Talk:Desktop virtualization/Archives/2014

Completely unreferenced article
There is no referenced definition of remote control software like VNC or RDP or GoToMyPC as being called virtualization. Instead I would argue that desktop virtualization is simply virtualization on the desktop, ie, Parallels Desktop, VirtualBox, VMware workstation, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.63.217.178 (talk) 03:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Would someone care to include brief discussion of the various virtualization software used specifically in the desktop space? Amigaguy (talk) 22:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

RemoteFX
Why are all the protocols getting merged to this article? Seems a complete lunacy. If that's the case as standard process then merge Remote FX into this. --75.5.10.59 (talk) 03:49, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

g.ho.st
Where does g.ho.st fit into this paradigm? Google desktop is another odd-ball that rewriting the rules for desktop virtualization ... where does it fit into this paradigm? Would these be called Browser Desktops? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davea0511 (talk • contribs) 16:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

A New Start
I've just thrown out three of the (alleged) types in favour of the only one which really qualifies. Even with this reduced scope this is an area with a lot of alternatives - let's not make things harder for ourselves and readers than we can... Snori (talk) 12:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Needs lots of work
This article needs lots of work to be both more objective and complete. VDI certainly has some advantages, but also some disadvantages that should be called out in fairness. Disadvantages include higher cost than traditional PCs as well as (in most cases) other forms of SBC and blade PCs. There are also SW licensing and support issues. And there is some very real complexity with getting such an environment set up (though once set up it can be a very compelling model). Additionally the article largely sidesteps a needed discussion about transport protocols such as MS RDP, Citrix ICA, HP RGS, and others that can make or break many remote PC solutions. In the spirit of full disclosure I get credit for selling components of VDI as well as other related solutions such as Server Based Computing, Thin Clients and Blade PCs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlandAd1 (talk • contribs) 17:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Link cleanup
I propose removing links to products which are external links or are wiki-links to non-existent pages. Additionally, i would leave editor comments warning future editors not to add either of those types of links back to the article.

If there's no objection prior to 17.00 GMT on Sunday 16.November.2008, then i'll make these changes. Quaeler (talk) 17:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Merge with Remote desktop software and/or Remote control software?
I think we only need two of the four: Remote administration, Remote control software, Remote desktop software, and Desktop virtualization. The rationale is that there are two types of software, one that is used to log in remotely/virtually on another program for the ability just to run programs on that machine's resources/licenses, etc. The other is for administration to configure a computer remotely. The problem is overlap where you use a remote desktop for the purpose of administration.

So my question is which should stay, which should be merged, or what new titles should be created (if any) to contain all relevant info?

My vote is Remote administration should stay as is (but needs clean up), and Remote control software, Remote desktop software, and Desktop virtualization should be merged into one, namely Remote desktop software. That is just my thought. Any seconds - either seconding my idea or a second opinion? I would be willing to do some merge/rewrite work if a consensus is found.--Lefton4ya (talk) 16:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

they are all needed
Remote administration, Remote control software, Remote desktop software, and Desktop virtualization are all completely different things... remote administration : you telnet to a router, rather than using the console cable...that is remote administration remote control s/w : is like microsoft remote assistance. you are remotely controling someone elses desktop remote desktop s/w : you login to a different PC from your PC using the RD s/w...using your credentials Desktop Virtualisation: a base image of an operating system sits on a server. when a client initiates the VD s/w from their PC, they instantiate a VD on the server (where ever it might be located) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martdaw (talk contribs) 23:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Desktop Virtualization means No PC on the Desktop AT ALL
I don't think any of the comments show understanding of what NOW is meant by "desktop virtualization". While years ago, desktop virtualization may have included the idea of a PC on your desktop, the whole purpose of desktop virtualization is to do away with the PC on your desk ENTIRELY. Thus, the PC's software is run on a server. What's on the desk is a hardware box like the Pano Logic device (http://www.panologic.com/). I'm looking for other devices like the Pano Logic box and its accompanying server side software (drivers, etc.). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wfredsr (talk • contribs) 02:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

