I have been mulling this quetion over in my head after finally being able to catch up on some reading of the industry rags out there -
What is the point of virtualizing the desktop if you stick with the same OS and Approach to management?
Is it Microsoft's virtual license fees? No. You still need to license the OS.
Is it security? The Microsoft Tuesday updates are more secure than last month?
I don't get it. In the articles I have read, they all talk about saving $X after they have spent $Y on infrastructure, LICENSING FEES, etc. and it makes no sense if what you are trying to do is to cut costs.
The smart CIO's will go another path and deploy a desktop that is more secure, more controlable, consistent from dev to production, includes the back up, key apps, etc. required for users to do their job, and do it either on their concrete or through a managed service.
Why would I want to pay licensing fees for OS's that will require new gear and skillsets to manage in a way that is no better than I have today.
What's the point?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
If you take one for one - virtual vs physical it will not even out, not even remotely unless you are talking about hundreds to thousands of vm's
ReplyDeleteBut the benefits behinds this ... oh the benefits.....
How about HA, DRS, vmotion, templating, rapid deployment, provisioning, advantages of de-duplication on some storage platforms (which can save up to 80%!!! in storage space, central storage that you control all of your data (backup/restore/DR) there are endless advantages.
So when thinking about VDI there is much more to think about besides
comparing the physical to virtual.
And in IMHO the management that you gain with VDI is so much better