Pull the Marcum, and ask them to see their laptop's control panel...check if they are running ConfigMgr. ;) Mike D- From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [mssms] RE: VMware on the way .. the workspace client VS SCCM 2012? Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2014 13:47:46 +0000
It's real shame. I hate the idea of apps being deployed in so many different places now. I liked the ability to track all the changes to the desktop and software deployments in one place. If only vmware had the same sort of intergration with sccm I guess. I have this bad feeling that the sales guys got in and gave a good pitch and now we are once again putting something in that is going to burn us a year or two down the road. From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Daniel Ratliff Sent: December 4, 2014 4:57 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [mssms] RE: VMware on the way .. the workspace client VS SCCM 2012? Check the slide before the last one, App-V has some progress to make but is far from the worst. Daniel Ratliff From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Burke, John Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2014 3:21 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [mssms] RE: VMware on the way .. the workspace client VS SCCM 2012? That is pretty great. Thanks. So the app-v stuff or Microsofts product is lacking by the looks of things. From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Paul Winstanley Sent: December 4, 2014 3:49 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [mssms] RE: VMware on the way .. the workspace client VS SCCM 2012? John I take it you are talking about app-v v VMware app virtualisation and managing of that. Yes IE can be virtualised with the VMware technology but honestly why bother. Here's a cool round up of app v and the competition that Rory Monaghan presented recently at the app-v UK user group meet up in London http://rorymon.com/blog/index.php/app-v-user-group-uk-app-v-vs-the-competition/ On 4 Dec 2014, at 19:33, Burke, John <[email protected]> wrote: but what about when it comes to the vm space. I'm guessing they were not talking about management and more about just virtual applications and managing those. From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Daniel Ratliff Sent: December 4, 2014 3:15 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [mssms] RE: VMware on the way .. the workspace client VS SCCM 2012? I heard ConfigMgr had 85% at MMS. J Daniel Ratliff From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Murray, Mike Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2014 2:09 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [mssms] RE: VMware on the way .. the workspace client VS SCCM 2012? I haven’t used it, but they certainly don’t have 99% of the market share for systems management. Last I heard ConfigMgr has something like 70% market share there. From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Burke, John Sent: Thursday, December 4, 2014 10:33 AM To: [email protected] Subject: [mssms] VMware on the way .. the workspace client VS SCCM 2012? Hi Folks, We haven't gotten around to putting in SCCM 2012 and VMWARE has been selling pretty hard here. We are about to roll out the workspace client and it seems earily familar to some of the stuff SCCM does in 2012. Does anyone know if this is a direct competing product? Are there issues having both clients on the boxes? I did ask about a bit and they said they went with VMWARE because it had 99% of the market share and that it could virtualize IE and Microsofts version cannot. Is that true? That seems like a pretty bad thing to be unable to virtualize IE to get past some really junky apps. 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.
