"XenApp" is brilliant!

Wow! I miss three days of work with the flu, and when I come back, Presentation Server doesn't exist anymore!

Wow! I miss three days of work with the flu, and when I come back, Presentation Server doesn't exist anymore! By now most people know that what we discussed a few weeks ago is now official: Citrix Presentation Server has been renamed as Citrix XenApp.

I love the name XenApp. I didn't at first. My gut reaction was that this was a hasty marketing name change by Citrix. But once I got over the shock of change (the shock that would come with any name change), I whole-heartily agree with Citrix that the new name makes much more sense than the old name.

The name XenApp is important for two reasons:

First, the name "Presentation Server" had been around since 2003. While five years is not too long for a product name, you have to remember that for more than four of those five years, "Presentation Server" meant "Terminal Server-based SBC product." When Citrix added locally-executed streaming as an application delivery option in 2007, the Presentation Server product's role was greatly evolved. But unfortunately most people glossed right over that new delivery mode and continued to view the product as an SBC-only solution. (Why so few cared about the app streaming functionality certainly has to do with more than just the name, but the connotations of the name certainly didn't help.)

The new XenApp name is sufficiently different and allows people to get to know a different product--one that delivers applications via server-based computing and local streaming.

The second reason the XenApp name is important has to do with how it slots into Citrix's other products. In the preceding two paragraphs, the word "application" was mentioned numerous times. Citrix Presentation Server was a lot more about "virtualizing" applications than it was "presenting" them. (It "virtualizes" apps in the truest sense of the word--it separates the application installation and delivery from the client device--both via streaming and SBC.) Thus a more appropriate name for the product would be something along the lines of "Virtual App Server." Of course Citrix couldn't actually use the Virtual App Server name because that's the new name that Microsoft gave SoftGrid. Also, Citrix just spent $500m buying the marketing rights to a synonym for "virtual," which is "Xen." So their "virtual server" product is "XenServer," there "virtual desktop" product is "XenDesktop," and their "virtual app" server is "XenApp."

XenServer, XenApp, XenDesktop. The three names definitely fit together nicely in terms of product family. Truth be told the "Xen" part of those product names is arbitrary. They could have picked just about any word they wanted--so long as it was the same word across the family--and "Xen" has a nice Eastern religion "enlightenment" ring to it. (At least in the Western world. In the Eastern world it might be offensive for all I know.)

Word has it that within the halls of Ft. Lauderdale, people are already using the name "XenApp" quite naturally. It's uptake is certainly more solid in less time than Presentation Server ever was. Even the old guys with the sandals who used the term "MetaFrame" up until last month are now talking about "XenApp this" and "XenDesktop that."

"XenApp" the phrase is just so much nicer sounding than "Presentation Server." Two syllables instead of six. XenApp has a much better chance of entering the IT vernacular as a verb, much like google. "How are we going to deliver this new app? Let's xenapp it."

Surprisingly, after two weeks, the only people who are really bent out of shape over the XenApp name are the old school (if four years can be 'old') Xen project faithful because the XenApp product doesn't have any pre-merger XenSource code. "Xen" is just about hypervisors to these folks. (This is coming from the community, not from within the company. Those within the former XenSource company have about 500 million reasons to have no problem with XenApp.)

This is a big win for Citrix. It will be easier to explain. It will be easier to understand what-does-what. And most importantly, it will be easier to sell.

Join the conversation


Send me notifications when other members comment.

Please create a username to comment.

Brian, I think you are missing an important reason for this name change: promoting XenServer. A lot of Citrix resellers also sell VMware. Citrix would like them to sell XenServer instead. In this case they are promoting the Xen brand by attaching it to their leading product (which, as you pointed out, doesn't really have anything to do with Xen).

> It will be easier to understand what-does-what

OK, if I need to publish desktops which product should I use XenDesktop or XenApp?


Well it certainly sounds alot better than Secure Access Presentation Manager Suite 3.0 FR4, which would be given the history of Citrix naming conventions, much more within the line of expectations.

