﻿ Is application virtualization the answer for Windows Server 2003 users? | ZDNet

Is application virtualization the answer for Windows Server 2003 users?

Is application virtualization the answer for Windows Server 2003 users?


TOPICS: Virtualization



What is the problem?




What is application virtualization?








Is application vitalization really a panacea?









Topic: Virtualization





Log in or register to join the discussion
  • Application virtualization

    ...is not all it's cracked up to be.

    Most application virtualization systems don't overcome all operating system dependencies, so it's not a perfect solution. It's fine for application isolation and portability, but compatibility is not something that app-virt should be considered for. If a business doesn't move forward with software upgrades, they aren't doing IT right.
    • This.

      A lack of software improvement isn't a sign of old technology, it's a notice of lazy developers.
      • Yup.

        It's also a sign of a software company that doesn't understand technology from a business standpoint - they can't just develop a single version of an application, then forget about R&D and switch all of their staff over to a support role forever.
      • ah now developers suck..

        ...of course. kill them all!!!
        breed a new kind! the one that will say every morning "hail bill" "hail steve"
      • Don't blame the devs

        Almost all of the software running on these old machines either have updated versions or they have gone EOF a long time ago. The problem is that software does not have rust or peeling paint, etc and so companies tend to ignore software and spend elsewhere.

        Blame management.
        Rann Xeroxx
    • Missing the point?

      Application virtualization isn't operating system virtualization. So it isn't meant to "overcome all operating system dependencies". If the software wouldn't run on the new operating system when installed normally, it probably wouldn't run in any kind of application virtualization container on that operating system. If there are exceptions, they must be very specialized. So I think the point of this article is that there are tons of applications out there, on Windows Server 2003 machines, which WOULD work on Windows Server 2012 machines if they could be reinstalled or moved. And then it presents this application virtualization technology as a way to move the applications when reinstallation is impossible or cost-prohibitive. Although that wasn't explained very well.

      It seems like a good idea if the main motivation is getting off of unsupported operating systems and aging hardware. I'm sure there are plenty of companies out there facing this sort of problem. Sitting around complaining about the causes and playing the blame game won't solve anything.
  • About panaceas . . .

    Of course virtualization is the answer sometimes. It's a great technology.

    "Is application vitalization really a panacea?"

    Probably not. Sure, it has some benefits, but describing it as a "panacea" is a whole different thing.

    There's very little in this world anymore that can be truly described as a "panacea," although ZDNet bloggers seem to latch onto that idea quite often.

    Tablets are somehow assumed solve all of the problems of notebooks and desktops, although that's never really been shown.

    The "cloud" has been assumed to solve all of the problems of local apps - although again, that has never really been proven.

    Bloggers seem to live in this fantasy world where everybody only uses 5 apps and the internet.

    Nothing's really as black and white as bloggers seem to want to paint it, and I'm sure the same is true for virtualization; it's going to depend on the needs of the business.
  • Seems like a solution to a non-existent problem

    When you start talking about LEGACY - you encounter the strong 'if it ain't broke - don't fix it" mentality. IT departments cringe at the thought of touching Legacy applications - so why would they be interested in touching a Legacy app to add this virtualization layer? They wouldn't and won't. The best strategy is to use the impending upgrade deadline as a lever to get programmers to update their app. Legacy costs - and adding a virtualization layer does little to change that dynamic.
    Roger Ramjet
    • Oftentimes not possible

      There are many reasons why it's not always possible to update an app. Sometimes the tools used are obsolete or there isn't simply the need to spend the money to do so.

      Additionally, I doubt there are many companies that are holding onto old hardware simply for that reason. It's costs way too much money to fix old machines. Where I work we have specified lifespans for hardware; if we can't move off an OS for whatever reason, we virtualize it.
  • no it's not...

    ...the solution is to totally abandon microsoft.
    • Business abandoning M$

      If only....
  • don't get the point of this article

    windows 2003 server isn't going to be running apps, unless it is a terminal server, one of only many server use cases.

    At best it fits that niche only. Article is of no use to an IIS .net server config.
    • no apps on 2k3?

      Hi there.

      Why would no applications be running on 2k3? And why is the article of no use to an IIS web server setup?

      Thank you.
      • I agree

        To me it seems obvious that there would be machines out there running important applications on 2K3. As long as the OS was supported and the machine was running smoothly, why would they change? I'd wager that there are still machines out there running Windows 2000. And that most of them are owned by banks.
        • I agree with CloudChronicle's questioning, I mean

          (See subject)