=This isn't necessarily true. Desktop virtualization is intended to make the client hardware irrelevant as long as it can access the virtual desktop on the server. The client hardware can be anything from a thin client (like that Pano Logic device apparently is) to an older PC to a laptop. For users who do not work in the office, a laptop may still make more sense than a thin client, especially if the user needs to work with offline desktops or the like.99.254.31.36 (talk)

Maybe 3 of 4 needed
Thanks for your input. After thinking some more, I can see 3 separate uses, both what you listed above as well as my humble opinion: I still think all four is not necessarily, maybe merging Remote control software and Remote desktop software into one or the other. Either way, some major clean up on all would be needed. Again, I am planning on doing some of this, but first I wanted to see if any should be merged/renamed/deleted. --Lefton4ya (talk) 19:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Remote administration without remote control of desktop. This includes telnet, remote registry, ActiveDirectory managers, or other utility which does not actually take over the machine.
 * Remote control/desktop, where you log into a machine, but either a user at the computer sees what you do or is locked out, and either way no more than one person can log into a machine at a time. Mostly used for the purpose of remote administration, but could be used as a type of remote desktop for multiple users, but one user at a time, to share a computer or pool of computers.  Examples include Windows RDP/Terminal Services, Apple Remote Desktop, VNC, DameWare, and others listed on Comparison of remote desktop software
 * Desktop virtualization where one machine acts as a server which can have multiple users log in and use its resources for the purpose of having transient settings, saving money with thin clients, and sharing licenses on a machine. Examples include Citrix fams, VMware View, and others listed on Desktop virtualization.

Merged Remote control software
I moved content from Remote control software to Remote desktop software & Desktop virtualization. Feel free to clean up these articles further. I redirected Remote control software to Remote control software, but discuss or be bold in redirecting to Remote administration, which needs some clean up as well. --Lefton4ya (talk) 00:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

References are inadequate
I noticed that all references in the article are forums. I'm okay with that, as long as these references are only temporary and will be replaced with reliable sources as soon as possible. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 23:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I have also inserted the coi tag in this article, given that it was recently expanded by the editor of http://www.virtual-desktop-forum.com, which is the main reference used here. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 23:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

TheVirtualizer (talk) 08:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC) RESPONDING TO PREVIOUS POSTS HERE - Am trying to work out what your actual objection to my editing of this post really are but after reading all of your comments I still dont understand what your objections are.

This is an incredibly neutral and well balanced article that I took it upon mysely to re-edit when I saw that you had let someone basically cut and paste from the VMware and Citrix websites. That original article was on there for a long time and nobody seemed to object. If you can find a better definition of desktop virtualization anywhere please let me know and I will change the definitions we give to new users on our forums. Remember that there are lots of different types of dexktop virtualization and the second we any more technical than I already have you run into issues.

I was always under the assumption that Wikipedia was not a technical website and therefore did not delve into the myriad of different VDI technologies in this article and tried to explain the actual term "desktop virtualization" in the most neutral terms what exactly dsektop virtualization is for the layman user in the same way I do on my forums. Am sorry but anyone with any knowledge of virtualiztion already has a hundred technical sources available to them on the internet and we dont need to provide a further technical source whilst arguing over which technological solution is best at the same time.

Also with regards to the reliable sources comment from Blanchard, there arent any reliable sources such as academics and other websites, just vendors puching their own version of events and various scattered news articles on the subject which offer a wide range of different definitions.

Quite literally the forum which I edit, the virtual desktop forum IS THE only reliable source on the internet and I painstakingly triple check everything I say on that website before i give a definition because I have like 250+ registered members, approximately 25% of which are desktop virtualization professionals of some sort. We cannot afford to have sloppy definitions and what you see is the result of us arguing relentlessly over the subject until we could come up with a definition that everyone could agree on that would articulate to new users exactly what desktop virtualization is all about. In order to do this we basically had to simplify the definition making it solely about the actual term and what it means rather than the different types of technology, their compartivive advantages and disadvantages, etc.

Everything changes in DVI every few months so by keeping the definition simple we avoid having to change it everytime someone comes out with something new or the comparitives change as they so often do when multiple vendors are trying to play catch up with each other. Currently there are HUNDREDS of desktop virtualization organisations all developing some kind of VDI techology of their own.