I agree with the infamous "guest" above though, on the subject of "what does what", it doesn't make things a whole lot clearer. So XenApp isn't a full server? I see the confusion coming.


I was at Summit to hear Mark T announce the XenApp branding, and my first thought was the same - here we go again.  After a couple of days to think about it (helped by hearing Citrix explain their vision) I am now really impressed with their strategy.  I can see the product lines maturing and seemingly disparate products starting to be consolidated into a well thought out range.

I have also been talking to my clients about XenApp, XenServer and XenDesktop and how they fit together and work to deliver a full range of desktop and application virtualisation (though I admit I throw SoftGrid in there for some of them as well).  They see how the suite works together, and how using ICA to deliver the XenApp and XenDesktop desktops makes more sense than RDP.  Through in Provisioning server and XenApp straming (or SoftGrid) and you really do have their dynamic desktop and dynamic dacentre starting to rock.  

I'm a sandal wearer from way back in the day (WinFrame), and I disliked MetaFrame and Pres Server names.  I love XenApp, and the Xen Family.  I love the Platinum range of products, and the approach Citrix are adopting.  And so far, so do all the customers I talk to about it.  There is a buzz about Citrix again, and I find it reinvigorating.



I totally agree with the new naming direction as well, but I'm not so sold on PS being the 'truest' form of application virtualisation..

Ok, so 'virtual' it's just a word which means different things to different people (or actually means nothing specific now that it's been diluted so much), but to me a published app is just a 'physically installed application which is presented remotely' - nothing much "virtual" about that!? 

Nevermind - just my little rant for the morning! ; )



Outside of IT Managers and System Administrators this name change is completely immaterial. The nature of virtualisation is that the whole process is transparent to the end user so most of the time users aren't aware that they are using a virtualised environment.

WinFrame/MetaFrame/Presentation Server/XenApp will always be known to users simply as "Citrix".
They're not naming it for the engineers and admins who use it. They're naming it for the thousands of CIOs and other IT execs who they want to see Citrix as the mainstream delivery infrastructure across all their servers, apps and desktops. I agree that end users don't care. Long time users can continue calling one product "Citrix" if they like, but they will increasingly be forced into a more specific description. Think of all the die-hards who simply said "Oracle" for years when they were referring to the database or "Cisco" to mean just a router. Today these companies are far broader. When someone says "Oracle" only the gray beards think they mean just a database. Citrix is doing the same thing. XenApp is still their biggest product, but it's the entire end-to-end solution they're selling to top IT execs that's driving this IMHO (and I agree with Brian that it seems like a great move).

> OK, if I need to publish desktops which product should I use XenDesktop or XenApp?

Did you really ask that question?


The answer seems pretty straightforward to me. Sure, you could use XenApp to deliver apps as part of a full desktop, but that's really only valid for the 10 million or so folks who work in call centers, order ops, or other large groups of task workers all doing similar functions. It's not a mainstream approach. No way the mainstream of the market will use a published desktop in this model as their mainstream corporate desktop. If they would, Citrix would already be a $10B company.

For the VAST majority of employees in the middle of the market, you'd be much better off using XenDesktop to deliver a virtual desktop and XenApp to deliver virtual apps INTO that desktop. That's a MUCH better model than what other VDI vendors are preaching, BTW. It keeps the delivery stream separate. Apps execture either on the server or in a virtual bubble on the desktop, but they never get munged up in the desktop OS. Every time an employee fires up their desktop, they get a new clean Windows and new apps delivered into it that aren't corrupted or conflicting.

That's the other reason this move is smart. VDI is going to be a huge market. Citrix gets this. By marketing XenApp and XenDesktop, they're able to tell a much better story at the client than other vendors.


Hi Brian

Just a note of clarification - though I think most people would agree that XenApp Server is a cool name, Citrix actually named it 'XenApp' sans 'Server'.  I believe the consensus from partners at Summit was 'XenApp Server it is!  XenApp alone sounds far too much like a standalone app'...


