Until last week.

In his article, Doug wrote that his "inbox lit up with rumors," and that he even heard it on this episode of John C. Dvorak's Tech 5 podcast. This seemed really strange to be, because I heard nothing about this. None of the market indicators were there (increased volume, etc.). Not a single email landed in my box. Not a single call. Nothing.

As I was scratching my head about this, I got a call from ComputerWorld's Eric Lai, asking for my reaction and comment on the news.

"Where did you here that?" I asked.

"People are talking about it."

"Which exact people?"

"Douglas Brown has an article about it, and he linked to a podcast by Dvorak."

I told Eric that I thought it was hogwash--that yeah, this rumor is somewhat always there, and that this rumor really heated up earlier this year. But now? With all due respect to Doug and John Dvorak, I just wasn't hearing it. (Here's Eric's article that was ultimately published. He does a good job of presenting both sides to the story.)

So I did some digging. For those of you who are not familiar with Dvorak's Tech 5 podcast, it's basically a five-minute daily podcast about the biggest general tech news of the day. Dvorak makes heavy use of Google News for the source content for his show. (He freely and often admits this.) I listened to the episode in question. His complete mention of this rumor was the following two sentences: "Microsoft's rumored to be in the process of buying Citrix. Apparently they have to buy something--they're just in a buying mood."

So while Dvorak did in fact report this rumor, details were non-existent. Okay, time to go to Dvorak's source: Google News. I hit that site and typed in [Microsoft buying Citrix]. Not counting Doug's recent article and some others (like Eric's) that were specifically written in response to Doug's, there was actually a series of new articles (dated Sept. 10 and 11) about Microsoft buying Citrix! (The words "Microsoft" and "rumor" were in the articles, so a Google news search alert would have been triggered.)

"I'll be damned!" I thought, "maybe Dvorak had a point?"

The Google News listing was for an article titled "Will Microsoft Buy Citrix?", from SYS-CON media. The date was September 10 or 11, 2008, depending on which link you hit. (This is a problem with SYS-CON. They publish the same article on multiple sites. So a single new article looks like a lot of separate sites writing about a topic.)

When I read the subtitle, I realized something wasn't right. "According to Microsoft insiders, Forbes speculates that Microsoft might eventually buy Citrix, a market cap of $6.4 billion." Wait, what?!? A $6.4B market cap? Ummm.. No. Citrix's market cap is currently $5.3B. But it was $6.4B last January, when the rumors last flared up. And what's this about Forbes reporting on this? Isn't that also who was responsible for the January rumor?

I read more of the SYS-CON article:

Microsoft and Citrix Systems announced an expanded alliance to deliver a comprehensive set of virtualization solutions to address the desktop and server virtualization needs of customers. The two companies will work together to deliver and market joint virtualization solutions with Windows Server 2008 to help customers achieve a flexible and dynamic client computing infrastructure.

Microsoft hasn’t disclosed what it paid for the venture-backed start-up and its compression technology though one analyst took a shot and figured it was less than $100 million. Calista is backed by Greylock Partners and Lightspeed Venture Partners and quotes IDC predicting desktops using virtualized client computing will hit around 40 million seats by 2011.

Wait a minute... the text of these paragraphs also describe Microsoft's January virtualization announcement, just like I wrote back then. Reading further:

Meanwhile, Microsoft has also tightened the screws on its axis with its old friend Citrix, which is now supposed to develop a tool that blithely transfers VMs between the XenSource’s XenServer and Windows Server 2008 with Hyper-V for the sake of interoperability.

A test version of the tool is due next quarter and the final version when Hyper-V ships.

Hah! "Tool due next quarter" and "when Hyper-V ships." Umm, that shipped already!

It should be quite obvious to anyone reading this that SYS-CON had (and continues to have) some kind of glitch that's causing their old January 2008 article to show a publication date of September 11, 2008 instead. (And if you still don't believe it, check out my article from January 2008. In the first line, I linked back the the exact same URL of the SYS-CON article that magically now has the Sept 11 date! (And in that same first line of that same article, I also linked to this article on Doug's website which is word-for-word the exact article on SYS-CON!) So either SYS-CON ripped off Doug, or Doug ripped off SYS-CON. It's hard to tell because neither one of them lists an author.

So what we had was an interesting chain of events that lead to several people writing articles and saying things that are simply not true:

• SYS-CON screwed up first by allowing this old article to show up with a current date.
• Google Newsbot indexed that article and thought it was new. (Not their fault, but a key piece of this chain. Although maybe in the future they could modify their algorithm to make sure the news article is not a word-for-word duplicate of something that's already in their system?)
• John Dvorak found this article via Google News (not his fault), but then didn't realize after reading it that it was old. (Definitely his fault, and happens when he reports on stuff that he doesn't really know about.)
• Doug wrote his rumor based on Dvorak's podcast. And it's very possible that the people who "lit up" his inbox were just other people that heard Dvorak's podcast too.
• Then people like Eric reported on what Doug and John wrote.
• And then there's Jason Perlow, who just "happened" to write an article on September 13 (two days later) saying that Microsoft should buy Citrix, without mentioning Doug or Dvorak's piece at all! What did he think, that if it did happen he could claim some sort of crystal ball future predicting brilliance? Not cool dude.

The bottom line is that all of this is just a rehash of the January 2008 rumor.

The timing of this is pretty interesting considering the whole UAL / Google News thing from last week. The lesson here is that you can't trust Google News to be your primary source for anything, and if an article seems big and sensational, you need to dig into the facts to see if it's legit or not.

Read More on Brian Madden

Citrix Provisioning Server has great new features, including a scalable database architecture based on
Microsoft SQL Server 2005, a commonly supported and well-known management console via
Microsoft Management Console (MMC), a standard virtual hard disk format (Microsoft VHD), and
an intelligent, hierarchical approach to managing a Provisioning Server implementation, Citrix
Provisioning Server 5.0 offers organizations a solid foundation upon which to build a flexible, scalable,
dynamic delivery center powered by Citrix server (XenServer), desktop (XenDesktop), and
application (XenApp) virtualization technologies.

Sanbolic Melio FS is a 64bit clustered file system that provides multiple servers with simultaneous
access to the same storage partition or Logical Unit Number (LUN) on a SAN. With its advanced
transaction managers, symmetrical architecture, full journaling, and dynamic clustering capability,
Melio FS ensures the integrity of the data stored on the shared LUN by controlling read/write access
to the data by multiple servers at any given time.

