has too many files to modify to change networking. At least a wizard from the console command would help here.
Automated Windows Template Procedure - Automatically sysprep a server to give it a new identity. I see this one causing lots of support headaches.

More Guess Operating System Support - I would still would love to see NT (mostly gone but still hanging on) and upcoming major releases like Windows 2008 (even if it might be "experimental" as VMware calls the features)
Get more 3rd party support - This may require opening up the API a bit more or working with more existing "virtualization friendly" partners to develop for the XenServer platform.

Summary
Like I said earlier, I was impressed with product during the training. As I gathered more information, I started see design questions that may lead the client or my design for a client down a XenServer path (or away from it for that matter). And that is what really matters most. Making proper technology decisions for a client that meets their technology and business needs. No questions on that one.
Citrix has a lot of work ahead of itself and VMware has a pretty good jump on them. There is room for many players in this market, but I don't see companies planning on buying multiple virtualization products. Clients are looking to standardize on one platform, get their people trained, and then findings ways to optimize. Adding an additional technology means there better be a darn good reason for it.
May all the racers approach the starting line.

Ready...

Set...

Virtualize!!!

It's going to be a fun next few years.

If had a million dollars... (AKA Why I like Citrix EdgeSight)

2007-08-27T16:50:00Z

Let's start with the premise of "Good, Better, and Best" that I've learned from other people I worked with and admired. It is scale that rates solutions, products, actions or whatever into categories that are relative but do not always compare "apples to apples". As an example, if I had all the money in the world I'd buy a Ferrari or an Aston Martin, but that wouldn't work with 3 car seats and the cost of gas with how much driving I do wouldn't work. A solution for 3 car seats is a minivan, but my wife is putting off the "soccer mom" thing as long as she can. Another solution would be a midsize-large SUV (gas mileage is still an issue, but it supports 3 car carts, and my wife is happy - always a good thing). This is much similar to a Pros and Cons list you may setup to come up with a two sided decision (do this or don't), but a "Good, Better, and Best" exercise is little more dynamic and allows for more than just 2 decision points. I've done this exercise successfully with 4-7 decisions points. Just a quick description as I may write this as a blog topic later on. Now onto the meat of this entry. By the way, we bought a SUV.

"Citrix (Presentation Server) always gets the blame."
I always hear that from my clients and other Citrix Presentation Server admins. First of all, I always explain that Citrix is the company name. If they have problems it is with Presentation Server or some part of their infrastructure... so let's clear that one up. (Sorry, pet peeve of mine.) Citrix Presentation Server (CPS) is a technology that relies heavily on many technologies that are not part of its control. The applications installed on CPS vary from large to small, robust to clunky, applications that integrate tightly with one another (such as law firm applications) to applications that have little to do with each other. Each of these applications has compatibility issues and support issues that may be at the root cause. CPS and the applications run on top of Microsoft Windows Server 2000/2003, so any issues with the OS can be the root cause. The OS runs on top of hardware, which if not kept up with firmware or not configured for redundancy, can cause issues. All this connects to a Local Area Network that can have switch ports misconfigured causing performance issues. The LAN connects to the Wide Area Network (WAN) that can be in multiple configurations whether it is older Frame Relay, newer MPLS or simplified networks like DSL connections with or without point to point VPNs, or people coming over the Internet from their house or a hotel. The final piece of the puzzle is the client workstation which can have its own host of issues from runaway process, LAN connectivity issues, viruses, streaming media, etc. Lots of variables in the troubleshooting equation which can make it tough for issue resolution.

Let's also be honest in that all the red lights and whistles can be going off, as long as the users are not complaining... there is no problem. But vice versa also holds true in that, "everything looks fine on CPS" but users are still complaining... and you better fix it and fast.

So What Can I Do?
My suggestion is to arm the entire infrastructure with the tools they need to resolve any issue (Best ). Setup Microsoft Systems Center to watch for Operating System issues. Setup Windows Server Update Services or some other technology to perform patch management. Setup the hardware monitoring solution from your hardware manufacturer (HP Insight Manager, Dell Open Manage, etc). Acquire a network monitoring solution that can monitor latency, dropped packets, historical analysis and alerting. Most organizations are not monitoring workstation performance other than to make sure they are patched and have their Anti-Virus definitions up to date. The lack of workstation performance monitoring and the need for a true measurement of end user experience, leads CPS admins to look for an Application Performance Monitoring tool.

