Hey Brian: Why do you only compare VDI to TS? Why not VDI to traditional desktops?

Totally disagree. you should cmpare the overhead of Traditional desktops vs. hosted desktops options and not get stuck in SBC land only as they are different use cases. SBC means sharing a Terminal Server OS that means overhead of conflicting users. Desktops are desktops, in other words they effect that single user (session isolation) and cost a lot of money to manage in a distributed environment. Hosted desktops as they are currently touted by the vendors with EXPENSIVE storage make it applicable for only niche use cases. Change that model to local disk and change the management model to layer in os, apps, and users over time then the TCO, session mobility, lower latency of apps  (closer to backend in data center) etc makes this a much better comparison. I would not undereestimate the benefits of session isolation combined with session mobility when comapring DESKTOPS to HOSTED DESKTOPS as opposed to pure SBC.  

Before I get into this, I want to say that I greatly respect Brian for every word he puts out there and I believe that there is a lot of truth in Brian's categorization and evaluation, however I think there are additional comparisons that should be taken into account.

Something has been bugging me with regards to this whole SBC classification ever since VDI came in with using Ardence (The ability to stream the hosted virtual desktop locally). Actually, I want to include the streaming apps feature in XenApp in this too.

I believe SBC simply means exactly that. Server Based Computing.  Basically, if the workload is executed on the server level it is classified as SBC. Some examples would be TS, Hosted Apps with XenApp, Hosted Desktops with XenDesktop, etc.

There should be another classification for locally executable workloads such as DBC or CBC... (Desktop Based Computing or Client Based Computing). Some examples would be Traditional Desktops, Streamed Apps/Desktops, etc.

When you split those technologies up you have a lot more to properly compare to, because I think there is confusion of comparing Traditional Desktops to Hosted Desktops than comparing Traditional Desktops to Streamed Desktops. Even though it's both VDI, there is a definite distinction between the two. Granted Streamed Desktops is pre-mature without a Type 1 Client Hypervisor.

Ever since the concept of a Type 1 Client Hypervisor came into play I kept getting the idea of a fluid infrastructure supporting the dynamic execution of workloads locally as well as on the server, where ever best desired for the optimal performance and where use cases permit.

I hate seeing questions like is SBC Dead? Of course it isn't, nor will it ever be. VDI will compliment SBC greatly.

Actually I like putting it another way and saying VDI will take front stage because it will deliver the desktop environment then the applications and user settings compliment it by minimizing it's digital footprint.

Although I do see Appdetecitive’s points, I think the statement from Brain says it all (and I added my 0.02. albeit tangent oriented…)

"VDI and TS are both flavors of SBC (server-based computing). So I compare SBC vs traditional desktops quite a bit. So you need to figure out if SBC is right for you. Then (and only then) do I look at which flavor of SBC do you use--VDI or TS."

Of course, every solution depends on the requirements and use case. When I look at a use case for VDI vs. Traditional Physical Desktops, there are a lot of things to consider. From the virtualization side, I draw upon my experience with Server Virtualization and I already know the pros and cons there. I know that just like in the server world there may be OS instances/applications that will not work well when presented a virtualized set of hardware components. But those instances are, in most environments, the minority. I know that although  I receive a fair consolidation ratio with virtualization and save on server hardware numbers, virtualization, by definition adds storage costs. I know that by reducing the physical asset count, I will achieve my yearly “Contribute to Green” objective. I know I still have to patch and manage the OS and its layered applications. I know that because of the flexibility of virtualization I am prone to VM sprawl thereby increasing my yearly software licensing costs. All of these things are present when debating physical vs. virtual for either a server or a workstation.

However, there is one big difference between workstation and server virtualization… Users do not work within the server environment. Therefore if I choose VDI, which is nothing but a single user SBC  environment,  I must be cognizant of all the pros and cons of SBC vs. Traditional Computing because these metrics are truly what define the user experience at the endpoint. That then brings up the question, do I even need VDI at all? Could this be achieved via a low cost terminal services/Citrix solution? Again, it all depends on the requirements, scope, user workflow, and ultimately it all comes down to Applications, Applications, Applications….

I love the TS vs. VDI debate…..!!!

Brian,

An updated SBC (VDI or TS) vs Traditional Desktops is much needed.  Having someone with real-world experience, rather than just taking Gartner's word for it would be very valuable - especially to the many of the uninitiated decision makers in IT these days.  I have people ask me about that comparison all the time.  Whether it is a cost issue, security issue, or flexibility issue, there is a definite need for a comparison between traditional desktops and the various incarnations of SBC - TS, BladePCs, VDI, etc.

Sure, it's all about use cases, and I agree with your car analogy, but you would have been more correct by comparing a new Ford, Chevy, Toyota, etc., vs. a used 1982 Volkswagen Rabbit or 1979 Datsun Pickup.

I think most of the companies compare Traditional vs. Virtual Desktop, if they are thinking about a change in their Client Strategy.

Within SBC there is a great need to compare and contrast solution options and that is a complete category and effort in itself, certainly the space I deal with and care about.

However, I think it is a fair point to make that many people and organizations are in need of a solid comparisons between traditional PC approaches and SBC. They are very different in many ways, with SBC you pay more upfront to ramp but you reduce ongoing maintenance requirements. It would be hard to quantify the differences and the results would be highly susceptible to vendor FUD, but it is a worthy comparison.