Sanbolic LaScala is a host-based volume manager that incorporates advanced transaction management,
locking, and clustering technology, to simplify management and improve the flexibility and reliability
of shared storage environments. Using LaScala, multiple hosts can share access to and administer
storage volumes spanning multiple storage controllers and access to volumes can be secured by
defining host access to specific volumes using native Windows security tools such as ACLs and Active
Directory. In conjunction with a clustered file system like Melio FS, LaScala provides high performance
shared access to data on volumes striped across many disks residing on multiple storage controllers.

The complete guide can be downloaded here

Read More on Ruben Spruijt

The article talks about the impact that the DNC is having on downtown Denver, specifically how businesses and employees are dealing with the extra 50,000 people expected to be in the area from Monday through Thursday. Some businesses, such as salons, are seeing a drop in reservations for those days, and are debating staying open. Others are forging ahead like the corporate stalwarts they are. Still, some companies are allowing their workers to work from home to avoid the inevitable street closures and swarms of people. And that's when a seemingly innocuous article became work.

Catherine Tsai, of the Associated Press, wrote:

"Citrix Online did not release specific numbers but said it has noticed an uptick in registrants and users in the Denver area for its services, which allow users to access their office computers from home and hold online meetings. It is offering 45 days of free service around Denver and St. Paul, Minn., which is hosting the Republican National Convention."

First, I know some security people whose propellors just spun right off of their hats. The thought of people accessing their work computers from home via an unmanaged remote connection almost certainly has them in fits right now, and they're scrambling to block access to the GoToMyPC servers.

Those guys aside (sorry InfoSec geeks), I think it's pretty cool to see this new wave version of telecommuting on such a grand stage. In the U.S., the Democratic and Republican National Conventions are showcases for each of the political parties, and it is at these conventions that the candidates for President are officially announced. This is just the venue to show the country how really practical and useful the technology we use every day can be, and I think Citrix has done a really great job taking advantage of such a golden opportunity. I'd be happy to see some more mainstream media outlets pick up on the article and spread the word.

We've talked before about the rise of the employee-owned PC, but I haven't seen it gain a whole lot of traction. If I were to guess at a reason, I'd come up with two things. The first is that the "kids" that Brian referred to in his article last year are still kids, or at least green and not yet very vocal in the workplace. The second, and perhaps a more immediately fixable reason, is that people just aren't aware that they can telecommute and work as effectively as they do at the office.

That's what I hope this sort of situation (and the press coverage) can do - introduce the concept of full-featured telecommuting to the masses. That's how the movement is going to start. Management isn't likely to decide one day that all their people should work from home (although it's happened before). In 2007, Ben Worthen of CIO magazine wrote talked about the concept of the "Shadow IT Department" where saavy users are bringing in and using their own applications and methods to do their jobs, and how CIO's and management are instinctually snuffing out the small groups of revolutionaries. Hopefully, CIO's and employees alike can find some inspiration here and look for places to apply all the great technologies we now have to create more streamlined, efficient, and cost-effective workplaces.

Read More on Gabe Knuth

Brian Madden and Kevin Goodman have been doing this session since BriForum 2006 in Washington, D.C., evolving it over time as new servers and platforms have been released. From the session description:

This session documents the steps of a logon to a Citrix XenApp Server from a successful credentials negotiation to the displaying of a published application. Each step of the process will be described in detail, including how virtual channels, user profiles, and user sessions are initialized. This is the session from past BriForums that produced the "Logon Chart," and we'll be releasing an updated chart to include XenApp 5 and Windows Server 2008.

To view the video, click here or on the screen capture below, and the flow chart can be downloaded here (4MB JPG).

Read More on Gabe Knuth

I used to be Citrix-certified. Back in September 1998 I passed the 1Y0-302 exam, "Citrix MetaFrame 1.0 Certification," with a score of 76%. When Citrix released the CCEA series of exams for MetaFrame 1.8, I took all four exams in a month to become one of the first CCEAs. (We got a jacket for being in the first fifty, if I remember correctly.)

But since 2000, I haven't taken a single exam. I've been lucky not to work at companies that required certifications. (And of course writing a book about Citrix in 2001/2002 pretty much guaranteed that I'd never have to take another Citrix exam for the rest of my life.)

Nevertheless, people still ask whether I'm certified. And when they find out I'm not, the next question I'm invariably asked is, "Do you think you could pass the exam if you just showed up and took it?"

I thought that was kind of a cool idea. If I can pass the exam without any exam prep--just my 10+ years of actual hands-on experience, then that is a really great endorsement of the quality of the exam. And if I fail, well, I guess that means the exam doesn't relate to the real world.

So the stage was set. Last week I went to Citrix.com, clicked around the education pages until I found the links, and signed myself up for exam 1Y0-259, "Citrix XenApp (Presentation Server 4.5): Administration." My plan was to just "show up" for the exam, with absolutely no preparation whatsoever. (And when I say "no preparation," I mean "no preparation." I did not read the syllabus. I did not take any practice exams. I did not read any brain dumps. In fact, I didn't even fire up a Citrix server just to run through the admin consoles. I literally did nothing different leading up to this exam.

The Exam

I honestly can't remember the last time I took a certification exam--certainly it was before I left HP to become independent back in May 2003. I chose the New Horizons testing center on 42nd Street in Manhattan for today's exam.

I ran from the subway to the building through a downpour, umbrella-less, to find that even though the New Horizons reception area was on the first floor, the exams were administered in the basement. (Some things never change!) I went downstairs and signed in with the exam receptionist where I was told that my exam was still downloading. (Again, never changes!) I showed my two forms of ID, surrendered my Blackberry, and followed her into the exam room with my three blank sheets of paper and my new Bic pen.

In that instant I was mentally teleported back to 1998 in Cleveland, Ohio. All white walls, crappy old computers, and a mouse whose buttons were stained with the caffeine that's leeched through the fingers of the years of exam-takers ahead of me.

Click-click-click. "Good luck!" Before I knew it the receptionist was gone and I was staring at an electronic NDA with "Agree and continue" and "Do not agree" buttons. In all the years I've been taking IT exams, I never actually took the time to read one of these NDAs. Since the main purpose of me spending 150 bucks on this exam was to write about the experience, I figured I should at least glance at a paragraph or two of this NDA.

Blah blah blah... you cannot disclose the questions... blah blah... you cannot disclose general topics were... wait, what?!? I cannot disclose which topics were on the exam? But doesn't Citrix publish a syllabus online?

Whatever. I can still write about whether I think the exam was a good exam or not as long as I talk broadly. So I think I'm fine. A quick click of the "Agree and continue" button and I'm off!