Maybe it's just the way my brain does word association, but this is the first time since WinFrame that I can easily categorize what each product does. I never preferred spending hours on the Citrix web site trying to figure out what the heck a new or newly named Citrix product does by sifting through the long, meaningless and vague paragraphs that were written by a well-meaning marketing department. Either that or the words were put together by a highly technical group of people who tried their best to talk in non-technical language for the "executives". Whatever it was, in the end they always left me more lost in what the product does and how the product generally works.

I still find the product outlines on Citrix's site below average when I'm looking for a meaningful summary, but at least the names are easy to remember and categorize. This reduces the frustration of navigating the marketing drivel.

It's a big step in the right direction. Congratulations Citrix!


Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't it Citrix who preached to concept of Triniti: publish desktops from TSs, VMs or blades? Despite this, with Citrix you will need two separate products to achieve this, where as other VDI solutions (Provision, Ericom, ...) are able to do it with one product.

Also, AFAIK Citrix are not removing the ability to publish desktops using XenApp so this is a question you will likely encounter. A lot. And as your own post demonstrates, the answer is not trivial.

Finally the ability to publish applications into VMs is something other VDI vendors are able to do as well: from a TS using a single product (as described above) and streaming using MS SoftGrid. Still comes out cheaper than XenDesktop + XenApp

"Xen Server" and "XenApp Server" is too close to sounding the same when they do totally different things. We shouldn't expect anyone to know EXACTLY what a procduct is by its name alone. If that were the case, we would still be dealing with Citrix's sentence-as-a-name syndrome. Who cares if someone thinks XenApp is a single application. That's where us as partners come in to fill in the cracks. Now these new names make that incredibly easy to do.

I think that Citrix customers will be using a combination of the different technology buckets we are used to.  Virtual Machines, Presentation Virtualization, Virtual Desktops, Application Virtualization,  and Streaming are going to be combined in varying combinations to create a solution.  Not all combinations make sense, but many do.

(Whether or not they thought about this beforehand,) Citrix unifying the different technologies under the Xen name brand makes sense.  I view what people will be buying from them like the kind of menu where you pick this from Column A and something else from Column B.  Column A might be what we think of as one of these technologies today - but we won't be picking the entire column, just the item we need.  I don't think Citrix, nor any of us, really understand yet what the favorite combinations are going to be today.  A couple of years from now we may see entirely new (named) products that formalize these combinations, along with all the glue integration that is needed.

Needless to say, it will be exciting times (especially since the competition will be spicing things up too).


Hey Brian,

Could you, Gabe or Tim post a cross reference table? The headings could be "Previously called" and "Now Called". It would make a great cheat sheet for those of us who didn't go to summit. And, does it apply to all products? Is Ardence part of the Xen line now? How about password manager or the access gateway? Go-to meeting? NetScaler? If not, maybe those products could have the same name in the "Now Called" column.


> "Xen" has a nice Eastern religion "enlightenment" ring to it.

For me (and I dare say a fair few others my age) The name "Xen" conjurs up an image of large hexagonal computer as featured on late 70's early 80's british Si-Fi series "Blake's 7" - I'm looking forward to having my own Xen computers, it'll be fullfilling a childhood dream !


(looks like it was spelt "Zen" in the TV seriers - but I'm not going to let spelling get in the way of a dream)


Hi Brian,

I am glad to see there is a lot of positive reaction to the new name.  I can tell you that many of us went through similar phases of denial, anger, understanding and acceptance (as well as a few other stages) but in the end most people at Citrix do like the new name and the way that it helps to tell the end-to-end virtualization story from Citrix's perspective.  Today it is easier to talk about the entire Citrix product portfolio and vision than ever.  XenApp just fits in to the grander scheme of things much better than anything else we had or could have come up with.  Just the fact that it is so much easier to say helps immensely!

Here at Citrix the transition has been the smoothest ever.  Old timers love it and even the engineers who have to put in the effort to work on things like product and documentation changes are seeing the big picture and are on board with what we are trying to achive.

Our vision for end-to-end virtualization is coming together nicely and our very successful application virtualization product now has the right name - in my opinion anyway.

