At VMworld last week, VMware's senior product manager of Enterprise Desktop Solutions talked about the company's new connection broker called Virtual Desktop Manager (VDM). He said VDM can be used to create a VDI environment that "beats virtual environments based on a Windows terminal server hands down."
By submitting your personal information, you agree that TechTarget and its partners may contact you regarding relevant content, products and special offers.
He continued with "virtual desktop infrastructures built around VDM successfully deal with common issues with Windows terminal server virtualized environments, such as problems with load balance and challenges to resource control."
I think it's time to pull out my favorite response to this, which is "When all you make is a hammer, everything looks like a nail."
In all seriousness, I'm curious about what people think about this? VDI and terminal server are very similar technologies--both different forms of server-based computing. They each have certain advantages (Windows XP and isolation for VDI, more sessions on a given piece of hardware for terminal server). However, I was not aware of the [real or perceived] problem with "load balance" and "challenges to resource control" of terminal server environments that Garthsagen claimed about terminal server environments. Can anyone explain what this means?
I am a fan of VDI, and I'm a fan of terminal server. I think each has its own use cases, and the ultimate solution would marry both technologies together into a single platform. (Provision Networks' Virtual Access Suite anyone?) So whenever someone says that one technology beats another without citing a specific use case, that seems dogmatic to me.