The second you try to make this article any more technical than it is, its going to become a minefield. TheVirtualizer (talk) 08:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I do agree that I may have a slight conflict of interest in this and am attempting to find some better sources to reference other than my own forum. The main problem here is that I wrote the article from scratch apart from the technical definition which was writted by another member of the virtual desktop forum team who is a volunteer and works within the desktop virtualization industry. I think it is going to be very hard to find some solid academic references for example but I can find lots and lots of white papers. The problem here again is that these white papers are generally produced by commercial organisations and generally describe one kind of desktop virtualization technology, despite some similarities between the main types of desktop virtualization.

I am posting a topic on my forum asking members to submit their links to referenceable material and we will shortly begin to build a library of these links so we have a directory of this sort on our own forum, but as of yet there is no definitive source for this kind of thing. Its just news articles which tend to either very general or way too technical and white papers. Its a relatively new tech.

I read on the comments from a year ago that some were saying that we should list suppliers and providers of desktop virtualization technology and I disagree. In fact I deleted the section of the earlier article because it contained a very narrow focus and listed four companies. The article was basically and advertisement.

If people want to find suppliers and providers of anything related to desktop virtualization they have google and there are hundreds of different companies. We should not attempt to be a guide to these here but we should direct people to sources where they can learn for themselves about the differences between the technologies and this is why i have added links to various forums, blogs and websites in the external links section. There are PLENTY of guides and directories of companies out there, we dont need to replicate that here.

I am completely open to any editing ideas for this article and if we decide to incorporate or polish anything, I will change my definitions on the virtual desktop forum to reflect this and maintain a standard definition along with Wikipedia on this matter. For now I am going to source other references and you shall notice the small changes that I will make over the next week or so when i update the references.

Have deleted the conflict of interest and the references tags although I am not sure if this is bad ettiquete or not, I genuinely do not think they are deserved and have deleted them on the basis that I am actively trying to respond to these tags. I would also like to say that the forum and the forum team are all volunteer, we have no real commercial ties with any desktop virtualization organization. If you look on my forum you will see the occasional advertisement within specific forums but there are no banners, no text links and no general advertising at all and thats the way we want it, we are a community moderated, not-for-profit forum and we will remain that way. Our forum is aimed at educating newcomers to desktop virtualization on exactly what the technology is, the benefits it unarguably brings and the key players and companies involved along with the respective technologies they push. We aim to be a neutral guide and server our members by providing independent advice and reviews of the subject and this will alsways be reflected in anything I write here. TheVirtualizer (talk) 12:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Look I have no idea of who keeps placing the tages on this article but would really appreciate it if you would describe your reasoning for doing so rather than just pasting tags on it because you dont like the look of it. This article IS NOT written like an advertisement because it is not advertising a product or a service but describing a technology. How does anyone think that this is written like an advertisement ? How would you re-write this so it doesnt look like an advertisement in your eyes ? Please paste your comments and thinking before adding a tag without really thinking about it. TheVirtualizer (talk) 12:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * An article's history will let you know who does edits (and hopefully they've left reason text in the history, as opposed to simply removing text without giving any reason). Additionally, please try to present some indenting in discussion threads; thanks.
 * WRT the state of the article, i'm not sure what your standards for advertisement are, but when one reads sentences like As a private virtual desktop user, you are going to be happier with the end result of desktop virtualization. Your desktops will get better, more functional and more socially aware as we move away from the MS Windows model of desktop and we can predict this from the relatively large number of desktop virtualization start-ups all developing their own desktop virtualization platforms as well as the relatively large number of Open Source projects that are doing exactly the same thing but intend to give you a virtual desktop for free ! (!Exclamation mark! to boot - fantastic) — this is exactly the type of verbiage one would see in a vacation brochure, and not the verbiage one would see in an encyclopedia.
 * Further, the far majority of the the "References" point to a single site that pretty much seems like a blog; aside from not being generally accepted sources to cite, this appears as little more than a backdoor way to avoid WP:ELNO. It is better that this article remain as a stub, than as an advertisement. Quaeler (talk) 15:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I understand and agree, it does need a rewrite from that point of view. We are working on compiling a list of source links that would be acceptable to Wikipedia at the moment and for our own forums but its proving difficult because the subject matter is relatively new and the technology is in its infancy so there are not too many academic sources or white papers out there that are not sponsored or produced by commercial organisations operating in the space. Will update this page into conformity shortly. TheVirtualizer (talk) 01:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Made a few changes to the page, namely I took out the END USER PERSPECTIVE section which was getting this page marked as an advertisement and I also deleted the really bad links that somebody put in without commenting to two Desktop Virtualization vendors pages on the basis that this is not a directory of desktop virtualization providers or an advertisement for them. TheVirtualizer (talk) 13:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the improvements. Cited references which are blogs / forums / basically anything already covered under WP:ELNO are discouraged, so what exists for almost all of the references will have to go as well. Quaeler (talk) 16:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with that. The desktop virtualization forum is an internet authority on the subject of desktop virtualization and was founded by a group of desktop virtualization professionals who volunteer their time to work on the forum. Its a public and community-driven resource and not a commercial one like practically any other source of information on the internet and features no advertising whatsoever. I would argue that they are by far the most neutral authority on the subject and the whole forum is about raising awareness of this technology and nothing more. I am going to rewrite the references in the article to include other sources but the links will generally refer to commercial websites and sponsored articles by desktop virtualization vendors describing one kind of technology. The amount of deception and misleading that goes on at vendor level is shocking and when newcomers to the technology read some of these publications they can make decisions which would be wrong for them and their businesses. Wikipedia cannot be a party to those shenanigans and again must remain above this i believe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheVirtualizer (talk • contribs) 21:24, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

