locked
SCCM vs APP V Server RRS feed

  • Question

  • Having read the white paper on using SCCM as the distribution of virtual software I am wondering from people who have tried both what the feel is the best approach. We do have SCCM and the money is there to buidl a APP V server infrastructure.

     

    The white paper to does talk about the rpos and the cons, but in the real world what are people finding, are the extra benefits of having the App V server a better way to go if you can afford it?

     

    I know this may not be the right forum for this question, but I find the people within the technet community are the ones to ask.

     

    Thanks for your time.

     

    Derek

     

    Monday, November 17, 2008 11:23 PM

Answers

  • The decision on which way to go is highly dependent on your existing situation and needs. 

    We are generally the existing customers used to the dedicated App-V server users look at SCCM and decide to stay with what they have.  Usually, this is a question of feature sets.  License monitoring has been a big reason.  The other is the per user scenario of Terminal Servers.  Unless you use a separate shortcut publishing package SCCM does not give you true per-user there.  Although maybe not a viable concern for production, when you work with the two methods, you realize that you can deploy an app so much faster with the dedicated server.  If you ar used to that, SCCM seems to take forever to do anything.  It can be hard to overcome that emotional pull for speed.

    Existing SMS/SCCM customers seem to prefer going to SCCM to add in App-V (although not as overwhelmingly).  Using one tool and getting the most important bennefits is enough for those people.

    • Proposed as answer by znack Monday, November 30, 2009 7:50 PM
    • Marked as answer by Aaron.ParkerModerator Sunday, November 18, 2012 9:05 AM
    Friday, November 27, 2009 3:06 PM
    Moderator

All replies

  •   To me it comes down to the dynamic publishing of App-V to keep App-V separate. If you can afford the infrastructure to scale on it's own and not need the ConfigMgr backbone, go full App-V and run both. (just never enable it in SCCM). I've used SMS/SCCM for a decade now and it's never been great at targeting users. On the other hand, you lose the ability to schedule for the virtual app to be fully cached afterhours. (Something I can get over with though)

       IMO, if I've only worked with ConfigMgr and then App-V came along as an added solution, then I would love the R2 combo. But I've used Softgrid/App-V separate and appreciate it too much as it's own product, especially with the added scalibility capability to run it on it's own now.

       I'm interested to see other people's opinions as well.

    Tuesday, November 18, 2008 3:36 AM
  • It's been nearly a year has anyone got any more information?
    Thursday, November 12, 2009 4:51 PM
  • The decision on which way to go is highly dependent on your existing situation and needs. 

    We are generally the existing customers used to the dedicated App-V server users look at SCCM and decide to stay with what they have.  Usually, this is a question of feature sets.  License monitoring has been a big reason.  The other is the per user scenario of Terminal Servers.  Unless you use a separate shortcut publishing package SCCM does not give you true per-user there.  Although maybe not a viable concern for production, when you work with the two methods, you realize that you can deploy an app so much faster with the dedicated server.  If you ar used to that, SCCM seems to take forever to do anything.  It can be hard to overcome that emotional pull for speed.

    Existing SMS/SCCM customers seem to prefer going to SCCM to add in App-V (although not as overwhelmingly).  Using one tool and getting the most important bennefits is enough for those people.

    • Proposed as answer by znack Monday, November 30, 2009 7:50 PM
    • Marked as answer by Aaron.ParkerModerator Sunday, November 18, 2012 9:05 AM
    Friday, November 27, 2009 3:06 PM
    Moderator
  • We have tried it in our test environment, and the deployment of the apps to the client workstations is a bit slower with SCCM than with APP-V streaming. Which is logical because it is another layer in between the actual delivery to the clients. So if you want the apps deployed fast stick with the APP-V infrastructure. If you want to be able to fully schedule app deployment and caching. Combine with SCCM.
    Thursday, January 14, 2010 12:48 PM