Miscellaneous

The zero install footprint for the applications is a big plus but there are some limitations. It cannot do services so if you need to use a service it must be installed locally. Also applications cannot talk COM to each other if they are not bundled together in the same virtual environment they wont talk to each other. So an Office addin would have to be bundled with Office and then you would have a poliferation of Office packages to maintain. Still the maintenance of packages is not that bad but still it does complicate things on the admin end.

I don't want to make this seem as a Citrix replacement but often Citrix is used to house the bad applications that don't work with the current environment. This application can get around it. The infrastructure is light as all you really need is a webserver and SQL server at the server end. Unfortunately its not perfect but still it has much promise as it evolves. I think having applications not actually install on computers could greatly simplify large environments and also reduce application lifecycle costs by enabling fewer client application upgrades due to environment changes.

I had to say that the technology was pretty slick as the applications ran rather smoothly but still the real test is to sit down and pilot a bunch of applications on it to see if it will ultimately bring value into your environment. If the technology was further evolved I could see it taking the industry by stom. Still it does have some very useful implications for environments that have legacy applications that do not adopt well to the Windows XP realm.

I do agree with you that the solution can take the industry by storm. However with the shortcomings you have highlighted- incapability of using services, COM etc will have to be improved on as the major benefit I can picture from the technology is the reduction in time for desktop management, otherwise technicians will still need to tamper with the desktop environment in order to install services etc for applications needing them.

Softgrid should make the application available virtually just like Technet and Kaseya in order to test the whole concept for interested pros.

The VMWare ACE stuff seems to be doing something similar to the Softgrid.

They offer pilot programs and I think that is the only way to truely evaluate the benefit of any application management technology. Too often I see clients evaluating their purchases based on some presentations and extremely limited lesting. I've seen many disasterous implmentations from different vendors just because people did not properly evaluate the solution and the implications of integrating it within their infrastructure and management processes.

The VMWare ACE is sort of similar technology but you only get one big sandbox unless you give the client lots of hardware to run multiple OSes. The Softgrid solution is different being that it does not require client hardware upgrades to run multiple virtual sandboxes. It is a lean virtualization technology from what I can see so far.

I think the solution really looks good. However my concern is the additional layer of infrastructure and service support that would
have to be introduced by the technology.

Although some of the benefits which provides you some "secure atmosphere" to run programs is really good; Citrix will provide this same benefit as all applications are executed on the server.

Kindly let's discuss what you think the main benefits might be after you come back.

Regards.