POV
This article has large "benefits" and "advantages" sections without balancing discussion of the drawbacks. Mkcmkc (talk) 00:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

This is a good point actually which needs to be adressed in any definition of desktop virtualization and it is a subject which we are just about to publish an article on in our forums but again this is a hugely complicated subject. Desktop virtualization just isnt one technology and is fragmented between the key providers operating under this umbrella. Some of the currently available desktop virtualization technologies have drawback which are not shared by other kinds of technology. Our forums have members who are IT professionals, actively engaged in desktop virtualization implementations and migrations and they tell us that most of the key drawbacks have been overcome and using mixes of the different technologies out there, they can pretty much achieve anything they want to. The few limitations that this technology does have is specific to key vendors and again these hurdles are overcome by mixing the desktop virtualization solution with other technologies. You see adressing the drawbacks is a complicated subject and the fact that most of the Fortune 500 and the FTSE 100 have already embraced this technology means that any discussion of tthe drawbacks of desktop virtualization are secondary, big business is already using this tech across the board because there benefits outweigh the negatives. That and the incredible pace at which this technology improves and moves forward, driven by over 500 companies all working on this at once means that anything we write here covering the drawbacks and is vendor specific would quickly become out of date and would need to be regularly updated as these companies imporve their service offerings.

I would argue that we need to keep this definition as clean and uncomplicated as possible, they are here for a definition of the basic technology, not a discussion of the merits of different vendor solutions and in keeping things simple we avoid the editorial conflicts that occur when we are seen to be favouring one kind of technology or solution over another. There is no right answer to this whole subject because its such a big subject, but we can remain neutral and we can protect the basic definition to make sure that it is not taken over by special interests. Too much of what is on the internet in terms of information on this subject on the internet is already produced by commercial organizations all pushing their own definitions, I think here we need to rise above that.

I still agree though that it is wrong to give just one side of a story, so if any of you wish to propose any drawbacks that we can generalise to encompass the whole technology then put them forward for discussion. Until then I will post the text of our latest article on the subject here in this discussion thread so we can all become informed on this and work on presenting the drawbacks to wikipedia users. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheVirtualizer (talk • contribs) 21:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok I made some changes to the page, found some further references and will add more shortly. We touch on the disadvantages of desktop virtualization with input from others but its a tough one because you may as well ask what the disadvantages of using personal computers are.TheVirtualizer (talk) 00:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Move to Hosted Virtual Desktop
A lot of the confusion over this article could be solved if we moved it to Hosted virtual desktop because the term more clearly describes the article content (and is in fact already used in the article). This term seems to be catching on in the industry, although most wikilinks still go to Desktop virtualization. We previously had a useless stub at Hosted Virtual Desktop. For now, I made both Hosted virtual desktop and Hosted Virtual Desktop redirects to here so development can continue on a single article. UncleDouggie (talk) 10:04, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I would completely disagree with that. A Hosted Virtual Desktop is just a small slice of the desktop virtualization pie.