My timer starts counting down and I'm staring at Question 1. It was at this point that I realized I'd made a huge mistake. I know that I agreed that I would not disclose blah blah about the exam, but I'm going to purposefully break that NDA for this one question. The first question of my 1Y0-259, "Citrix XenApp (Presentation Server 4.5): Administration exam was the following: (I am not making this up.)

Which of the following cipher suites are supported by Secure Gateway? (choose two)

• NET
• COM
• ORG
• GOV

Are you f***ing kidding me? THIS is the first question? What have I gotten myself into? Whose stupid idea was it to just "show up" and take the test?!?

I mean imagine this: Here I am... I'm Brian. I wrote the book, okay? I just waltzed into this CCA exam expecting to cruise on through. 95 minutes total time? Pfft! It'll take me 15 minutes. I'll be home before lunch.

Questions 2 through 66: Not as bad

Needless to say, the rest of the questions were easier. (Read "more appropriate.")

Honestly I was pleasantly surprised by the exam. Citrix has done a great job of asking a bunch of really decent questions about all aspects of running a Presentation Server farm. In fact, I might go so far as to say that these were the same types of questions that I'd ask a potential candidate if I were trying to assess his or her grasp of Citrix.

Don't get me wrong... There were still plenty of B.S. questions--questions that I swear had more than one answer or that were so obscure no one would need to know them. But overall, I'd say about 80% of the questions were good solid questions that I felt a decent Citrix admin should know. And that's a far cry from ten years ago, when the exam was about 90% B.S. and 10% good stuff.

The result?

Passing this exam (and therefore receiving your Citrix Certified Administrator designation) requires a score of 68%. In the end, I passed with a 77%. (1% higher than my first Citrix exam from 1998 when I actually studied.) So I am now Citrix-certified once again! [UPDATE: No I'm not. There is an online e-learning course you're supposed to take too. I'm talking to Citrix today to find out more about what they're thinking here, because right now, this seems like total marketing BS. I'll post more as I learn it.]

Citrix deserves a lot of credit here. I know the CCA is just one exam. And sure it has its flaws. But all-in-all it's a decent test and probably about as good as any vendor could do. So should you go out and get Citrix-certified? It depends. If getting certified will get a raise at work, then yes! If you'll get a bonus, then yes! If you're afraid of getting laid off and you'll be in the job market? Sure, it can't hurt.

Then again, I've spent the majority of my career as an uncertified doer, and real world experience will beat out certifications any day.

Read More on Brian Madden

So, in an effort to keep up with the times, today we're releasing the updated Xen vs. VMware video from BriForum 2008 in Chicago. In this session, Ron will share his results of running Xen and VMware ESX head-to-head on the same hardware. In addition to normal server testing, Ron also tested Citrix Presentation Servers as guests in each environment.

The slide deck for this presentation can be downloaded here.  To see the video, click here or on the image below.

Read More on Gabe Knuth

Read More on Gabe Knuth

In this session, Thomas will talk about and show you the new features of XenApp Web 5.0. To view the presentation, click on the screen shot below. The associated PowerPoint can be downloaded here.

While you're checking out the video, take a look at the new screen swapping feature (the arrows under the head video) and the full screen feature (icon in the lower left corner).

Read More on Gabe Knuth

The “Application and Desktop Delivery solutions” diagram has been developed in order to be able to provide a complete overview of the various applications and desktop delivery solutions. This article was written by Ruben Spruijt in order to introduce the highlights of the delivery solutions in 30 minutes.  There are so many delivery solutions that the functionalities can be confused through incomplete knowledge. The point of this article is not to describe all of the application scenarios or the technical advantages or disadvantages, but purely as a high level, vendor dependent overview of the start of technology in the applications and desktop delivery segment. Hopefully this overview will be helpful!

Workplace scenarios

Trusted and Untrusted workplace scenarios . Trusted workplaces are devices that have a network connection to existing IT backed infrastructure via the LAN  or WAN.

Untrusted workplaces are devices that have no secure LAN or WAN connection with the existing IT backed infrastructure. Examples are devices that are active at home, at a stage work station or in connection with security in a separate network segment.

Each organization has various work station and application delivery scenarios.  It is important for the IT department to have insight into the different workstation and delivery scenarios.

This reflects how the users are working with or would want to work with the applications.

Secure Access

Secure Access solutions assure secure access of untrusted devices to corporate IT. The symbol consists of two parts, the shield stands for secure and the stoplight stands for access. The access can also be close linked depending on the chosen secure access solution. Solutions that realize secure access scenarios are, for example, Cisco ASA, Citrix Access Gateway and Juniper SSL VPN.

Web Application Acceleration

Web Application Acceleration solutions assure acceleration and security of web based applications.  Today we all make use of these solutions.  The largest number of the internet applications that we all use, such as Google, MSN, eBay or marketplace, make use of these applications.  Web application acceleration solutions are not only for the large internet organizations, but also for your web applications. Solutions that make web application acceleration and security possible are, for example, Citrix Netscaler and F5.

Desktop broker

The desktop of connection broker determines which remote desktop will be made available to the client. With this it is possible to make available a dedicated or a pool of remote desktops. The automatic turn on, deletion or pausing of remote desktops is a functionality that can be provided by a desktop broker. There are various suppliers of connection brokers. Citrix with XenDesktop, Provision Networks VAS and VMware with VDM are the most well known solutions.  Depending upon the supplier, the connection broker can have additional functions. Functionality such as a web interface that assures secure (SSL) and easy access to the remote desktops, Active Directory integration, USB port redirection and integration with Terminal Services in order to provide access to a Terminal Server or a personal Remote Desktop through rules set by IT.

Application Streaming and Virtualization

With the aid of application streaming and virtualization, windows applications can be used without any changes to the local operating system, let alone that application software is installed on a workstation.  In other words: the application is implemented, saves data and prints as if it is locally present, without anything being changed on the local client.  Sources such as CPU, memory, hard disks and network cards are used for the execution  of this application. Application Streaming and Virtualization assure the availability of applications on desktops, laptops, VDI and Server Based Computing platforms whereby the application is executed on the “client” platform.  No changes are made to the platform.

A number of advantages for Application Virtualization are:  installation, upgrade, roll back and the ease of application support.  Installations of applications is now in the past; conflicts are not longer possible.  It creates a dynamic application delivery infrastructure.

Solutions for Application Streaming and Virtualization are: Microsoft Application Virtualization (App-V), Altiris SVS, VMware ThinApp, InstallFree and Citrix XenApp client side virtualization.