What can Application Performance Monitoring Tools do?
First of all the solution, should be able to tell us the end user experience from the environment as a whole, any single network subnet, any single workstation or any single user - Overall Application Performance and Drilldown Capabilities . Next the solution should be able to quickly identify where the problems lies - Root Cause Analysis and Resolution. Is it the Server resources? Is it the network between the workstation and the Citrix Presentation Server? Or is it the backend infrastructure? All this information should be historically kept to report against and to compare against when performing load/stress tests with application interface scripting. Then an abilitiy to simulate a user - synthetic tests - can be used to further ensure application availabilitiy and performance. This information should then be used for Capacity Planning of the environment. Lastly, it should also be to alert based on certain criteria selected and generate reports based on common requests by management or users.

This leads us to the next question.

So what solutions can perform Application Performance Monitoring?
Best - HP Business Availability Center (formely Mercury) is a suite of products to monitor business applications, services and systems. Mercury was always the leader in this market. LoadRunner was used to script an application usage to simulate a user. "Injectors", workstations set to run the script at scheduled intervals, running the script could be used to simulate load or to test the application every 5 minutes to make sure it is working. biggest hurdle for this solution was and still is cost. It's very costly to acquire, but it is the best at what it does and they have been doing it longer than anyone. It was also costly from a technical resource perspective since you had to be trained to gain any use of the product. Writing scripts (whether for load/stress testing or synthetic tests) was complex and took a lot of time to get write to correctly simulate a user experience. I saw some companies jump the 1st hurdle and buy the product, but never got the proper training or the main resource left and then the whole solution just became "shelfware". I was never fully trained on Mercury, but I saw lot of companies looking for solution just like this. So demand was there, but since there were very few companies that could do this. Mercury was able to charge a lot of money.

Note: I have not had a chance to review NetIQ's AppManager, but it seems to have the same pros and cons as Mercury (great solution but costly and may require a large infrastructure/support staff for upkeep and use).

Better - Citrix EdgeSight has entered the market with its acquisition of Reflectent in mid-2006. This is not an "apples to apples" comparison to HP Business Availability Center, but it does play in the same space. Citrix EdgeSight was developed as a application performance monitoring tool that was designed for desktop deployments. It has been adapted to include Citrix Presentation Server and more recently Citrix NetScaler for reporting and monitoring. The tool set for load/stress testing and synthetic tests is not complete as of yet. They just released Citrix EdgeSight for Load testing 2.5 earlier this month, but not much has been made of it yet. (I'm sure some announcements will be made at Citrix's client/partner event, iForum '07, held in late October in Las Vegas). The server resource monitoring is also new. I'm guessing that this function will replace some parts of Resource Manager for alerting and reporting on server resource utilization. Citrix EdgeSight already has usage reports that can be used for management, and has some Capacity Planning tools probably in its future. My opinion is that though it is not fully baked, Citrix EdgeSight has some great advantages that will result in clients choosing this solution. It is cost effective compared to Mercury and NetIQ. Citrix EdgeSight also has the advantage of monitoring products owned by the same company - Citrix integrates the application delivery products and now is delivering a tool to monitor them all. For many, this integration of the products may be the difference in your decision. I call this the "iPod factor". If you live and die with your iPod, and you had a choice between two very similar cars but one was completely integrated with your iPod... you would probably choose the one with iPod integration. If you live and die with Citrix Presentation Server, you should seriously look at the one most tightly integrated with CPS.

Note: There are two different agents for Citrix EdgeSight - EdgeSight Agent for CPS and EdgeSight Agent for Desktops. The Desktop Agent is not required, but it can give you a better view into the workstation and possibly give you the culprit of an issue. Example: AV Scanner or Windows Media Player running at 100% or the workstation with no available memory would absolutely affect the performance of the Citrix Presentation Server client or any other applications running on their workstation.

Good - Though there are players in the market (Scapa Technologies & Tevron for example), it can be expected that most organizations should be looking for more enterprise solutions that are not just focused on Citrix or Terminal Server. There are also loads of freeware tools for writing scripts and some companies provide load generation tools for their product for capacity planning, but that is all they do. So while these solutions will be good a few clients, the same clients will be looking for more functionality and will have to look for another solution later.

Note: If you are primarily focused on Citrix Presentation Server reporting only, then check out ATM by XTS (www.xtsinc.com). Great solution for reporting on pure CPS environments. Also some future stuff on Capacity Planning.