And just to clarify, the previous poster was right about the name, it's "Citrix XenApp", not "Citrix XenApp Server".  This was done to avoid confusion with XenServer and to avoid clumsy verbiage in documents like, "...set the parameter on the XenApp Server server management node...".



I think keeping the product name simply XenApp actually helps this situation. XenApp is a true product brand. The product has a broad architecture that covers many parts. There are XenApp clients, XenApp licensing servers, XenApp login servers, etc. If you saw a full rack of servers running this product, you'd call them "XenApp servers". Works very well in my mind. The old way never really worked. What were you supposed to call them, "Presentation Server servers?". Most people didn't both and just called them Citrix servers. By changing the name to simply XenApp, Citrix is making it much more likely that its individual product brands get traction inside IT. Names like XenApp, XenServer, XenDesktop and NetScaler are real product brands that are cool. I can see them getting traction independently. When you start adding all the other stuff to the names, they get so complicated no one bothers to use them (or they just use acronyms).


XenApp is the only name that changed. The topline hierarchy looks like this.

Citrix Delivery Center (overall product family brand - idea is to transform static datacenters into dynamic "delivery centers")

- XenServer (server virtualization)

- NetScaler (app optimization for delivering web apps)

- XenApp (app virtualization for delivering windows apps)

- XenDesktop (desktop virtualization)

- Workflow Studio (a new tool used to orchestrate them all together)


Each of these are really product lines that integrate other smaller products. Provisioning Server (ardance) can still be bought on its own, but it rolls up into a platinum edition of XenServer (it'll actually be integrated into XenDesktop as a feature as well). Similar with things like Access Gateway, WANScaler, Password Manager, Application Firewall, EdgeSight, etc. You can buy them separately, but they're also "features" of the above four main products. That's the way it was presented at Summit.


The names Citrix have used and the frequency of the name changes have caused much confusion.

MS names their product "Terminal Server" and they stick to it.

I suggest that Citrix stick to the new current names and rename Web Interface back to NFUSE and I'll be happy.  


Where are you getting your "cheaper than XenDesktop + XenApp" numbers from? XenDesktop hasn't even been released as a product yet. We don't know how much it's going to cost.


I completely disagree. Assuming that we use the definition of "Application Virtualization" being an app that is isolated from the OS it's running on, XenApp is Application Virtualization on steroids. Not only can I use the streaming feature of XenApp to provide Application Virtualization for client apps on client OSs, but I can also stream apps to terminal servers and deliver the virtualized application to the client remotely. So your claim that a published app is just a 'physically installed application which is presented remotely' isn't entirely true. While I could "physically install applications" on my terminal servers, why would I want to do that? What a pain! We all did that for years before Presentation Server provided app streaming. As Brian pointed out Presentation Server has greatly evolved, so let's stop claiming we have to manage applications on terminal server the old way.

XenApp gives me the ability to provide client based application virtualization and server based application virtualization... AND more importantly, I can setup policies to determine when the client should receive client based or server based application virtualization. This is HUGE!!! The policy can determine whether a user is on the corporate owned PC at their desk in the office, or they are using their wife's home PC in the kitchen. It's the same user, but in the first case I want to give the user client based application virtualization, and in the second case I want to give the user server based application virtualization. But the user didn't have to be trained for two different scenarios. He just clicks the same icon no matter where he is. The policy determines what he gets. Try setting that up with other application virtualization products.

even if it there are cheaper solutions, the real key is going to be scalability. If a large customer is going to roll out several thousand virtual desktops to mainstream office workers, trying to save a few bucks on the software license cost won't even be on the top 10 list. Some of the smaller vendors may be ok for small VDI deployments, but not the big ones.
Thanks for the rundown.  We previously posted a list of all of Citrix's products that is now WAY out of date (and it was only posted in June!).  In the near future, we'll update that with the new names/products or post a new article with the new listing.  Thanks for the idea.

Agree that name changes can cause confusion, but I hardly think NFUSE and Terminal Services are great names. Microsoft actually has a pretty rich track record of ugly, complicated names on the infrastructure side. Things that are so impossible to remember everyone uses meaningless acronyms (and btw, they've made plenty of changes too).

