For example, to deploy an SVS package via AppStream you begin within the confines of the SVS administration utility. After
you’ve captured an application install you need to export the layer to a VSA file. Next, you copy the VSA file to a system
running the AppStream packager where you open the VSA and convert it into an AppStream ZIP package. Once that’s done you need
to upload the package to the AppStream server and then provision it for distribution. All told, you’re forced to navigate
across four different UIs (SVS admin, AppStream packager, AppStream upload/import utility, AppStream Web console) spanning
three different runtime platforms (Windows, Java, Web). By contrast, with SoftGrid you remain within a single UI and platform
(Windows), and importing an application requires just a single step (copying the package to the Content folder).
This spotty integration also extends to the delivery process. When testing SVS Pro against the aforementioned Office 2003
test bed, I clocked AppStream at no less than 1 minute and 45 seconds from initial user request to the appearance of the virtualized
application. During this time AppStream was downloading nearly 50MB of data into the local SVS cache and generating just under
80Mbps of network traffic.
Compare this to the 9 to 13 seconds for SoftGrid or the 2 to 5 seconds for Thinstall, and you can see that, at least during
the initial program load to cache, SVS Pro is far from a speed demon. However, on the positive side this large initial blob
includes the most common code blocks required for all of the packaged executables. So while it might take longer to launch
the requested application for the first time, subsequent launch requests -- either to the first application used or any of
the other applications in the SVS package layer (in this case Word, Excel, PowerPoint, and Access) -- are serviced almost
instantaneously.
An analysis of subsequent streaming requests (i.e. grabbing additional code to support functions not downloaded in the initial
50MB or more blob) showed a much more granular access pattern. All of which seems to point to an architectural tradeoff when
dealing with streaming SVS packages: You need to download more of the package blocks to get the first application started,
but these additional blocks help to eliminate the need for subsequent roundtrips to get additional applications loaded. To
put this in perspective, you have to add up the initial startup times for Word, Excel, PowerPoint, and Access under SoftGrid
(44 seconds) before you’ve achieved the same degree of functionality that the initial SVS Pro download provides.
One area in which the SVS Pro solution outshines both SoftGrid and Thinstall is in its support for Web-based access to packaged
applications. The AppStream Web portal makes it easy for users to surf up and access the desired applications in a kiosk-like,
on-demand fashion. In this regard, SVS Pro provides a solution that is closer to the subscription-based delivery model that
has been the holy grail of commercial developers for nearly a decade.
 |
| The Bottom Line |
Symantec SVS Pro 2.1 Symantec, symantec.com
|
Good 7.5 |
 |
| criteria |
score |
weight |
| Management |
8 |
25% |
 |
| Scalability |
8 |
25% |
 |
| Setup |
7 |
20% |
 |
| Usability |
7 |
20% |
 |
| Value |
7 |
10% |
 |
|
 |
Cost: SVS Client free for private/student use; $55 per client for commercial use (includes streaming support)
Platforms: Requires Windows Server 2003 (for AppStream); supports Windows 2000, XP, and Vista as clients
Bottom Line: SVS gains in partner AppStream a much needed streaming capability to support its already robust virtualization layer. The
combined solution allows applications to be launched from a Web browser, and headless services are supported. However, the
level of integration between the OEM components is imperfect and simple deployment tasks require too many steps, not to mention
the slow initial response time for virtualized applications. Still, it’s the closest thing to “click ‘n run” on the market
today.
|
 |
About our Reviews and Scoring Methodology
|
|
 |
| The Bottom Line |
Microsoft SoftGrid 4.2 Microsoft, microsoft.com
|
Good 7.4 |
 |
| criteria |
score |
weight |
| Management |
8 |
25% |
 |
| Scalability |
8 |
25% |
 |
| Setup |
7 |
20% |
 |
| Usability |
6 |
20% |
 |
| Value |
8 |
10% |
 |
|
 |
Cost: Free to Microsoft Software Assurance Program customers
Platforms: Requires Windows Server 2003 with Active Directory; supports Windows 2000, XP, Vista and Windows Terminal Services as clients
Bottom Line: SoftGrid has changed little since our previous review. Strong points are tight integration with Active Directory and a well-optimized
streaming model. However, it still suffers from usability quirks and an overly complex sequencing process, and it lacks support
for headless services. Nevertheless, Microsoft’s acquisition of SoftGrid, 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.
|
 |
About our Reviews and Scoring Methodology
|
|
 |
| The Bottom Line |
Thinstall Virtualization Suite 3.2 Thinstall, thinstall.com
|
Good 7.1 |
 |
| criteria |
score |
weight |
| Management |
7 |
25% |
 |
| Scalability |
7 |
25% |
 |
| Setup |
7 |
20% |
 |
| Usability |
8 |
20% |
 |
| Value |
6 |
10% |
 |
|
 |
Cost: $5,000 for Virtualization Suite; $39 per node for deployed applications
Platforms: Supports most variations of Windows 2000, XP, 2003 and Vista
Bottom Line: Bottom Line: Thinstall continues to deliver a no-frills solution that makes the process of packaging and deploying virtualized
applications almost trivially simple. The completely self-contained virtualization environment requires no client agent or
back-end server, and it delivers excellent runtime performance. However, the acquisition of competitors Softricity and Altiris
has left Thinstall as the lone pioneer in a rapidly maturing market. 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 this
newly competitive landscape.
|
 |
About our Reviews and Scoring Methodology
|
|