OS Streaming

OS streaming makes it possible that VDI, SBC and desktops start up and work from an image file saved on the network.  A single image can be used by multiple workstations simultaneously.  The advantage is that complete operating systems, including applications and clients can be made available quickly and securely.  The availability of a single image on multiple VDI, SBC and desktops is possible without conflict. Through this, an upgrade or roll back of an OS is possible quickly, easily and without great risks. When virtual desktops make use of OS streaming in a VDI environment, this solution also saves valuable storage and the administration of the virtual desktops is simplified.  Virtual or physical machines that make us of OS streaming thus become “stateless devices”. Citrix Provisioning Server is a solution that makes OS streaming possible.

Virtual Desktop Infrastructure

VDI, Virtual Desktop infrastructure = “Dedicated Virtual Remote Desktop”

Virtual Desktop Infrastructure (VDI) is a solution for remote access to Windows XP/Vista or Linux desktops that are implemented on a virtual machine in the data center.  VDI can be a server hosted solution (online computing) or a client side solution (offline computing). This overview describes VDI from the server hosted solution. With this, access to the desktop is not bound to one location or end user device. Each user possesses a unique personal desktop environment. Program execution, data processing and data storage take place centrally on a personal desktop.  The information appears on the client screen via RDP/ICA/VNC/RGS or SPICE. The protocol for the reproduction of the correct information dependant on operating system, bandwidth, application properties and technical or company requirements.  Just as other solutions for desktop delivery, VDI consists of various infrastructure components that assure administration, load balancing, session control and secure access to virtual work stations. Suppliers of complete VDI solutions are VMware and Citrix. Suppliers of Virtual Infrastructure solutions are VMware, Citrix, Parallels and Microsoft.

Bladed workstations

Bladed workstation = “Dedicated  Physical Remote Desktop”

BladePC, a physical professional workstation in a blade enclosure, offers many of the advantages offered by VDI. A BladePC solution consists of hardware as well as software. The hardware consists of a physical professional workstation; the software assures that access to the physical workstation is possible.  The software consists of a minimum of two components: a transmitter and a receiver. The transmitter is installed on the BladePC and the receiver on the client desktop, laptop or ThinClient. The BladePC solution offers, in addition to the VDI advantages, even extra advantages such as:

Access to graphic intensive applications: In combination with HP Remote Graphics Software, this solution provides graphic intensive applications just as fast as the end user would expect.  2D, 3D and multimedia applications are executed centrally on the physical BladePC and reproduced locally on the client workstation via the RGS protocol.

Use of resource intensive applications: Resource intensive applications make full use of the resources present on the physical machine. It is a workstation-class centralized workstation. Performance is maximized through this.

Server Based Computing

Server Based Computing (SBC) = “Shared Remote Desktop”

SBC is a solution for access to desktops or loose applications on terminal servers in a data center. Access to the desktop or application is not bound to a location or end user device and program execution and data processing occur centrally on the terminal servers. The data are saved on a fileserver.  The information appears on the client screen via RDP or ICA. SBC consists of various infrastructure components for administration, load balancing, session control and support.  Some advantages of SBC are the rapid and secure availability of applications, low TCO, location and workstation independent application access.  Suppliers of SBC solutions are, for example, Microsoft, Citrix and Provision Networks.

Client Management

Each professional IT organization will make use of a Client Management solution. Client Management provides, for example, OS deployment, patch management, application and client deployment, asset management, integration with service desk and remote control.  Client management solutions are, for example, Microsoft System Center Configuration Manager (SCCM), RES Wisdom, Altiris Deployment Solution, LANdesk Client Management and Novel ZENworks.

In conclusion

The solutions that are reproduced in the solutions diagram assure that applications and desktops can be offered in various manners and in an effective and dynamic ways.

What is THE best solution? There are various business needs and technical requirements that together determine which solution is the best one for you.

In order to make the correct choice, it is important to know the pros and cons of the various solutions. Workshops are often held for this purpose. In addition to this form of information provision, there are various technical in depth articles written by Ruben Spruijt.

Read More on Ruben Spruijt

This video created a lot of excitement. Personally, I don't understand what the big deal is. There have been ICA clients available for the Blackberry for years, and I don't know anyone who uses them apart from occasional maintenance tasks. But now that the iPhone supports Exchange, and now that the iPhone is so popular that the new workforce will "force" IT to support them, what does this mean for using ICA on the iPhone? Will people actually use iPhones for their jobs, or will this just be a cool party trick?

Citrix's Chris Fleck has blogged extensively about what he calls the "Nirvana" smart phone where he's looking for the perfect device mobile. Could this be the iPhone?

Read More on Brian Madden

The following products are included:

• XenApp
• XenDesktop
• XenServer
• NetScaler (includes rack-mountable stencils and NetScaler MPX)
• WANScaler (including the new Branch Repeater)
• Access Gateway
• Application Firewall
• Provisioning Server
• EdgeSight
• Password Manager
• Workflow Studio

The stencil can be downloaded here:

Read More on Ruben Spruijt

These clients support Windows Vista, XP, 2003 & 2000

Citrix is looking for users to test drive the latest version of the XenApp Client. There is no need to update your XenApp Server farms to participate in this Beta. This client, due to ship with the next major release of XenApp, has been designed to work with all existing versions of Presentation Server 4.X Servers. All you need to do is upgrade your client software.  

This software is still in active development and, as such, Citrix does not recommend its use in a production environment. Support for this Beta client is available only through the Citrix Support Forum.  

Downloads are available here via Citrix.com

Read More on Michael Keen

Recently Brian Madden posted a couple of articles on his website regarding the pricing of XenDesktop in regards to the pricing of XenApp. In the most recent article he states, "Too bad the CXOs of the world are going to read that XenDesktop is the 'cheap' way to XenApp and want to deploy it for all their users immediately."

Well the CXOs of the world are going to read that XenDesktop is the 'cheap' way to XenApp BECAUSE Brian keeps writing it. But just because Brian keeps writing it doesn't mean it's true.

For a fraction of customers it is true, but for most customers it's not. In fact, some customers could end up paying two to three times much just in licensing costs alone just to do XenDesktop in lieu of XenApp, despite a concurrent XenDesktop license being cheaper than a concurrent XenApp license.

Why? Because you can't build a XenDesktop solution (nor a XenApp solution for that matter), without paying Microsoft and hardware vendors in addition to Citrix. While Citrix charges less to do XenDesktop than XenApp for the customer to actually do XenDesktop rather than XenApp, it could costs significantly more overall.

I'm not going to go into the increased hardware costs for XenDesktop, as that's already been hashed out in previous responses to Brian's articles. What hasn't been discussed much is how much Microsoft makes in a XenDesktop solution (or any VDI or Blade PC solution for that matter).