If you look at the product names at Microsoft that actually are successful, they're all great product brands: Windows, Word, Office, Excel, Outlook, Exchange, Power Point, etc. Trying to copy the brilliant marketing guys in the Terminal Services group is what gave us the awful Presentation Server name in the first place.

You watch... there will 10x the interest in this product by the IT bigwigs just by changing the name to something cool like XenApp.

I think Citrix is copying the good side of Microsoft here with names that are actually great product brands (NetScaler, XenApp, XenServer, XenDesktop, etc).

Brian's travelling right now, but I'll change the name in the article so as not to mislead anyone.

I'm tired of constantly having to justify TS Presentation Server investments to the VP bigshots each year. They simply don't get it and have no idea what a strategic role this plays in their overall IT infrastructure (or how critical their PS administrators are). I like the new name because it's something the execs will get. They're all over virtualization and really get it's value well beyond server consolidation. Talking about XenApp as a key part of their IT infrastructure will make the job for techies much easier as well.

You are probably right for now, but I could see VMware stepping into this position real soon after their Thinstall acquistion.  Once they integrate that into their VI, then there will be two that can do this.
I'm still confused. I don't see where PS4.5 left and what it is now, nor do I see where Ardence is.  Perhaps a list of each of the packages Standard, Enterprise, and Platinum (if they still exist); what's included in each edition, and a small summary of each item.

PS 4.5 is technically still PS 4.5. The code will reflect the new XenApp brand at the next release (presumably 5.0 this summer according to rumors at Summit).

Agree it would help if Brian and team could publish another chart. It makes a ton of sense when you see it all laid out, but it's not clear on their website yet.


I'm sure VMware will try to follow suit with ThinStall. Then we'll have two vendors with an end-to-end story that are both about the same size. I'd still argue that VMware will be much weaker in the app/desktop arena for years. Very difficult to do, and just buying a couple of little startups won't get them there quickly, especially since most of the company are datacenter folks by trade.

Similar could probably be said about Citrix in the opposite direction as they have more experience on the app and desktop side than in the datacenter. Either way, I think customers win big time here. MUCH better than having either of these guys dominating one segment with no competition.

Got one already in the works, just need to tie up some loose ends.  A lot has changed!

I preferred Metaframe, perhaps I'm getting old but the whole name changing regime at Citrix ain't making it easier to navigate in their ever growing product list.

If they stick to Xen as a brand for the next 10 years, good, if they change it again (which they will likely do) in 2 years then it is boll***.

Just my two cents: When is the product XenSation gonna come?? ;-)



Because I go to Summit I can't really put a table out today, because of NDA (and quite frankly confusion on when Citrix has actually announced something that releases the NDA).  This is why Brian and Gabe don't go to Summit.  But I see that "guest" (who I guess was at summit but doesn't post with his real name) has given the outline of how it works.  It no doubt will take some time for all the details to work out into an accurate table, but one would expect that Citrix will be showing such a table by iForum.

Ok, whats the deal, why did they stick with NetScaler and not change it to XenScaler?
Lets be totally honest - no one really cares what product is called we just want all the prodcust to have great features and be easily managed from a single console. And lets be honest Citrix can't even get a single console for PS4.5 or XenApp so I have my doubts as to how they will integrate the XenDesktop etc.. into a seamless set of products

Nah, keep the new names and rename WebInterface XENFUSE :D

I'm agree with the new names, and think they make good sence... so much easier to write too..

But does this mean my CCIA will change name to "Citrix Certified Integration Architect for Citrix XenApp 4"?


Agree Citrix has some work to do on management consoles, but did you see Workflow Studio yet? It looks like they're going to put more emphasis on drag-and-drop management of processes in a graphical way than trying to create one monster consolue GUI that manages everything.

