Talk:Desktop virtualization

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:

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#Products.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 document and therefore did not delve into the myriad of different VDI technologies in this article and tried to explain 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, just vendors puching their own version of events. Quit literally Blanchard, 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. 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 organisation all developing some kind of virtual desktop techology of their own.

The second you try to make this article any more technical than it is, its going to become a minefield.