Application Virtualization Comparison chart - Michael Keen -
Brian Madden Logo
Your independent source for desktop virtualization, consumerization, and enterprise mobility management.

Application Virtualization Comparison chart

Written on Sep 10 2008
Filed under: ,
7,859 views, 7 comments

by Michael Keen

An industry colleague, Sven Huisman, from and his comrade, Matthijs Haverink, have posted up version 2.0 of their Application Virtualization comparison chart

After reviewing the contents it seems that Sven and Matthijs have put together a pretty comprehensive chart on the top appvirt vendors and their products in this space.  Sven does say that the Symantec Appstream and SVS products are bundled together as this is the most commonly used combination.

If you all have some other products that you don't see make sure you check the products that didn't make the cut.  I'm sure Sven and Matthijs would appreciate your feedback as well for the next version.

Great job and thanks guys for putting this together.



Our Books


Guest wrote Impressive Chart
on Thu, Sep 11 2008 2:46 AM Link To This Comment

I already used their first chart from june which helped me a lot choosing the right product at that time for a customer and this chart is even more usefull with sneak previews of what the vendors are working on now !

Guest wrote great chart, i would debate the streaming functionality of xenapp though...
on Thu, Sep 11 2008 4:16 AM Link To This Comment
are the guys 100% sure than xen app caches the initial blocks needed to start the app and then streams down further blocks on demand?  bearing in mind that it is a cab file that it pushed down to the client and then extracted within a redirectional environment?  Softgrid always used an advanced streaming protocol for this, but the xenapp alternative just uses a straight network file copy right?

I just want to clarify this in my own mind...
Kata Tank wrote Re: great chart, i would debate the streaming functionality of xenapp though...
on Thu, Sep 11 2008 8:08 AM Link To This Comment

As far as I know, XenApp start pushing the 1st packet when requested at application launch. The application start to execute even if the entire package is not streamed down completly. BUT, the streaming continue in order to get the full package on the client. There is no sequence that say "Office package, only word requested, word pushed and I'm waiting for escel request to stream the rest'"... It is more "word requested, word streamed then I take this opportunity to contiue and stream the rest". Once discussed with Citrix Rep, he said it is because they want to be sure when off line to get the entire application package and not just a sequence.

In addition, I was quite sure that Citrix had a x64 profiler for x64 applications... Have to check it.

Any way,  it didn't remove anything to the quality of this document which help to compare and, as stated in page 4, to prepare to choose "the products yourself in a proof of concept before making a definitive choice".

Rich Brumpton wrote Re: great chart, i would debate the streaming functionality of xenapp though...
on Thu, Sep 11 2008 9:53 AM Link To This Comment

The Profile may be stored in a .cab file but it is never transported across the network to the client as a large file. When an applicaiton profile is created it associates each appliactions with the file it needs to initially launch. This file is streamed down to the client on initial launch and then additional files are streamed on demand.

This means that when (for instance) launch Word the streaming client fetches and starts running winword.exe (there is also a bit of stuff pulled down early like fonts), then starts grabbing DLL's as needed based on the features you use. If you never hit the clip art gallery, it never downloads any clip art.

As far as the protocol goes Streaming has traditionally used CIFS to copy those individual objects, but HTTP(S) is supported now with the release of XenApp 5. Honestly the difference in delivery time between using these methods, which are already familliar on most WAN's, is not noticibly slower than the RTSP that SoftGrid choose. It is much easier to support and troubleshoot CIFS and HTTP though and you don't have to install anything extra to turn a branch file server into a Streaming Profile repository.

Shawn Bass wrote There some inaccuracies in this, but...
on Thu, Sep 11 2008 11:54 PM Link To This Comment
It does a pretty good job of comparing the products.
Guest wrote Re: There some inaccuracies in this, but...
on Tue, Sep 23 2008 8:38 AM Link To This Comment

Hi Shawn,

We tried our best to be as accurate as possible. It was hard though because not all vendors calls the features the same and/or the features don't always work the same way. Please share your knowledge about the inaccuracies, so we can update the chart if necessary.


Sven Huisman (

Guest wrote Application Streaming
on Tue, Sep 23 2008 4:07 PM Link To This Comment

doest support 64bit applications, and has done that for a long time now.

So please upgrade the chart.



(Note: You must be logged in to post a comment.)

If you log in and nothing happens, delete your cookies from and try again. Sorry about that, but we had to make a one-time change to the cookie path when we migrated web servers.