Citrix XenApp 5.0 to be released Sep. 10

Citrix announced that the next generation of its desktop and application virtualization platform, XenApp 5.0 (formerly Presentation Server), will be released September 10, 2008.

Customers can see an online event on Sep. 9 with keynotes and live Q&A sessions.

The new product includes over 50 enhancements, detailed in a 13-pages comparative document.
Some of the new features are:

  • Application streaming via HTTP/S
  • Load-balancing defined by groups/users or applications
  • Support for Windows Server 2008
  • Support for IPv6
  • Support for Microsoft XPS Universal Printer
  • Support for Radius and Kerberors authentication (web interface)

The retail price per concurrent user is defined as follow:

  • Advanced Edition – US $350
  • Enterprise Edition – US $450
  • Platinum Edition – US $600

Anyway customers can just buy the application virtualization and streaming components at the price of $60 per concurrent user.

Download a trial here (starting Sep. 10).

By reading the first page of the feature matrix above it seems that the Citrix marketing department worked much to redefine the concept of application virtualization so that our familiar terminology is turned upside-down:

  • What we call today Desktop virtualization becomes Server-side Application Virtualization
  • What we call today Application Virtualization becomes Client-side Application Virtualization

This redefinition, that will create a lot of confusion, was probably necessary because many vendors (including Citrix itself) are now using the term Desktop Virtualization referring to Virtual Desktop Infrastructures (VDIs).

Following the Citrix approach both Desktop Virtualization and VDI seems wrong. The correct term should be Server-side Hardware Virtualization for Desktop OS hosting, or something like that.

The discussion could go on as the vendors currently use other overlapping terms like OS Virtualization, Server Virtualization and many more.

An attempt to define a firm glossary seems as challenging as designing a virtual machine standard format, so Citrix can’t be blamed for this attempt.