ThinstallVirtualization Suite 3.2
Every time I review a version of Thinstall I can’t help but remember a joke I heard about something being “a riddle wrapped
in an enigma and surrounded by mystery.” Thinstall is the riddle. Or is it the enigma? One thing’s for sure: The platform’s
underlying architecture continues to be a mystery to even savvy IT experts. Does it really work without a client agent and
without loading anything into kernel mode? What about streaming? What does the company mean by “it delivers the benefits of
streaming without the server?”
The answers to the first two questions are yes and yes, while the third is a solid “maybe.” It’s true that Thinstall requires
no client agent or server-side components; everything a Windows PC needs to create the virtual runtime and enable the application
loads dynamically from the packaged executable image. (See my February 2007 review, "Thinstall removes barriers to application virtualization.") Furthermore, the company claims that, since Thinstall controls the application’s loading sequence, by supplanting the usual
program header logic with its own virtual environment bootstrap code, it can directly modulate which bits are passed over
the wire to service a particular startup request.
For example, in the case of our Office 2003 test bed, Thinstall’s setup capture utility transformed our default installation
into a single, large (more than 300MB), compressed file, with multiple shortcut-type redirector files taking the place of
the normal Office executables. In practice, launching one of these pseudo-executable shortcuts prompted Thinstall to access
the larger code image file and extract only those bits necessary to assemble the virtualized runtime image, a fact evidenced
by our test results: When launching Word, Excel, PowerPoint, and Access, Thinstall generated peak network utilization on par
with SoftGrid (92Mbps to 106Mbps). It also blew the doors off both SoftGrid and SVS Pro when it came to initial application
load times. Whereas the two “streaming” solutions took at least 9 seconds (SoftGrid) and 105 seconds (SVS Pro) to load an
application for the first time, Thinstall did it in 2 to 5 seconds, depending on which application was being requested.
Of course, no matter how efficient the download, you don’t want your users hammering on the server every time they decide
to load a Word document. The lack of client-side caching of code images has been one of the persistent knocks against Thinstall.
And though you can work around the issue externally -- for example, under Windows by enabling caching on the share point --
it’s still something Thinstall’s designers need to address directly.
Another issue they need to address is Thinstall’s reliance on SMB-based (Server Message Block) sharing as its only network
distribution mechanism. Both SoftGrid and SVS Pro, though not yet fully optimized for Web-based delivery, are at least closer
to that goal in that they provide a non-SMB delivery vehicle (streaming), one that should be more palatable to security-conscious
administrators.
 |
| 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
|
|