In conclusion
You need to review your requirements and budget to determine your best course of action. I'd love to have the "Ferrari", but I'm kinda short on cash and it doesn't meet all my requirements - the iPod integration is missing. ;-)

I think Citrix is doing the client right by providing a solution that ties all their products together, even it is coming up short on a few things right now. It needs a little more work to compete with the big boys, but it is very good bang for your buck. If you already own Citrix Presentation Server and are looking to add Citrix Password Manager or Citrix Access Gateway, I'd highly recommend you take a look at Citrix Presentation Server Platinum edition (Includes a CPS license plus Password Manager, Access Gateway user license and a EdgeSight Agent license for CPS) that is way more cost effective than buying them individually, In fact, they way the products are priced, if you have CPS and want one of the products and are thinking about buying another one, then it makes sense to price out Citrix Presentation Server Platinum Edition. I'd highly recommend an evaluation period to see the feature set and determine if you need the Desktop agent in addition to the CPS agent, to see what the desktops are doing. Talk with your Citrix representative or Citrix partner if you need to discuss specific features.

Stayed tuned for more information from iForum 07.

Making my life more complex... Thanks to Citrix buying XenSource

2007-08-16T05:25:00Z

So by now most of you have seen that Citrix will be acquiring XenSource (Press Release). As a Citrix, VMware and Microsoft partner, this makes life real interesting (as I'm sure it does for many other partners). It has always been a "cat and mouse" game when it comes to these 3. We used to be able to say "Virtualize all your Microsoft core infrastructure with VMware and then deliver the applications via Citrix". Then Microsoft entered the virtualization space (Microsoft Virtual Server) (of course it starts earlier than this with Terminal Services, etc but I'm trying not to write a novel here). Then VMware decides they want part of the remote access world (VMware ACE). Then Citrix make a small step into "virtualization" with Ardence. Then VMware acquires a Connection Broker (Propero). And finally we have tonight's topic... Citrix buys XenSource.

I'm sure I'll be spending a lot of time soon with Propero and XenSource in the coming months to get my hands around both technologies and how they can help our clients, but for now... I'm gonna analyze this most recent acquisition by Citrix.

I break this acquisition into two key parts: Server Virtualization and Desktop Virtualization.

Server Virtualization - This is the harder one. Of course, VMware is #1. No question. So is Citrix going after VMware? Or are they just playing "me too"? Let's say Microsoft is number #2 and Citrix wants to be #3. Citrix can compete on price against VMware, but loses on the features. Citrix can compete with better features than Microsoft, but can't beat that price. So let's just say if this is Citrix's strategy, they will get clients who are anti-MS or have tight budgets.
If Citrix wants to be #2, you'll probably see a lot more features coming soon (beyond the recent announcements by XenSource) and lot of integration with other Citrix technology (think Access Gateway Virtual Appliances, EdgeSight/ThinGenius load generator/synthetic tester appliances).
They have a long road to climb here to achieve this, so I'm thinking this strategy is more the former ('take what we can get") than the latter ("Let's go up against VMware!")

PS Unless SWSoft or Virtual Iron are bought by someone big, I have to think they will not be around much longer. There isn't much room left with 3 heavyweights in the room.

Desktop Virtualization - Now this is where I think Citrix is really going for the jugular. Virtualize your hardware (XenSource), Stream your operating system - physical or virtual (Ardence), and then Virtualize (Presentation Server) or Stream (Presentation Server or Desktop Server) your applications. All using the best remote display and remote access protocol for Windows applications (ICA) and a leading VPN Technology (Access Gateway Product Line). Not a bad idea. They own a larger piece of the application delivery stack for Virtual Desktop deployments. Pretty compelling story since VMware doesn't really care about applications and how they are delivered and they care only a little about Remote Access. And Microsoft doesn't seem to be pushing into the Virtual Desktop market - possibly due to their hardware friends like HP and Dell who stand to lose a lot of desktop refresh cycles most organizations have setup today.
Since the Desktop Virtualization infrastructure doesn't have to be as robust as a production server environment (where organizations are putting VMware in use today), clients may not want to pay for some of the advanced features that VMware is pushing just to deliver a desktop. So in swoops Citrix to offer their lower cost and more application delivery oriented virtualization architecture. This is where Citrix has the largest potential and its biggest advantage.

However nothing is "guaranteed except death and taxes". Citrix has an up hill battle. VMware may potentially have another "car in their rear view mirror" even if it has a ways to catch up... it just received a nitrous injection from Citrix. Can Citrix, VMware and Microsoft still be friends? Can Citrix create better features or adminstrator interfaces than VMware and/or Microsoft? Is Citrix showing up to a game that started a few years ago? Can Citrix simplify UNIX administration for the average Windows administrator (big question mark here)? How long will it take for Citrix's "Go To Market" strategy for its current partners take? How will those same partners react now that there are 3 large very large elephant's in the room all trying to sell their product? As always, time (and lots of meetings) will tell.