The thing I like about this direction is that it will work equally well with NON Citrix products. Even if they got one master console to manage all their stuff (which is doubtful as no large vendor ever seems to get this right) it would only manage their products. With Workflow Studio, you'd be able to link XenApp to VMware to NetScaler to any small vendor product you might have, etc. That is a VERY cool idea and I give Citrix major kudos for going that direction, even if the consoles for XenApp have gotten out of control. Now let's just see if they have the courage to have some of these competitors with them on stage at iForum in May proving it (anyone want to take a bet on that?)

www.frameworkx.com has a cool write up on Workflow Studio. Can't wait to get my hands on it.

I'm looking forward to Citrix releasing the "Orac" range of products in the future. Hang on, Larry Ellison might have something to say about that ...
I didn't really understand the logic behind this until I read your write-up. Makes perfect sense now. Citrix hasn't always done well on the product naming front, but I really like the direction they've been going lately. The overall vision makes a lot more sense every day. For a lot of us old timers, it feels like the original magic of Citrix is back again. Thanks for the great perspective and commentary.
Couldn't agree more. The buzz is back. Anyone who spends more than 30 seconds mourning the death of the name "Presentation Server" should have their head examined. Killing a dull name and replacing it with one that is inspired and which makes the whole story fit together better isn't creating confusing, it's fixing it. I don't usually think much of vendor marketing, but this one was a great move.

Simply put, Xen is synonymous with virtualization, and NetScaler doesn't do virtualization of any kind. Hence, no reason to Xenify it.


At my office we are all over the new name. It's fun!

  • Each of us are Xen Masters
  • The group of us are the Xen Council
  • Our weekly meetings are now "A Moment of Xen" 
to hide the fact that XenSource will never deliver $50M in revenue in 2008 as Citrix management claimed when they bought that worthless company.  Changing every Citrix product into XenSomething can hide the fact the Xen (hypervisor) is not selling and cover that Citrix massively overpaid for XenSource. 

Give me a break. They bought the company three months ago and just launched it to their channel two weeks ago. Unless you work for Citrix and know something we don't (which I highly doubt from the tone of your email) this is a stupid statement.

From what I can see in the first three months they:

Launched a new version of XenServer (4.1) with tons of new features, announced a new platinum editon of XenServer that combines Provisioning Server for physical and virtual machines (and still priced below what a single license of ESX), announced XenDesktop that will integrate all the Xen VM infrastructure, image provisioning and deliver it all over ICA, announced a partnership with Microsoft where both XS and XD will run on HyperV, announced a partnership with CSC where their entire desktop virtualization practice will be based on XD and announced deals with the big server vendors.

I have no idea how they're tracking toward that $50M goal, but they hardly seem to be sitting still or acting in desperation. They've done more in 90 days than most big vendors do in the first year of an acquisition. Based on their track record with the past few acquistions, I'm certainly willing to give them the benefit of the doubt on this.

And BTW, I agree with Brian that the XenApp name is a great move. I don't know who you work for or what your bias is, but calling Xen a "worthless company" seems pretty harsh no matter how you slice it. I somehow suspect your neutrality in this.


I stand vindicated, screwing around with names is not going to help Citrix.


Jefferies & Co. analyst Katherine Egbert lowered her outlook on the XenSource line, saying it should take longer than initially expected to recognize revenue for original equipment manufacturers, or OEMs, and that an agreement with IBM will likely not come until later this year.

Virtualization software allows a computer to act like multiple machines, each with its own operating system and software. It helps companies spend less on equipment and energy in their data centers.

Since most OEM revenue is recognized one or two quarters overdue, Egbert said in a client note she now expects 2008 XenSource revenue of $38 million, down from a previous estimate of $50 million.

Citrix must do a better job marketing the XenSource line and competing with VMware in the virtualization market, Egbert said. Already, a survey of some retailers shows more of them selling VMware's products than the XenSource line, potentially due to misunderstanding about the line and, until recently, a lack of high-profile features, she said.



Give me a freaking break. "Already a survey of some retailers shows more of them selling VMware than XenServer". What kind of insight is that?? Of course resellers are selling more VMware in the server virtualization space! They are a billion dollar company with 100% of their revenue in this area!! Citrix has owned XenServer for 100 days and just launched it to their channel three weeks ago.

