Thanks Paul, I knew you would chime in. ☺ The majority of ours are persistent, and already exist today. A delay on first load is also not much of a problem, the majority of our users are developers and most of their major apps are pre-loaded in the image (VS, SQL, etc). I assume you were doing user-based deployments? We try to as well, I think we only have a handful of machine -based deployments.
Was App-V w/SCS a major cost savings for your implementation? I can understand it may be hard to calculate saved storage costs vs the cost of App-V. Daniel Ratliff From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Paul Winstanley Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 12:27 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [mssms] OT: Anyone using App-V/SCS on VDI? Daniel I've implemented app-v in xendesktop VDI and with SCS enabled. My main concern is the publishing time for apps when users first login whilst they await the ConfigMgr policy run. Time for this to occur was dependent on the number and size of apps for the user. To get round this issue the apps were cached into the master image. Which, of course, reduced flexibility. Luckily smallish customer with minimal application set. On a larger scale this wouldn't work. Bear in mind this was a non persistent desktop. Cheers Paul On 20 Nov 2014, at 17:15, Daniel Ratliff <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: I am trying to build a case to keep App-V around. I helped implement it, sequenced a few apps, evaluated AdminStudio, and integrated with ConfigMgr. I left the packaging team last year and since then they have had nothing but trouble. We pushed hard for App-V, but the number of support tickets outweighed the benefit on physical workstations. The other teams want to remove it completely and go back to legacy installs for everything. My last saving grace is we could definitely use Shared Content Store on VDI to save storage costs. Has anyone used SCS before or had any App-V + VDI implementations? Ideas? Thoughts? I see the benefit of App-V across the board, but Microsoft shows little to no push for it, and the issues we have had are making everyone else hate it. Daniel Ratliff The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain CONFIDENTIAL material. If you receive this material/information in error, please contact the sender and delete or destroy the material/information. The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain CONFIDENTIAL material. If you receive this material/information in error, please contact the sender and delete or destroy the material/information.