More information:
CRN Comparison of Virtualization Technologies
http://www.crn.com/software/201400070

CRN Comparison of Virtualization Technologies (last page for price and program details)
http://www.crn.com/software/201400070;jsessionid=N2W255NIPBEQQQSNDLPSKHSCJUNN2JVN?pgno=6

XenSource Benchmarks Against VMware (Marketing)
http://www.xensource.com/Documents/hypervisor_performance_comparison_1_0_5_with_esx-data.pdf

Just got back from Ardence (a Citrix Company) Streaming Server Training

2007-05-31T14:27:00Z

Just got back from a Boston trip for Ardence training. (Notes on Boston: Great town. Great Seafood. Bring a GPS to travel around.) Ardence is pretty interesting. It is actually a fairly simple solution when you break it down and can be pretty powerful in the correct circumstances. Here is some info and my thoughts on

So what is Ardence Streaming Server

Ardence Streaming Server streams on Operating System to a server, workstation or VM from the Ardence Streamig Server itself. You would have an image or vDisk of each OS or type of server/workstation you wish to support (Example: 1 vDisk for W2K3/CPS 4.5 that are all the same, 1 vDisk for Win XP workstations with the HR/Finance Apps, 1 vDisk for Win XP workstations with the engineering Apps). Also depending on how much time you want to put into a "Single Image for all Hardware", you will need a vDisk for each Hardware type (Standard Windows HAL stuff). That vDisk can then be deployed to any number of server or workstations as you see fit. A vDisk can be Read Only (Shared) or Read/Write (Private) depending on your desired results. A single Ardence Streaming Server can to stream 50-200+ servers/workstations depending on how the Cache is set and whether you are delivering Shared or Private vDisks. (The cache is where data is stored specific to each server/workstation during the last boot.)

So how does Ardence Streaming Server work

Each server/workstations boots and starts a PXE boot process from the NIC (all of the latest virtualization technolgies support this). A DHCP delivers a dynamic IP Address (this of course can be set with reservation for security or administrative reasons based on your requirements). Also as part of the DHCP scope you will deliver two options via DHCP - Option 66 and Option 67 - which deliver the IP Address of a TFTP Server and bootstrap image file name. PXE will then use Option 66 and 67 to TFTP the Bootstrap image. This will then load the Ardence PXE Boot Environment which will contact the Ardence server to determine its boot configuration (if the config - MAC Address, Workstation Name, which vDisk to use and what boot order - does not exist, the user may be prompted for the config information the 1st time). In this example, the server/workstation will boot into a Shared (Read Only) vdisk. Upon reboot any changes are lost. An administrator can make a new vDisk and assign to the workstation in the admin console and set the boot priority. On next reboot, the new vDisk (whether it has newer OS or a has newer software/updates etc). And you can failback to the previous OS just as easy.

This can be combined with Citrix Application Streaming or Microsoft SoftGrid to deliver applications on the fly that are not part of the base vDisk.
Ardence licensing is based on how many OSes will be concurrently up and running at any time.
Ardence has steps to perform some "magic". Like joining the Shared (Read Only) machine to the domain, getting the domain drop down list, having the Citrix Presentation Server join the farm and get its published apps, etc.

So what does it take to setup Ardence Streaming Server

Note: Ardence Streaming Server can be setup in multiple configurations but based on the training, this is what i see as the most common configuration.

An Ardence Streaming Server

For High Availability of this service, you will need shared storage, a second Ardence Streaming Server, and HA Licensing

A DHCP Server (though they deliver a DHCP Server with the product, most common deployments will be Microsoft DHCP or a DHCP device)

Option 66 and Option 67 must be set correctly in the DHCP Scope Options. This may be specific to a certain subnet or local depending on the design of the environment.
Reservations are not required, but can be used for high security or ease of administration

TFTP Server - Delivered with Ardence Streaming Server
A vDisk Image for each type of server/workstation
A client PC with a PXE compatible NIC

Client must be set to boot from PXE first in the BIOS
Some BIOS versions require "Boot from NIC" and "PXE Enabled" both be set.

So where is the "Biggest Bang for Your Buck"

Well Ardence can definetely help in administration and maintaining a base image across a group of workstations and/or servers. But to get your biggest bang for your buck, each of the servers/workstations will need to be identical in hardware so that a single vDisk can be deployed a larger number of times. But to get that same benefit, most of your servers/workstations would need to use a Shared (Read Only) vDisk since otherwise you will be setting up a whole bunch of Private (Read Write) vDisk making administration more complex.

Citrix Presentation Servers, Web Servers and Desktops are great viable options for Ardence with the ROI going to depend on how different is the hardware within each category and how many vDisk images are needed to be built.

Time will tell.

Why do even need a Desktop OS? (AKA Why do I need Vista?)

