Actually we’ve been quite transparent with our criteria. It went through several rounds of review from each major vendor in the space. That was after extensive reviews by our client base. We have also publicly presented the criteria at several industry conferences. Thus far, it was presented at Citrix Synergy in May, and the Burton Group Catalyst conferences in June and July. Next we’ll present the criteria at VMworld North America and again at VMworld Europe. Citrix’s release of a beta client hypervisor did nothing to improve their results. We only count shipping products as part of any assessment. Thanks, and I hope to see you at one of the VMworld conferences if your interested in learning more about the criteria.

Virtual Bridges is on our to-do list, but we write profiles based on platforms of highest interest to our clients. We’re currently writing up Oracle VDI and Virtual Bridges is slated to be next. Feedback and interest from folks such as yourself is what helps us to prioritize research objectives.

Great findings but you have to pay Burton to see the criteria?! Not exactly open and transparent. I suspect the fact Citrix have released a client hypervisor may have helped their results even though it’s still beta code? How do we know?

Mike

This study is quite interesting, have you ever thought comparing View and XenDesktop with other competitors like Virtual Brigde ?

I’d like to see the results of your evaluation for Virtual Bridge. I have tested those three solutions, and I give a real advantage to Virtual Bridge in terms of deployment speed (1 week to deploy a full featured clustered environment …) and administration simplicity.