From: Mark on 16 Feb 2010 16:54 Maybe someone can help me out here. I have been installing/administering Terminal Servers for years now, and understand them very well. I do not have any experience with "Virtual Desktop Infrastructure" technology. I have used Microsoft Virtual Server 2005 to install multiple OS's on a PC, so I do understand this concept. I have a customer who is insisting that he wants a "Virtual Desktop Infrastructure" solution for REMOTE users and NOT Terminal Server. I do not think he fully understands the difference, much like me. I have been doing some reading up on it but still lack the understanding I need to confront him. Basically these remote users are going to be using the Microsoft Office Suite, web browsing, e-mail. I cannot see where there would be a benefit to use Virtual Desktop instead of Terminal Server. Am I missing something here? Also, with Terminal Services we would have the option to use a "dumb terminal" (for lack of a better term) as a client machine. Would this be the case using Virtual Desktop Infrastructure? Any information would help. Thanks much.
From: Charlie Russel - MVP on 21 Feb 2010 09:23 VDI combines virtualization with Remote Desktop Services (the new name for TS) to provide a full virtual desktop. You log in and get either your own VM or one from a pool, depending on configuration. This VM gives you the full desktop experience running on a virtual machine as opposed to a Terminal Service session where you are still running on a Server OS, shared with others. Some applications won't run in an RDS session, and others behave somewhat differently, but with VDI they're running in a native Windows client OS, not a Windows server OS. Running a full VDI session across a remote connection, however, seems a bit overkill. I'd be more inclined to look at using standard PCs with key applications running locally, and specialized ones running across RemoteApps. But there certainly are advantages to VDI. The most obvious ones are: isolation; the ability to share a set of VMs that always revert to their known states between uses; and that you're running client Windows, not server. In the normal VDI setup, you have an RD Connection Broker (required), an RD Virtualization Host (Hyper-V), and an RD Session Host (aka, Terminal Server), with possibly an RD Web Host. Some of these roles can be combined. Licensing is per device, not per user, and there are special VDI license packs available that include licensing for management of the VDI environment as well. Right now, VDI is very much a "new thing", and getting some buzz. Setting it up is a significant investment, but I think we'll see more and more of this moving forward, and I'm actually quite excited by the prospect. -- Charlie. http://msmvps.com/blogs/russel "Mark" <markl(a)csbonline.net> wrote in message news:ucMQWK1rKHA.6004(a)TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... > Maybe someone can help me out here. I have been installing/administering > Terminal Servers for years now, and understand them very well. I do not > have any experience with "Virtual Desktop Infrastructure" technology. I > have used Microsoft Virtual Server 2005 to install multiple OS's on a PC, > so I do understand this concept. I have a customer who is insisting that > he wants a "Virtual Desktop Infrastructure" solution for REMOTE users and > NOT Terminal Server. I do not think he fully understands the difference, > much like me. I have been doing some reading up on it but still lack the > understanding I need to confront him. Basically these remote users are > going to be using the Microsoft Office Suite, web browsing, e-mail. I > cannot see where there would be a benefit to use Virtual Desktop instead > of Terminal Server. Am I missing something here? Also, with Terminal > Services we would have the option to use a "dumb terminal" (for lack of a > better term) as a client machine. Would this be the case using Virtual > Desktop Infrastructure? Any information would help. Thanks much.
|
Pages: 1 Prev: VirtualPC in headless mode and auto-startup Next: Expanding files... hangs |