2007-04-25T15:31:00Z

Do you use your Desktop OS to perform work? or do you use applications to work?

The answer is simple: Applications. Microsoft Office, PeopleSoft, Internet Explorer, SAP, etc. But somehow Microsoft (and others) and others have convinced executives and management that the Desktop OS is the most important piece of software. And of course, this version is way more secure and effecient than the last version. I've heard people tell me that rolling out Vista is strategic to their business. Microsoft has some great marketing people. Ask yourself this, how will a Vista rollout make my company money? It might save some money (but you have to spend a bunch. There is not a single feature of Vista that will make my company a dollar. I'm not saying Microsoft is evil, but like every company, there is a an agenda.

Get Vista on every desktop/laptop in the world. Hope for stock price to increase. Wait for next OS revision. Repeat.

Sounds like fun... to them.

Remember the Old Days

Remember mainframes. Now I'm not saying mainframes were the greatest, but they were all about delivering the application. The concept was correct. Nothing fancy. Just get the application to the user. The business and the IT departments had the power. End users could only work on whatever application they were assigned from the mainframe. IT was much simpler then also.

Dumb terminal died. Replace. Update centralized mainframe. Repeat.

I'm not saying I want to go exactly back to this model, but it made sense for a business and IT departments to run as efficiently as possible.

The PC Revolution

Then some small companies (IBM, Microsoft, Apple, Compaq, etc) started thinking about empowering the end user. Made sense. At first it was just laptops for executives and traveling users, and then it became every desk. Then every home. Seemed like a great idea to everyone except the business and the IT department. They lost control and have been struggling to get it back since. Desktop managment software, anti-virus solutions, security tools, patching solutions, application patching solutions, standardized desktop migration projects, desktop refresh cycles, laptops that could be off the network for months, and it keeps going.

Somehow a majority of the world, still thinks this is "the best solution available" and has no plans for any other delivery method than keeping the status quo. Other companies are starting to let employees own their own PCs, and handle their own problems. I doubt that will work since many of the applications have such tight integration to the OS. Another reason I think this will fail is that for years, I've known IT people that have had to support the executives (or even the executive's daughter's/son's/spouse's) PC at home or at college because they use it for work. This is gonna be a tough sell unless you can deliver applications without any care for the OS. Hmm....

Server Based Computing gets a foothold

Server Based Computing technologies rise up of frustation by the IT department to control anything. Citrix and Microsoft begin to deliver Windows based applications via a remote display protocol so that any user from any device over low amounts of bandwidth can utilize the application. There are limitations for some applications (High end CAD applications, and high quality audio/video are two), but strides have taken place to address these issues. This solution is Desktop OS agnostic for most of the features and allow IT to get out of the rut of 3 year desktop cycles.

This technology is still evolving, but many a company think they can get away from it. Just like "Java was going to change the world," or the "a web browser is the only application I need" crowd, it isn't panning out that way.

SaaS (Software as a Service) begins but it's not the panacea

I truely think this began with the advent of the Web Browser (maybe even as far back as BBSes or CompuServe). The application is the web site you are visiting. Google, Amazon, Salesforce.com, or this site. Some sites are self contained (coded to run with what the web browser supports out of the box), but more web site applications are requiring additional software. Excel to perform calculations, Acrobat Reader for document reading, Shockwave or Flash or Media Player for multimedia. This is really why the Windows applications will not disappear any time soon. Too many much reliance on the helper applications as the web browser is not robust enough and no one can standardize on what they support (Office vs StarOffice, Adobe vs Microsoft formats, and the 1000's of plugins, connectors or players that exist).

It is on the right track though. A portalized method of accessing an application. Do you think Amazon cares if you run Windows XP, Vista, or OS X? Or are they delivering an application to you? Yet somehow businesses can get caught up with delivering a desktop to a user. Again, as if the desktop is the revenue generating application of the business.

Think of Virtual Desktop Infrastructure (VDI). All it is basically doing is delivering a desktop to a user. That is all. You still need to deliver the application to the virtual desktop, but somehow someone always forgets to mention that one.

If we treated all applications like in the SaaS architecture, then the Desktop OS becomes less and less relavant. In my opnion, that is the key to simplifying IT.

Conclusion

Let's just start talking about what makes sense to your business... not someone else's business. Your revenue doesn't go up with a Vista or OS X deployment, but their's does. Let concentrate on SaaS and Application Delivery Infrastructures, rather than "cycling through my apps with CTRL+TAB looks so much cooler". Let's make your company more business and make your business more money.

It's all about the applications.

Additional Reading

BrianMadden.com : The rise of the employee-owned PC in a world where CIOs are losing control