Matt Lesak presenting.
I’m staying somewhat general…the presenters are committed to calling out positive things about View/vSphere which I appreciate.
Note: being completely upfront, I work with Citrix products as well…what I like the most right now is how VMware + Citrix is driving this space so fast….competition = good.
More after the jump…
View Bundle includes all-you-can-eat vSphere licensing…very powerful.
- View Persona Management — not just folder redirection but very smart profile management.
- How does compare to AppSense, etc.? Compares very well but doesn’t support physical desktops (yet)….also some of those products do more than Persona Management.
- No dependency on Roaming Profiles
- Big Optimizations on PCoIP and also some knobs/dials we can adjust when needed (trade off quality for speed).
- Potential to reduce b/w use up to 75%.
- Lossless vs. Perceptually Lossless – when to use.
- Mention of the PCoIP Log Viewer that came out recently – fantastic debugging tool.
- Linux Client Discussion – # of distro’s is a challenge. Did get on Ubuntu’s store.
- Not really planning in iPhone client b/c the screen is so small — could make tablet client work but not supported.
- Multiple Client Options with Consistent Desktop Experience
- Soft Client on Desktop PC/Laptop or Repurposing
- Thin Client/Zero Client – some market leadership around zero clients for View.
- Mobile Devices – 92% of Tablets supported – iPad and Android basically.
- Citrix has more checkboxes…but different support levels in different clients (i.e. no HDX but just RDP).
- When VMware supports a device, they support everything on that device….no features, etc. not there.
- Personal Opinion – need to be careful on this messaging when don’t support PCoIP on all clients.
- PCoIP for Mac out in first half of this year (beta is out and works well right now).
- Acquisition Costs
- Server Costs – View requires 19% less servers than 😄 – higher VM density, fewer components.
- Storage Costs – 42% less storage than 😄 – calling View Composer more efficient than Provisioning Service.
- Licensing Costs – concurrent user licensing across all packages, Citrix concurrent user license is $600 (list price…be careful as Citrix discounts a lot), View Premier is 30-67% less than 😄 Platinum
- XenServer has real challenges with I/O in dom0 — known issue and still recurring (I can even confirm some of this personally). This isn’t really 😄 vs. View….but back to vSphere being best and then at point what do you choose to run on top of vSphere?
- Provisioning Server is by far dominant method with XD…it’s also primarily physical.
- Matt isn’t knocking Provisioning Server…but it does add complexity from a customer perspective.
- When he started with VMware, he was like “where is the console for View Composer?” Well…there isn’t one.
- Provisioning Server probably would have died if VDI hadn’t come along…I agree.
- If PVS is so easy/great, why do MCS? (i.e. Linked Clones)
- Some discussion about Kavisa — personally I all say Kavisa hits a lower market segment than View does….there can be value to segmentation frankly if done correctly.
- Being very clear….View doesn’t bring world peace (neither does XD).
- Back to use cases….make sure we’re solving a real customer problem, etc. etc.
- Looking at Hypervisors – there’s really not much competition here frankly. View is then the most cost effective way to run View.
- vSphere is closed source (no disagreement) but very open to integration – as proved by how XD/XA can live on top of vSphere.
- Would say that XenServer is more open source but actually less open/integratable than XS.
- I think this may be the same slide deck that’s available on Partner Exchange – good for market research in general (who knows your weaknesses better than your competitor…I’ll do the same thing with View at times actually).
- MCS gets during PoC to ease/speed deployment….
- View Composer vs. PVS
- PVS isn’t supported on vSphere 5 – CTX131239
- Cache disk is typicaly 40% larger than Linked Clone difference disk.
- No support for user persistence.
- Scaling can require something like SANsymphony, to scale…not necessarily.
- To me: this is somewhat about feature/architecture differences.