App-V versus ThinApp? That's an unfair question to me.

Do you think new App-v could be better than ThinApp?

After my video comparing App-V 4 and 5 went up on BrianMadden.com, I was asked the following question on twitter:

       Do you think new App-v could be better than ThinApp?"  

In part, I tweeted back that is was an unfair question to ask me. Perhaps I should explain why I responded as I did. There are a few reasons that I can lay out here in this post.

The first reason it's an unfair question is that I'm biased. Now I try really hard to be fair and independent, but with App-V it's not completely possible for me. I built the original product at Softricity, so it's like one of my children. (And it's really hard to be unbiased about your children!) But at least I know and acknowledge this shortcoming.

Second, I don't use ThinApp. Oh I've kicked the tires (although not in some time), but I'm a consultant and customers are not beating down my doors about ThinApp. For the most part the customers I work with aren't using it. Even though they use ESX, they want App-V. The same goes for the many customers I have using XenApp. They want App-V. Sure there have been a few customers I work with who've tried ThinApp or are even using it for certain parts of the company, and while every one of them indicated they thought App-V was better, I can't be sure they weren't biased too. After all, if they're working with me then they are probably starting a sizable project that's heavily invested in App-V.

Third, I'm a Microsoft MVP for App-V. MVPs are not known to be "fan boys" and are usually willing to heap criticism on Microsoft when appropriate. But I do have inside access to the development team at Microsoft and, well, that just isn't happening for me at VMware. Of course to counter this, I'm also a Citrix CTP and have access to the team that develops their application virtualization product. But it doesn't sway me.

The other part of my response tweet was that I thought the old App-V was better than ThinApp. To be clear on terms here, the "new" App-V means version 5 and the "old" App-V means versions prior to version 5. The new version is a complete rewrite which I discussed in a blog post in November if you missed it.

Ruben's excellent "Smackdown" paper (http://www.pqr.com/application-virtualization-smackdown) lays out a comparison between the "old" App-V and ThinApp and others. Ruben, and the rest of the team that worked on the paper, had to work really hard to keep their own App-V biases out of that paper and probably go overboard to give others a fair shake.

The new App-V does do a lot to knock off a lot of the checkboxes that appear in that paper that don't have the "Applicable" check in them.  For the most part, these changes makes the new App-V a much stronger product than the old one.  But not always.  Sometimes a change just opens App-V up to the same criticisms that apply to ThinApp. It's possible that the only remaining criticism that ThinApp fans can make of the new App-V 5 is that it still requires a client. But I have never considered that a weakness; only a point of strength.

But hey—I don't work for the vendor, but I am biased.

__

Tim Mangan is a Microsoft MVP for App-V and a Citrix CTP.  He is the author of several books, including the new PowerShell for App-V 5 book, and can be found at TMurgent Technologies (www.tmurgent.com) where his title is "Kahuna".

Join the conversation

3 comments

Send me notifications when other members comment.

By submitting you agree to receive email from TechTarget and its partners. If you reside outside of the United States, you consent to having your personal data transferred to and processed in the United States. Privacy

Please create a username to comment.

Great timing!


Together with Jurjen and Rory we are finishing the update of the Application Vrtualization Smackdown with App-V 5.0, ThinApp 4.7.3, App-V 4.6 SP2, Cameyo, Citrix, Spoon and Symantec. Within 2 weeks the document should be final and ready to release from BrianMadden.com


Cancel

We evaluated ThinApp and App-V.   We actually already own App-V (Software Assurance) and we decided to actually pay for ThinApp because App-V didn't do what we wanted:  The ability to run multiple versions of the same app at the same time on XenApp.  Sure we could deploy the new version on the XenApp server; but nobody could use it until the last person quit the old version.  And no, we didn't want to publish a separate application for the new version.  So, not good enough.  ThinApp does fine there.


It's also 100x more simpler, requires zero infrastructure, and is completely scriptable - exactly how our environment works.  I can see the benefits App-V has over ThinApp, but we simply don't need any of them, such as app streaming.


Cancel

@Greg to be fair to App-V, it doesn't require an infrastructure either... - Depends how it's implemented..


Would still like to see service and driver support with App-V....


I'm personally a fan of using the right tool for the job... All have their strengths and weaknesses (as pointed out)... Lot to be said for the traditional install too....


Application Jukebox is a fantastic product in terms of what it can do... but it's not suited to the "managed" desktop... - Numecent needs some real direction and leadership IMO... But it can handle pretty much anything (within reason)...


Cancel

-ADS BY GOOGLE

SearchVirtualDesktop

SearchEnterpriseDesktop

SearchServerVirtualization

SearchVMware

Close