When we talk about client side (type 1 or type 2) hypervisors, hardware based desktop virtualization and other assorted technologies, they too are an important part of desktop virtualization. besides which most hosted virtual desktops are actually deliverd to the user using presentation virtualization and this is not technically desktop virtualization infrastructure. TheVirtualizer (talk) 18:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Elimination of all External Links
This article needs lots of help. Nearly all the material linked to in the External Links section needs to be incorporated into the article with references and all the ELs should then be removed. They don't comply with WP:EL and they are spam magnets. UncleDouggie (talk) 10:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I've cut the external links down to one. It seems to actually be reasonably useful, and while it has a lot of advertising, it doesn't strike me as unreliable, but I'm not wedded to it...  That being said, the other links were to various articles that were mostly temporal and of minor relevance to the overall topic.  Any proposals for a few really good external links?  user: J  aka justen (talk) 12:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There's no need to go hunting for ELs, a well written article doesn't need them. Just look at today's feature article. The few ELs it has are all for material that truly can't be incorporated into the article but is still useful to a reader. I killed the last link. It violated almost every rule in WP:EL. Instead of re-adding a link, editors should incorporate useful material into the article. UncleDouggie (talk) 13:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Uncle Dug-E, you clearly do not know what you are talking about, providing useful links to very relevent pages where a reader can learn more about the subject of desktop virtualization is not only important but also neccesary. You should follow these links yourself and try to gain a better understanding of this subject yourself before you begin hacking into articles that reside above your comprehension.

Desktop virtualization IS NOT hosted virtual desktops or server based computing, its a term that simply describes the process of seperating the desktop (the OS, the programs and applications= from the underlying hardware. Different kinds of desktop virtualization are now coveres in this article as they should be. TheVirtualizer (talk) 17:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Uninfromed Opinions
Can all editors please not make any changes to this page without first consulting the people who have spent time editing this page in detail. It is fairly clear from your recent edits that not only do you not understand what the term "desktop virtualization" means with clarity, you also do not really understand the technologies that fit under this very broad umbrella. It may help some of you to actually spend a little tim trying to understand exactly what this means and learn about some of the technologies behind desktop virtualization before even attempting to edit a highly technical definition, please follow the external links to do this. And Dug-E, external links are NOT spam magnets, simply an additional resource to allow readers to learn more about the subject if they wish. It would be incredibly difficult to bulid all of these into references as you have suggested, because this technology is just not that straight forward and black and white. We are supposed to be helping others understand this technology and instead your recent edits of this article have confused the issue and mislead the readers in a fairly substantial way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheVirtualizer (talk • contribs) 18:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Keep straight what is remote, what is local

 * The resulting "virtualized" desktop is stored on a remote central server, instead of on the local storage of a remote client

In this article it seems like everything is remote, the server and the client alike. How come?

For the user, the device he uses is the local device, for the administrator of the server, the server is (perhaps) local and the users far flung. I suggest that the article avoids the word "remote". "Remote central server" could be changed to "central server".