That's like saying "we did a survey and discovered that there are more Starbucks locations worldwide than Peets". Any moron could have told them this without their survey. VMware's lead in sever virtualization is not due to "marketing misunderstanding", it's due to the fact that they've been at it for 8 years as the only game in town while Citrix has been at it for four months. Say all you want about whether they will be able to carve into VMware's market or not, but this logic makes no sense and just makes you look foolish.

I agree Citrix has a lot of work to do on the marketing side to get XenServer recognized as a successful #2 alternative in the server virtualization market. And they may have a point about OEM revenue being recognized later, no idea there. But to suggest that Citrix is suddenly in a surprised desperation postion as demonstrated by the fact that more resellers are selling VMware is so naive it's laughable.


Using this logic, I could say that an app that's streamed and virtualized on a client is "nothing more than a a physically installed app that runs in a sandbox" or that server virtualization is "nothing more than a physically installed app workload that can run on any server".

Just because we all got used to the concept before the term "virtualization" got hot doesn't mean it's not virtualization. I've been preaching this concept for years. Now suddenly I describe it as virtualization and the big shots instantly get it. No matter how you look at it, you're separating the physical from the virtual as the app looks and feels like it's executing on the local machine, but it's not. And even if you want to be a purist and claim this is not really virtualization, XenApp (PS) is doing client-side virtualization now, which i think anyone would have to admit is true virtualization.

Don't mean to sound combative. I actually find this very interesting how we get so tied into thinking about a technology in a certain way that we have a hard time thinking about it differently when new things come on the scenes. I'm as guilty of that as anyone. In this case, Brian's article really opened my eyes. I agree completely with his assessment on this point. If all of us PS-TS folks would throw out our old biases and embrace the Application Virtualization terminology, I suspect we'll all get far more traction where we work with the big wigs seeing this as strategic.


Xenapp - Virtualized applications, and published desktops.

Xendesktop - Streamed Desktop O/S's

The method depends on the requirments.


You Citrix guru's certainly know how to be blunt - as it happens I agree with you, lets look at Citrix performance in 12 months and then decide who made the best decisions.

However, I am new to Citrix, I have a contract to write a business case for exploiting it on behalf of my client. The product set as articulated by Brian and Citrix more or less makes sense but I find the distinction between XenApp and XenDesktop way too subtle. For example I can publish desktops using XenApp (I'm not saying its a great idea for my client) so what does XenDesktop provide me for the additional licence fee.

Citrix should look at producing a Business Case for each of their products clearly stating what the different desktop/users get out of it. I can tell you, its not as easy as it should be, ... , so I am seeing a Citrix partner tomorrow.



How about: (to keep it pure)Xenapp - Published applications & streamed applicationsXendesktop - Virtualised workload capacity & provisioned desktop OS


I'm sure at least the Greeks are a little confused by the name change...<strong><a href="dictionary.reference.com/.../luna.html" target="_blank">Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)</a> </strong><strong>xeno- a combining form meaning “alien,” “strange,” “guest,” used in the formation of compound words: <em>xenogamy, xenolith. </em>Also, <em>especially before a vowel</em>, xen-.<br />[Origin: comb. form of Gk <em>xénos</em> stranger, guest (n.); alien, foreign, strange (adj.)] </strong>So XenApp translates as "strange or foreign" App.  I'm not sure this is the connotation they are after.  I'm sure we are going to see a whole bunch of xenophile and xenophobia references in the future.  Some of us still have negative feelings about another past product: Xenix.  However, I believe they can counter some of this negativity by appointing Lucy Lawless as the company spokesperson.  Yeah, Xena is just what they need right now. 


I am one of those because I have no idea what else Oracle could mean other than a database. talk about out of touch... (although not the case for my awareness of SQL)  But I am never letting go of nFuse because that's just too cool and frankly they still haven't done anything to "replace" it other than Web Interface which is just dull and boring. The whole XenSuite format doesn't address the WI/nFuse, does it?


Metaframe is better, and is what they will go back to on the next cycle.