We're all familiar with how Microsoft makes money in a Terminal Server solution. For every Terminal Server you stand up, you pay Microsoft for a Windows Server license. For every client (or user) that connects, you pay Microsoft for a TS CAL. Simple enough.

But with XenDesktop, people assume it works the same as a licensing a TS solution. It's doesn't. Sure, the VECD looks like an equivalent to a TS CAL. And at $23 MSRP, that's a lot cheaper than a $119 TS CAL. One could look at that and say, "if I have 300 clients, Microsoft gets $6900 ($23 x 300) if I choose XenDesktop and $35,700 ($119 x 300) if I choose XenApp. XenDesktop is a no brainer, right?"

Not so fast. You have to remember that both a TS CAL and a VECD are just a license to remotely connect to a licensed operating system—they don't actually license the operating system. For TS, the license for the operating system is done by buying Windows 2003 and installing it on the server. If I need a second TS because I want to load balance those 300 users across two servers, I have to buy a second Windows 2003 server license, (and so on and so on). So for 300 users I'm looking at 300 TS CALs and a few Windows 2003 server licenses.

But in XenDesktop—and any VDI, blade PC, or remote single-user Windows solution out there—the operating system still needs to be licensed. But it's not like TS where one operating system license is installed on a server that's shared via a pool of TS CALs that client devices check out as they connect. Microsoft ties VECD Software Assurance (SA), which is tied to a Vista OS, which is tied to a client device. That means for those 300 users to be licensed by Microsoft for XenDesktop, Vista Enterprise has to be purchased 300 times. And then with 300 upgrades to SA, I'm eligible to buy those 300 VECDs (assuming you're in the right Microsoft open licensing agreement to get Vista Enterprise, which is the only edition of Vista where VECD is available).

So with XenApp, I buy 300 TS CALs and a few Windows 2003 server licenses. But with XenDesktop I buy 300 Vista licenses, 300 upgrades to SA, and 300 VECD licenses.

Now a good argument can be said that some customers are already there, as all their clients may already be licensed for Vista. But the differences don't stop with the initial purchase. They keep going.

In a TS environment, both the server OS license and the TS CALs are one time purchases. I can use the solution as long as I want. That's not true with VECD. If the SA and VECD are not renewed annually, then that client is no longer licensed for remote connections to Vista (or XP). So even customers who already have Vista licenses for all their clients will eventually eat up all the savings XenDesktop provided over XenApp in year one through required Microsoft annual renewals (Citrix has SA renewals too, but they're optional, and the cost of Citrix SA is the same percentage with either XenDesktop or XenApp).

Now Microsoft does have another option, which is the VECD for thin clients. With that all the client needs is the VECD (no Vista purchase or SA upgrade necessary). But instead of $23, it's $110. So back to our scenario, if I have 300 clients, Microsoft gets $33,000 ($110 x 300) for XenDesktop and $35,700 ($119 X 300) for XenApp. XenDesktop is a no brainer again, right?

Wrong. This VECD for thin clients is annual too. Don't renew it, then don't ever connect with that thin client to Vista (or XP) again. After a few annual renewals of these VECDs for thin clients, the savings XenDesktop provided over XenApp in year one is again eaten up through required Microsoft renewals.

But wait, that's not all. What about the TS environments where the customer has assigned their TS CALs in "per user" mode, like if they have 100 users that have 300 devices they use to connect with? In that scenario, with TS I just need 100 TS CALs. But with XenDesktop I need 300 VECDs. There is no user mode licensing for VECD. Why? Because again, all the licenses (the Vista OS, the SA, the VECD) are to a specific devices. There's no way for Microsoft to tie it to a user (other than having a named user for the device that all the Microsoft licenses are tied to, but that's still a per device mode). Using XenDesktop in lieu of XenApp in this scenario is a money pit.

And of course there are those customers that look at this and say, "Well, I'll just avoid that whole mess and stick with doing VDI with Windows XP." Sorry, Microsoft doesn't allow that. Well, they do, but to be licensed for remote connections to Windows XP you still need the VECD license. And the only way to get that for the client device is to buy Vista Enterprise for the client device and upgrade it to SA. You can then use your "downgrade rights" to use that VECD as a license to remotely connect to Windows XP. So sticking with Windows XP and XenDesktop is not a way to avoid all of these Vista, SA, and VECD license costs.

Tthe bottom line is there are some customers who could likely save money for a few years choosing XenDesktop over XenApp. These are customers who already have all of their clients licensed for Vista with all of them are upgraded to SA, and doing XenDesktop (or any VDI, or Blade PC solution) is just an effort of adding an annual VECD cost to their environment. Now whether the money they save covers the additional hardware they need to do VDI over TS is another debate all together.

For those that need more than just a simple VECD purchase (because their Vista is not on SA, or they aren't licensed for Vista yet), odds are they will pay much more for XenDesktop over time than they will for XenApp, even if they happen to save money in the first year or two. Until Microsoft either releases the annual requirement on remote connections to Vista (and XP), or forces TS CALs into an annual subscription as well, this won't change.

Ultimately all of the comparisons above assume that XenDesktop or XenApp would fit the customer's needs. And if this is true, the customer would be better off using XenApp, as with ongoing licensing costs, and additional hardware needed, XenDesktop is more expensive. But if XenApp doesn't fit the customer's needs and XenDesktop does, then why even debate which one is cheaper? Just buy XenDesktop.

Read More on Brian Madden

From the session description:

As more and more users rely on Citrix/Terminal Services for application delivery, extremely fast login times have become more and more of a necessity. Not only does it enhance the user experience it also creates less resistance for porting applications. Between profile creation, policy processing, folder redirection, antivirus software, and “roaming profiles” login times seem to be increasing! Users expect consistent, reliable, and fast login times regardless of server user load.

Attendees will learn:

• Detailed overview of the user login process.
• Various system settings which dramatically decrease login time.
• How to enable User Environment Debugging to trace user login experience to determine bottlenecks.
• Streamline GPO policy processing time.
• Proper antivirus software configuration and other various filter driver tweaks.
• Various redirector and workstation service settings which enhance performance.
• Understanding of how various disk/profile layouts affect login time.
• How to reduce user profile size.
• Demonstrate efficient methods for creating “roaming” user profiles/settings.
• Recommended methods and techniques for folder redirection including Favorites, My Documents, IE history, cookies, and others.
• Monitoring/Reporting on user login/application experience.

Michael will be updating his session once again for this year's BriForum in Chicago to include multi-threaded logons.  Be sure to check out the session description.

To watch the session click here or on the screen shot below.  You can download the PPT that accompanies the presentation here .

