Skip to main content

IDC ignores IBM, Citrix in its Desktop Virtualization report

IDC says its study, Virtualizing the Desktop Part 2: Client-Hosted Virtualization Leadership Grid, "compares the solutions of the top vendors providing desktop virtualization solutions, executed directly on the client. Solutions are ranked in an IDC Leadership Grid, and extensive information is provided on solution capabilities and vendor market positioning."

Terrific, but just four vendors products are evaluated and they are VMware, RingCube, MokaFive, and Sentillion. Don't bother looking for Xen Desktop in the study. It isn't there. Nor is the IBM virtual desktop. Just in case you think that VMware is it and you can forget the other three vendors in the study, IDC says: "from a technological perspective RingCube offered some of the best features currently available, while VMware held the strongest marketing position and ecosystem. MokaFive delivered a strong product with excellent management features and Sentillion provided a solution with a high degree of security."

Matthew McCormack, a client computing consultant in IDC's European Systems Group, said: "2009 will be a developmental year for desktop virtualization technology with lots of pilot activity. From 2010 we'll see the technology begin to enter the mainstream."


Source
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Security: VMware Workstation 6 vulnerability

vulnerable software: VMware Workstation 6.0 for Windows, possible some other VMware products as well type of vulnerability: DoS, potential privilege escalation I found a vulnerability in VMware Workstation 6.0 which allows an unprivileged user in the host OS to crash the system and potentially run arbitrary code with kernel privileges. The issue is in the vmstor-60 driver, which is supposed to mount VMware images within the host OS. When sending the IOCTL code FsSetVoleInformation with subcode FsSetFileInformation with a large buffer and underreporting its size to at max 1024 bytes, it will underrun and potentially execute arbitrary code. Security focus
Post a Comment
Read more

OS Virtualization comparison: Parallels' Virtuozzo vs the rest

Virtuozzo's main differentiators versus hypervisors center on overhead, virtualization flexibility, administration and cost. Virtuozzo requires significantly less overhead than hypervisor solutions, generally in the range of 1% to 5% compared with 7% to 25% for most hypervisors, leaving more of the system available to run user workloads. Customers can also virtualize a wider range of applications using Virtuozzo, including transactional databases, which often suffer from performance problems when used with hypervisors. On the administration side, customers need to manage, maintain and secure just a single OS instance, while the hypervisor model requires customers to manage many OS instances. Of course, the hypervisor vendors have worked hard to automate much of this process, but it still requires more effort to manage and maintain multiple operating systems than a single instance. Finally, OS virtualization with Virtuozzo has a lower list price than the leading hypervisor for comme...
Post a Comment
Read more