Citrix had moved over to app-v from xendesktop 7 for app deployment. They integrate with the app-v management server however and not configmgr.
Yes Scs was a huge cost saver disk wise and definitely worth implementing. I find app-v is like marmite though. Some people love to work with it others not. It's a great solution for those that can understand it. Pass over support to 2nd line and it starts to become some mystical beast that has magical unfathomable powers. > On 20 Nov 2014, at 18:11, Marcum, John <[email protected]> wrote: > > Wow…. I would LOVE to see anything you have from Citrix stating this. > > > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] > On Behalf Of Daniel Ratliff > Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 11:51 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: [mssms] OT: Anyone using App-V/SCS on VDI? > > Citrix has told us to use App-V not XenApp for our environment. Why that is, > I don’t know. > > Daniel Ratliff > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] > On Behalf Of Marcum, John > Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 12:41 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: [mssms] OT: Anyone using App-V/SCS on VDI? > > Over the years I've tried to find use cases for App-V but I've never really > found one that made sense. The non-persistent desktop model is definfantely > an idea but if you have VDI you have XenApp so why use App-V? > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] > On Behalf Of Paul Winstanley > Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 11:27 AM > 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]> 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. > > > > > Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail is from a law firm and may be protected > by the attorney-client or work product privileges. If you have received this > message in error, please notify the sender by replying to this e-mail and > then delete it from your computer. > > > Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail is from a law firm and may be protected > by the attorney-client or work product privileges. If you have received this > message in error, please notify the sender by replying to this e-mail and > then delete it from your computer. > > > 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. > > > > Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail is from a law firm and may be protected > by the attorney-client or work product privileges. If you have received this > message in error, please notify the sender by replying to this e-mail and > then delete it from your computer. > > > Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail is from a law firm and may be protected > by the attorney-client or work product privileges. If you have received this > message in error, please notify the sender by replying to this e-mail and > then delete it from your computer. >