Read More on Gabe Knuth

Many of you know that I love the concept VDI and that I think VDI will ultimately replace TS-based desktop virtualization in a few years. (In fact, I'm taking the "VDI" side in the "VDI versus Terminal Services" debate at BriForum in a few weeks.) But I want to point out that I love concept of VDI if it's done right. And today, neither Citrix nor VMware do it right. (For the record, I am 100% convinced that both Citrix and VMware will do it right after a few more product revs—maybe after another 18 months or so. But today VDI is largely a hypothetical mental exercise for me.)

The fact that today's remoting protocols have some limitations seems lost on VMware and Citrix--at least in their marketing messaging. For example, the only "real limitations" of XenDesktop that Citrix's Sumit Dhawan mentions are "offline access requirements or advanced peripheral support." In last week's letter to partners, VMware's Jeff Jennings wrote that "One of the main value propositions of a virtual desktop is that all your applications work in a VDI environment." Neither vendor mentions the real inconvenient truth—that neither ICA nor RDP can remote all applications.

How important is it that the remote display protocol does "everything"?

Citrix's ICA protocol is light years ahead of Microsoft's RDP protocol, which is the protocol VMware uses for their VDI solution. (Unless you buy specific thin client devices—err, "desktop appliances"—that include other protocols, like Wyse TCX.) In fact I think that ICA is a huge reason to use XenDesktop over VMware VDI. But like I said, ICA still can't do everything.

How close is ICA to doing "everything?" 90 percent? 92? 99?

Actually it doesn't matter. Because anything less than 100.00% means there will be some use cases where ICA (and therefore XenDesktop) doesn't work. And if this is the case, then a customer will need some method in addition to ICA to deliver 100% of their apps. And if they have to introduce an additional method, who cares whether they have to use that additional method for 1% or 5% or 50% of their apps? Once they break that "additional method" barrier, they've just added huge complexity to their environment.

Think of it like this. If a customer cannot remote ALL of their apps, then they have to start start making choices about which apps get remoted. They start going through their app list one-by-one, saying yes, yes, yes, no, no, yes, no, yes... They ultimately end up with a mixed solution of some remote and some local apps.

A mixed solution of some remote apps and some local apps.... Sound familiar? It should, because that's exactly what everyone is doing today. Some apps are installed or streamed locally, and some are delivered remotely via TS-based solutions. This is fine, and widely accepted.

What's the value of partial VDI?

Most people would probably agree that the concept of VDI would be cool if it would work for 100% of desktops, users, and apps. Everyone agrees that we're not there yet—at least not with Citrix or VMware. So "full" VDI is a future concept.

If today's environments are a mix of local and remote, and if today's VDI only works in certain use cases, why even bother introducing VDI into an environment if it can't get rid of the TS-based apps and the local apps? Now you'd just have three different app architectures instead of two. (With the new architecture introducing a whole new set of servers, products, costs, and complexities.)

Citrix's Sumit Dhawan blogged about the value that XenDesktop can add to an existing XenApp environment. Quoting directly from his blog, Sumit listed three three benefits of using XenApp to deliver apps into XenDesktop:

1. Dynamic provisioning of virtual desktop implies that a user's desktop always stays pristine with no apps installed - all apps are delivered (using streaming or hosting technologies) enabling an on demand assembly of personalized desktop at the time when a user logs on.
2. Predictability and Capacity planning on VDI - Separating all LOB apps that have unpredictable (problematic) resource requirements, and running them on separate XenApp servers, prevents over-provisioning the VDI server architecture and can reduce the number of servers required for virtual desktops, improving the TCO of virtual desktops.
3. Application and license management - each app can be controlled granularly. You have complete visibility into who has access to the applications and who accessed which application when.

I don't fully agree with any of these points. To each, I respond:

1. True, but if you're using XenApp for a shared (stateless) desktop, then why even bother with XenDesktop? Why not just serve desktops from XenApp?
2. True, but (again), why even bother with XenDesktop? Why not just build a XenApp "desktop silo," and serve the desktops in a much most cost effective way from a TS-based XenApp server that double-hops to XenApp published apps?
3. True, but (again still), why add XenDesktop to this mix?

I agree 100% with Sumit's three listed advantages listed above. However, these are advantages of pure XenApp environments with app silos plus desktop silos. These are NOT advantages of combining XenApp with XenDesktop. In fact, this points to disadvantages of XenDesktop, because it just adds extra cost and extra complexity into an environment.

So for the general desktop user, why even bother? Sure, much like Terminal Server, there are very specific, very niche scenarios where VDI makes sense today. And for these cases, great! Go for it! Use VDI. But for the general user population, the industry needs a display protocol that works for 100.00% of applications. If even 1% of the apps don't work, a customer would have to build out some additional solution to deliver those apps. And if that's the case, then why even bother with VDI? (By the way, Qumranet and Teradici get a lot closer to 100.00% remote display protocol app compatibility today. I'll write more on those two solutions next week.)

Citrix's other ICA problem: ICA on XenDesktop is NOT the same ICA that's on XenApp

I wrote about the implementation of ICA in Citrix's XenDesktop product called PortICA a few months ago. Now that XenDesktop is out, Citrix has confirmed that several of the ICA features in XenApp are not available in the implementation of ICA in XenDesktop. And they've done it in the typical Citrix way—they've hidden and spun the crap out of it. Check out the quoted text from the official Citrix.com XenDesktop Technical FAQ:

Q: How do the ICA capabilities in XenDesktop compare with that in XenApp?
A: All of the ICA functionality of XenApp 4.5 FP1 is available in XenDesktop. The following are not yet supported:

• Kerberos SSPI or SmartCard Virtual Channels
• SpeedScreen multimedia acceleration & zero latency
• PDA sync, TWAIN, shadowing and SmartAuditor
• Audio on Vista
• ICA perfmon counters (SMC) and end-user experience metrics

I love how they say "all" of the functionality is supported, but then go on to list a bunch of thing that are not supported. :) I also love how they have five bullet items, but they put stuff like shadowing and PDA sync together on the same line to pretend like it's only five things that aren't supported, when really it's more like eleven. Sigh!

I'm sure ICA will get there. Maybe Citrix will license something like Qumranet's Spice protocol or Teradici's PC-over-IP (and call it ICA-plus)? Maybe VMware will license something? But until that time, XenDesktop and VMware VDI are niche solutions only.

Read More on Brian Madden

You can get it here.

Thanks again Matt!!!!!

Read More on Michael Keen

XenDesktop Express (free)

• Basic functionality for VM-based desktops
• Includes the free version of XenServer
• Max 10 users

XenDesktop Standard ($75)

• No user limit
• Adds secure remote access for outside the firewall connections

XenDesktop Advanced ($195)

• Adds Citrix Provisioning Server (Ardence)
• Adds XenMotion and resource pooling on the back end

XenDesktop Enterprise ($295)

• Adds Citrix Presentation Server / XenApp.

