In case you have not been following some of the recent news on VDI and desktop virtualization, here is a recap.

Two contradictory stories

It all started about 2 weeks ago when Citrix and VMware shared the status of VDI business. There were two contradictory stories - Citrix announced some large purchases and implementations for Citrix XenDesktop and VMware announced that larger projects are being pushed out to 2010.

VDI is doomed for failure

Then came some reports on how VDI projects have recently failed. I like calling these not so successful VDI projects as 'first generation' architectures that are destined for failure. As the author notes that these projects start 'innocently' - with the goal of putting a desktop on top of the existing server virtualization platofrm. In other words 'We have done server virtualization - we can now do the same for the desktop'. Unfortunately, that is where the problem starts. Recently, Brian Madden published a story highlighting the problem. Two weeks ago, I heard customers sharing their frustrations and concerns about why desktop virtualization is different from server virtualization.

The Truth

I spoke with our CTO, Harry Labana, and Harry walked me through the top 5 reasons why in his experience VDI projects will fail if they are done with a presumption that desktop virtualization is similar to server virtualization.

The fact is that implementing Desktop virtualization or VDI is mre like implementing any other server based computing technology, such as Terminal Services. The VDI infrastructure that may be resident in the data center; however, it goes beyond the data center to the network, the end points and the user. So, unless the implementations are planned with network, device and end users in mind they are destined to fail. Good design, on the other hand, will lead to successful implementations. But that means doing the right due-diligence of products up front - including network, end points and end users. Or else you will fall into the similar trap as others are falling into.

Follow me on Twitter

A couple months ago, I posted about a VMware-sponsored report that compared View 3 to an older version of XenDesktop. I've gotten a lot of good feedback on that response, and a lot of agreement that sponsored third-party analysis needs to be absorbed with a cautious eye. I don't think it at all means  that sponsored work isn't valuable or useful, but it needs to have a sound, transparent methodology and provide enough data and detailed context that it actually ends up being useful to the audience.

Regardless, any paid-for review is going to be viewed with skepticism, right? So that's why I'm so excited about this completely independent, non-sponsored pair of reviews that were conducted by Infoworld:

• "VMware View is good news, bad news: VMware's VDI solution makes virtual desktops real, but not particularly easy to manage" This is a brand new review of VMware View, with a final score of 7.5.
• "Citrix hits the VDI high notes: Citrix XenDesktop 2.0 leverages streaming applications, server virtualization, and swift tools for a scalable and manageable virtual desktop infrastructure solution" This review is a little older, from September 2008, based on our first "real" release of XenDesktop, and we scored an 8.3 way back then. Since then, we've added many new features and capabilities for both user experience and manageability.

We were really pleased with the XenDesktop review when it first came out, but we lacked the context of how it compared to an in-depth review of VMware's product. Now that the review of View is out, I personally think the score is even more impressive.

So if you're skeptical about paid reviews, have a look at the two independent reviews above! Then come back to www.citrix.com/xendesktop and learn more about the product and our latest enhancements.