Cacadril (talk) 13:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with this at least in the definition of Desktop Virtualization. By itself, Desktop Virtualization is essentially the OS and Applications installed on virtual hardware. Where it runs (Local Computer - such as VmWare Workstation / Remote Server - such as VDI ) are just some of the deployment methods. Burpeee (talk) 19:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Providers and products list
As a user mentioned above, the "Providers and products" section seems incomplete. While not in a marketing position, I am an employee at Elusiva and it is a provider of desktop virtualization product, Terminal Server Enterprise. Elusiva provides virtualization tools for some 35,000 resellers and users, many of which count Elusiva as a featured solution on their websites,. And Elusiva has been covered in several press articles,. I would like to suggest Elusiva Terminal Server Enterprise as a candidate to be added to the Providers and products list. And, as the Elusiva website has been added to the Wikipedia blacklist, I hope someone can request/sponsor its removal from said list. SimBrim (talk) 18:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Broken/outdated references
I noticed that reference #6 is currently a dead link (Microsoft Windows Enterprise: VDI). I do not have NPOV, but it would be awesome if someone in WikiProject Computing has some time to give this article a little love. Thanks! Loseby (talk) 14:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

VideoOverIP
A new article was started about the product of VDIworks, which from what I can tell might be one of these. As per PCoIP, would it make sense to merge this one too? Very unfortunate name, of course, given professional video over IP and Voice over IP. The product seems to exist, but do not find much evidence of independent notability. Actually would Remote desktop software be more apropos? IPCoIP is in that list but redirects here. W Nowicki (talk) 23:29, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

What degree of technology examples should be included here?
Here is my question for discussion:

"Should this article contain a limited list of examples where appropriate?" There are thousands of examples, but a relevant page I just viewed is : Virtual_machine. My opinion is that the Virtual_machine article contains valid links and references to a limited list of relevant examples. I believe the Desktop Virtualization article could have similar content.

Over the past few months, this article has recently been heavily censored by 1 or 2 individuals, who have removed significant amount of content, without adding any information in its place.

Full disclosure, I work in the computer industry, but have not direct or indirect benefit from any specific technology. I do not work for a vendor, nor do I sell or market products in any way. My interest in adding content is to better explain technologies I work with.

In reading through the past "Talk" subjects, I have found it to be common that there are "content creators" or people who add content to wikipedia articles. Then there are "content deleters" who add almost no content, but delete other people's content that they find objectionable. Both actions are important, but deleting content without consensus is akin to book burning. It is much easier to burn a book than it is to write one.

I agree with comments made by the user [User:TheVirtualizer|TheVirtualizer]], who asked if these self appointed police could stop changing content from people who actually know something about this topic. In looking through the changes to this article over the past several years, it has grown and shrank an amazing number of times. People add content (which sometimes becomes too commercial), and then the self appointed police come through and delete 50 to 100 lines of good content at a time.

As a result, this article in its present form contains barely any more information than it did 3 years ago. I know who the "cops" of this article are, but I will refrain from naming names... for now.

Again, should this article be expanded and contain some relevant links similar to thousands of other articles such as the Virtual_machine article, or not? Rfellows (talk) 21:39, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * There is clearly room for compromise. The best way to keep your edits from being reverted is to cite idependent reliable sources. Someone can still revert them, but a third editor is more likely to take the side of the editor with reliable sources that can be verified. No one editor or group has "ownership" of an article: that is official wikipedia policy. But just because the virtual machine article had some inline links creep in and is not well sourced does not justify lowering this one to that level. I just removed a few links from it. If there are wikipedia articles on notable examples, pease do work them into the body with sources. If in a list, there should be no inline links, just wikilinks to articles that can withstand the usual notability challenge. See WP:LSC for example. Any material not supported by cited sources can be removed at any time. W Nowicki (talk) 17:15, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Security
In this article there is a reference that states that desktop virtualisation is a security risk when configured insecurely...I honestly cannot think of any technology where this is not true.. It has nothing to do with Desktop Virtualization. It implies that there are added security risks (opposed to what) but does not clarify what these added risks are. If there are added risk, again opposed to what other solution, clarify otherwise remove the security reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.161.134.203 (talk) 12:56, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * To my knowledge there is one hypothetical use case where there is a greater security risk with VDI when compared to conventional distributed desktop, but I've never seen any documented proof that systems as deployed in IT environments are configured is such a way to make this real. So unless there someone can cite evidence that the risk is real the reference should be deleted. The same goes from the much of the rest of the article.