XenDesktop Platinum ($395)

• Adds EdgeSight
• Adds desktop support / shadowing via GoToAssist
• Adds WAN optimization via WANScaler (you still have to buy the appliance though)
• Adds EasyCall

The big news here is that XenDesktop Enterprise (and XenDesktop Platinum) include XenApp for free. The catch is that this free version of XenApp can only be used to deliver (via ICA or streaming) applications into XenDesktop desktops.

The other big announcement from Citrix was that existing customers of XenApp Platinum (i.e. those who have already paid $600 per user) can now buy a XenDesktop Advanced add-on for only $95 per user, instead of the full price of $295.

Therefore, if you want to get both XenDesktop and XenApp:

*The free XenApp included here can only be used to deliver apps to the XenDesktop desktops

It's important to note that XenDesktop and XenApp are still two wholly and completely separate products. There's an "integrated" end user experience in that you can build a single Citrix Web Interface portal that can aggregate applications and desktops from both XenApp and XenDesktop environments, but on the back end, XenApp and XenDesktop are still separate installs, separate management consoles, separate farms, and separate databases. In other words, these special deals are license bundles only, not actual product integrations.

As a side note, I still thing XenDesktop is a great product overall, but with several pros and cons. I'll take a look at the pros and cons later this week. This article is purely focusing on the licensing / bundling / pricing of XenDesktop when combined with XenApp.

Citrix application tax complexities

Do these bundling options fix Citrix's application tax?

My first reaction was "Yes! This is cool!" (And to be fair, anytime any vendor offers something for free or a heavy discount, it's cool.) But after thinking through this, it still seems kind of weird.

To understand why, let's take a step back. Citrix has offered Terminal Server-based application delivery solutions for ten years. So now in 2008, why isn't every single application in the world delivered via Terminal Services? Two reasons. The first is that some apps or use cases are not compatible with Terminal Server. (app won't install, users need to be able to install their own apps, etc.) The second reason the whole world doesn't use Terminal Services is that some apps or use cases are just not compatible with server-based computing. (apps are needed offline, apps are graphically-intense, apps need realtime audio, etc.) VDI products like Citrix XenDesktop solve the first problem since the apps don't run on TS, but they don't solve the second problem since they're still SBC solutions.

So what's this have to do with Citrix's application tax complexity?

If you can get all of your applications and use cases to be compatible with SBC, great, because you can buy XenDesktop for $295/$395 and get XenApp for free. (Remember the version of XenApp that's bundled with XenDesktop can only be used to deliver apps to XenDesktop sessions.) But if you can't use an SBC desktop then you need to buy the old school version of XenApp for $350-$600.

In other words, you're penalized $55-$205 per user for using XenApp with a non-XenDesktop-managed desktop.

Now that XenDesktop includes XenApp for free, who will buy XenApp?

Depends on who you ask. We've already seen that Citrix has begun shifting resources away from XenApp to focus on XenDesktop. But I'm solidly with Shawn Bass who argues there are major limitations to VDI solutions today, and they cannot be used for the wholesale replacement of traditional desktops. So XenApp in its expensive standalone form should be around awhile, right? Too bad the CXOs of the world are going to read that XenDesktop is the "cheap" way to XenApp and want to deploy it for all their users immediately.

One final somewhat random thought about this pricing weirdness. One of the cool future use cases of XenDesktop that Citrix mentioned a few times at Synergy last week was the potential for reverse seamless. While I agree that this is a super add-on capability to XenDesktop that can MAJORLY increase its viability, using reverse seamless means that you'd have to add the pay for the full XenApp price ($350-$600), plus the XenDesktop add-on ($95). You can't do reverse seamless with XenDesktop at the $295/$395 level since the XenApp that comes with that can only put apps in the XenDesktop desktop. So you could argue actual cost of reverse seamless would be $150 to $300 per CCU!

Read More on Brian Madden

Question 1. how would you categorize your XenApp farm today?

1. All or nearly all production XenApp servers are 32-bit
2. Approximately 3 out of 4 XenApp servers are 32-bit
3. About a 50/50 mix of the XenApp servers are 32-bit & 64-bit
4. Only about 1 in 4 XenApp servers are still 32-bit - mostly 64-bit

Question 2. By the end of year 2009, which do you anticipate will be the dominant OS for XenApp?
(Rank Order: most to least dominant)

1. Windows Server 2003 32-bit
2. Windows Server 2003 64-bit
3. Windows Server 2008 32-bit
4. Windows Server 2008 64-bit

Question 3. By end of year 2009, what percentage the production XenApp servers will be running Windows Server 2008?

1. Less than 10%
2. 10 – 25%
3. 25 – 50%
4. More than 50%

Question 4. What do you think will be the driver for XenApp on Windows Server 2008?

1. Improvements available in XenApp for Windows Server 2008
2. Improvements in Windows Server 2008
3. Hardware/OS migration
4. Business and/or application requires Windows Server 2008
5. Other:  Please explain

Question 5. In the next 12 – 18 months, do you anticipate an increase of XenApp 64-bit in production?

1. Slight increase (25%) 
2. Moderate increase (50%) 
3. Significant increase (75%) 
4. No change 
5. Don’t know

Question 6. If you anticipate an increase of XenApp 64-bit, what do you think will be the key driver/motivation?

1. Business needs 
2. Increase in availability of 64-bit apps 
3. Performance & scalability improvements 
4. Part of a hardware & OS refresh schedule 
5. Other (please specify)

Question 7. What is the challenge/blocker for you to migrate to XenApp on 64-bit today?

1. Costs associated with hardware & OS upgrades 
2. App compatibility issues or lack of 64-bit support with off-the-shelf commercial apps 
3. App compatibility issues or lack of 64-bit support with custom/home-grown apps 
4. Insufficient gain in scalability compared with existing 32-bit system 
5. Other (please specify)

Question 8. What are your plans for 16-bit/legacy apps in your XenApp environments?

1. Continue to run 16-bit applications on existing system even without vendor support 
2. Continue to run 16-bit applications on existing system until end of vendor support 
3. Rewrite as 32-bit or 64-bit applications 
4. Rewrite as Web-based applications 
5. We do not have 16-bit apps. 
6. Other (please specify)

Question 9. Recently, there have been an increasing number of discussions on the Internet about the next release of Windows, code-named “Windows 7”. It’s likely that Microsoft will position Windows “7” as a release update to Vista and Windows Server 2008, and will likely be available in late 2009/early 2010. It’s also been stated that Windows “7” Server will be available in 64-bit only.

Do you believe companies planning to migrate to 64-bit Windows OS will skip Windows Server 2008 and migrate directly to Windows “7” instead?

1. Strongly agree 
2. Agree 
3. Disagree 
4. Strongly disagree 
5. Don’t know

Respond to me in email (c1tr1xguru98 at gmail dot com) if you want or answer here.  I'd love to hear your responses.

Read More on Michael Keen

So what exactly did he say? In a nutshell, Shawn talked about how VDI is not the be-all, end-all solution. Sure, there are a lot of use cases where it's great, but there are a lot of problems / challenges / limitations with it today, and the hype is several steps ahead of the reality. Shawn's session was packed--both with attendees and with Citrix employees. I think a lot of the Citrix employees really were shocked--shocked that someone as smart as Shawn didn't "get" why VDI is as useful as Citrix is positioning it, and shocked that the conference organizers let Shawn on stage.

I heard one Citrix employee telling another that they'll have to "tweak" the Geek Speak Live format for next year. Hopefully that doesn't involve "pre-approving" content.

Various Citrix employees have blogged and talked about how Citrix is taking a big risk at Synergy with this Geek Speak thing. This surprises me though, because I don't think it should be considered a "risk" to let people speak freely. One Senior Exec from Citrix even emailed Shawn to thank him for his courage to give that session. Shawn was like, "What? Courage? All I did was just speak the truth?"

It's a sad reality is that speaking the truth at Synergy requires courage.

But courage, balls, or stupidity--whatever Shawn had--we're all grateful.

Read More on Brian Madden

Windows Server 2008 came out on February 28. That means we should see XenApp 5 in the end of May. Today is May 21, which means that technically Citrix has another week to release XenApp 5, but it's unlikely this will happen since they haven't mentioned it at Synergy. In fact the rumor floating around is that XenApp 5 won't actually make it out for another few months.

What's the reason for the delay? If you ask people from Citrix, you'll get one of two answers. I don't know which of these is "official," or even if they have an "official" answer, but here's what people are saying:

Excuse #1: Windows Server 2008 is not yet widely adopted for Terminal Server applications, so it's not necessary that they release a product right now. (This is definitely true, but could also be a bit of a chicken-and-egg scenario.)

Excuse #2: It's not late. The whole XenApp-90-days-after-Server-2008 thing was just a "target," not a "commitment."

Neither of these excuses explain why XenApp 5 is taking so long. One possible explanation could be that rewriting major sections of Presentation Server to run on Server 2008 is just really complex, and perhaps that's taking longer than Citrix anticipated. This doesn't make sense though, because Citrix and Microsoft keep on reminding us how close they are, and the new features and interfaces of Windows Server 2008 have been known for a long time. In fact even the little company Ericom managed to get the Windows Server 2008 version of their server-based computing product out the door the same day Microsoft released Server 2008. (I know, I know.. You could argue that Ericom's product is much simpler than Citrix's and thus easier to port to Server 2008. But that doesn't change the fact that the new features and inner workings of Server 2008 have been known for years, that Microsoft and Citrix are BFFs, and that Citrix told everyone about a million times that XenApp 5 would be out 90 days after Server 2008.)

Regardless of what you call it, the reality is that XenApp 5 is not coming out when Citrix said it would.

The bigger picture: Citrix's focus is evolving

In addition to the whole "the process is taking longer than we expected" reason for slipping the XenApp 5 release date, this could be the result of a larger shift within the company. Firstly, from a very tactical standpoint, Presentation Server / XenApp is a fairly mature product. If you look at the new features that Citrix introduced in Presentation Server 4.5, they weren't groundbreaking. The same is true for XenApp 5. The biggest new "feature" is the fact that will run on Server 2008. The core product is more-or-less the same as it's been for years.

This means that Citrix doesn't need to spend as much engineering and product management time on XenApp.

Compare that to XenDesktop, which is (1) a hot, trendy area, and (2) anyone's game. Citrix already owns the XenApp space, so they can coast a bit there. But if Citrix also wants to own the XenDesktop space, they're going to have to work like crazy to get feature-filled, solid products out the door as fast as they can.

But potentially more important than the tactical logistics of selling XenApp, is what the XenApp product means to Citrix philosophically. XenApp is the eptiome of "Old Citrix"--the Florida-based SBC company of yore. "New Citrix" is in California and all about virtualization and XenServer and NetScaler. New Citrix is sexy. Old Citrix is tired.

This dichotomy puts the company in a difficult place. Citrix is doing what, $800m a year in "old Citrix" Presentation Server sales? Not to minimize the efforts of the field, but that's a relatively easy revenue stream. Presentation Server has a huge install base (70m users), it has huge margins (since Citrix is a monopoly in this space), and Citrix is obviously able to keep on selling products without updating them too often.

But Citrix realizes that delivering Windows applications to business users will not bring them $800m (or whatever it is now) plus the growth they need to keep Wall St. happy for the next five years. So they need to evolve beyond SBC. Of course this is obvious and not new. They've been wanting to evolve for years. What's new, though, is that now they're actually evolving instead of just wanting to evolve.

This actual evolution started a few years ago with the purchase of Net6 and NetScaler. Rick Dehlinger and I talked a lot about the "Califorication" of Citrix back on our Drive 2006 tour. But the $500m acquistion of XenSource last August really vaulted Citrix into a new league and solidified the fact that "this isn't your daddy's Citrix" anymore. (Citrix employees say that Mark Templeton even house a house in California now. And even if that's not true, the fact that some employees think it's true is telling.)

Imagine that you worked at Citrix. Imagine you worked as a product manager or developer in the "old school" SBC part of Citrix that was responsible for Presentation Server. Sure, you're true to your roots and you believe in SBC. But it hard to work in the part of the company that it's sexy anymore. So what can you do? Hey! XenDesktop is pretty sexy. It combines the old school SBC with the new virtualization stuff. There's strong competition in a wide-open market, and every day is exciting. And the opportunity... oh, the opportunity! Mark Templeton said that XenDesktop could potentially be used for 400 million desktops! Compare that to XenApp for 70m users today, and you're looking at a potential market that's almost six times bigger!

This is what's happening in the company now. Anecdotally it seems that every person I know at Citrix from the Presentation Server product group has either left the company or moved over to work on XenDesktop.

In the grand scheme of things, this might not be a bad thing. This is the kind of thing that will grow Citrix year-over-year and keep them relevant moving forwawrd. But it also explains the reality on the ground as to why XenApp is missing it's release date.

Read More on Brian Madden