As you brought this up last year, I'm deleting the reference immediately. Anyone wanting to put it back please cite your sources. --SimonBramfitt (talk) 08:27, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Desktop Virtualisation is a much broader category
Desktop virtualisation describes any form of virtualising desktop resources. This includes thin client, application virtualisation, multipoint computing and client-side virtualisation. It of course also includes VDI, but is NOT a term exclusively used to describe VDI, and I think this is an incredibly misleading article as a result. I whole-heartedly agree with whoever suggested moving this to the hosted desktop article, as it's a complete neglect of much larger parts of the desktop virtualisation landscape. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.13.199.155  (talk • contribs)  08:40, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Agreed. This entire article needs a complete re-write. The base technical definition is wrong, and the bias towards VDI (more accurately Server Hosted Virtual Desktops) over other forms of desktop virtualization is grossly misleading. --SimonBramfitt (talk) 06:54, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Use of "virtual desktop interface" as an alternative to 'virtual desktop infrastructure"
I'm not sure that the number of real world references to "virtual desktop interface" as an alternative to "virtual desktop infrastructure" is sufficient to warrant its use here. Google returns approximately 10,000,000 hits for "virtual desktop infrastructure" against only 200,000 for "virtual desktop interface".

I'm going to delete it unless someone can offer a good reason to keep it

--SimonBramfitt (talk) 08:17, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Some high level restructuring/clarification required
I'd like to propose the following changes:

Clarification of terminology:

Ensure Desktop Virtualization description makes it clear that 'VDI" is only one of several different desktop virtualization solutions.

Drop use of "Hosted Virtual Desktops" as it is currently used - instead use "Desktop as a Service" (DaaS).

Clarify difference between server hosted and client hosted technologies.

Drop use of "remote synchronized virtual desktop" as a mode of operation.


 * 1) This is a feature of a several desktop virtualization implementations, not a distinct mode of operation.


 * 1) It delivers less than 4,000 returns on Google search and almost all of these are duplicates.

Avoid use of "VDI" as an informal shorthand for desktop virtualization.

Clarify use of persistent/non-persistent vs. static/dynamic virtual desktops.

Clarify use of type 1 type 2 hypervisors.

Clarify the role that application virtualization plays in desktop virtualization.

Over all Restructuring as follows:

Introduce desktop virtualization

Indicate general use case

Describe different types of desktop virtualization

Local vs. Remote execution

Persistent vs. non-persistent implementation
 * Server Hosted virtual desktops


 * General case (i.e. VDI)


 * RDSH


 * DaaS


 * Introduction to Server Hosted Virtual Desktop Technologies


 * Remote display software/hardware (thin-clients)


 * Remote display protocols


 * Client-based desktop virtualization


 * type 1 hypervisors


 * type 2 hypervisors


 * hypervisor-less solutions


 * Hybrid solutions supporting both VDI and IDV


 * Application Virtualization


 * User Persona Virtualization

Feedback would be appreciated...

--SimonBramfitt (talk) 00:28, 3 January 2013 (UTC) Updated --SimonBramfitt (talk) 23:35, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Most of the entire cluster of virtualization articles, including this one, is a mess. Sections of this article and almost the entire existence of other articles have been distorted over a lengthy period of time solely to accomodate external link spam.  Your willingness to jump in is definitely a good thing, but keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a technical manual.  While we can and should explain significant and notable concepts in virtualization, we should not be creating a "virtualization technical wiki" of sorts (at least not here at Wikipedia).


 * For example, intelligent desktop virtualization is a broad and significant topic, evidenced by its 237,000 Google Hits; user persona virtualization, on the other hand, barely hits 1,000, a majority of which appear to be quoting from a single press release. (I agree that it's not great to use Google Hits to establish notability or significance in absolute terms, but it can sometimes help to establish relative significance.)  I'm not saying it is a topic we should not cover, but it should probably be within an overarching section about user user virtualization and profile management.


 * One other point is that we need to be extremely careful to avoid drowning users in acronyms, abbreviations, and initialisms. Folks who are familiar with virtualization would probably recognize these, but that's probably not the vast majority of our audience.  You may have just been using them above for simplicity here on the talk page, but in the article, we should stick with spelling out whatever it is on first use, in section headers, and perhaps even on first use in each major section or if it hasn't been mentioned nearby.


 * All of that being said, the article definitely could use some restructuring. The entire "requirements" section, if I recall correctly, sprung about to accomodate a bunch of refspam.  If this article is ever restructured sensibly, we could then perhaps use the same logic that emerges here to corral, merge, and better manage the plethora of articles (some good, some very bad) that have spread from this one.  Godspeed, should you undertake this particular adventure. :)   user: j  (talk)  00:13, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the support. I'm a very old hand at desktop virtualization but new to editing Wikipedia, and still adjusting to the way things are done here. I suspect I will need to adjust my writing style to  conform to the WP way of doing things.


 * re abbreviations etc. Agreed, that follows my writing style already. I'm OK with using them on the talk page but I won't introduce technical terms\abbreviations in the article itself without due consideration and without first spelling them out.


 * My immediate goal here is to clarify what desktop virtualization actually is and restructure the article to to make it more coherent. Once that is done, I'm going to broaden the scope of the work to linking articles actual and establish some structure around the entire space. I recon it will take a year or so. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonBramfitt (talk • contribs) 18:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I've taken the first steps to re-write this article. It still needs at lot of work, but the core is in place. --SimonBramfitt (talk) 18:38, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, this is starting to look a little more sensible. I still need to add a section on server-based remote desktops, but a quick look at Remote desktop services suggests that needs work as well. I'm going to pretend I didn't see that for now and address it later.--SimonBramfitt (talk) 01:22, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Advantages and disadvantages
I ripped the entire section out. leaving it here for now as incentive to write something better

Advantages and disadvantages
The shared resources model inherent in server hosted virtual desktops can offer advantages over the distributed desktops where every computer operates as a self-contained unit with its own processor, memory, and storage. Overall hardware expenses may diminish as users can share resources allocated to them on an as-needed basis. Virtualization potentially improves security of user data because all data can be located in the data center rather than on the local desktop.

Potential advantages include:


 * simpler provisioning of new desktops
 * lower cost of deploying new applications
 * desktop image-management capabilities
 * increased data security
 * longer refresh cycle for client desktop infrastructure
 * secure remote access to an enterprise desktop environment

Limitations of desktop virtualization include:


 * reliance of shared infrastructure can lead to performance degradation in incorrectly sized environments
 * challenges in setting up and maintaining drivers for printers and other peripherals
 * difficulty in running certain resource intensive applications
 * increased impact of downtime in the event of infrastructure failure
 * reliance on connectivity to corporate or public network prevents disconnected operation
 * complexity and high costs of VDI deployment and management

_______________________

--SimonBramfitt (talk) 01:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Clearly false information without supporting evidence (links)
"Where a VDI service provides individual desktop operating system instances (e.g. Windows XP, Windows 7, etc.) for each user, Remote Desktop Services sessions run in a single shared server operating system (e.g. Windows Server 2008 R2, Windows Server 2012, etc.)." This section was written without formal knowledge of the system, and can be entirely incorrect. While RDP can run sessions in a single OS, it can also be used in conjunction with Hyper-V to provide virtual machine instances (i.e. individual desktop operating system instance).

In fact, most of the page is horribly out of date or simply useless/incorrect.

Remove uncited comment.
"it is currently not possible to run Windows 7 on an ARM-based tablet, as there are no emulators that run on those tablets and emulate an x86-based PC.[citation needed]" is not correct as other NT 6.0 variants (Vista; Win7 is NT6.1) will run atop QEMU on Tizen (Linux kernel). Ubuntu can replace Android on some Tablets (e.g. older Kindles). Qemu runs on the Linux Kernel which underies Android. Android essentially is a Dalvik user presentation layer (replacing X and Linux window managers) running on Linux kernel. Shjacks45 (talk) 05:24, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Missing section on Windows MultiPoint Server
Windows MultiPoint Server can use RDP or create Virtual PCs with Thin Client or even thinner client: will create PC's using multiport graphics cards on the Server or by USB-to-Video adapters and Keyboard/Mouse thru hub. I tested this using an acp50 USB Laptop Docking Station. The comment on Windows 7 VDI not running on ARM tablets is false. Shjacks45 (talk) 05:36, 4 July 2014 (UTC)