Would Citrix implementation make desktop support guys redundant?

Hi

I was wondering, if an employer was going to go exclusively down the thin client route, or install thin client software on regular desktops and laptops, could this make the desktop support guys more or less redundant?

I can see it would simplify the provisioning of laptops and desktops a lot, it would lessen the time to set up new laptops and desktops.

Or does it just reduce the burden of hardware maintenance and allow us more time to work on problems like misconfigurations in user profiles etc?

Thanks

Find more posts tagged with

Free for TechExams community: Cybersecurity salary guide

Compare cert salaries and plan your next career move

Button

Comments

forkvoid

There will always be clueless users. As the old saying go, "Make an idiot-proof system and the world will just make a better idiot." Desktop support, I think, is never going to be made redundant. Perhaps less needed in terms of volume(which is even true now: a well-run network typically needs less help desk/desktop support), but never entirely redundant.

HeroPsycho

steve_f wrote: »

Or does it just reduce the burden of hardware maintenance and allow us more time to work on problems like misconfigurations in user profiles etc?
Thanks

It will reduce the need for desktop support in larger corporations but not eliminate it. That's the whole idea. It means there's more demand for the people who manage the virtualization products that enable this, and less for desktop support people. So learn the virtualization product, and you'll be fine.

Ahriakin

HeroPsycho wrote: »

It will reduce the need for desktop support in larger corporations but not eliminate it. That's the whole idea. It means there's more demand for the people who manage the virtualization products that enable this, and less for desktop support people. So learn the virtualization product, and you'll be fine.

+1
Lemons to Lemonade

MentholMoose

I don’t think there’s a clear answer, since the impact on desktop support depends heavily on how the VDI environment is designed, used and deployed, which will vary.

exclusively down the thin client route

A thin client is more reliable than a desktop PC, but the keyboard, mouse, monitor, printer, network cables, and other peripherals won’t be any more reliable when they are connected to a thin client. The most complicated and thus time consuming hardware issues are usually due to desktop PCs, so this still could be a major time savings.

install thin client software on regular desktops and laptops

Desktops and laptops converted to thin clients won’t be much more reliable, if at all. Thin client software is less taxing on the hardware, which may or may not affect reliability. Compared to a real thin client, a converted desktop or laptop may have more software issues. For example, if you use a standard XP install and add on the conversion software, then it will still need patches that can cause problems (though it’s less likely than with a traditional XP install).

I can see it would simplify the provisioning of laptops and desktops a lot, it would lessen the time to set up new laptops and desktops.

Desktop provisioning may be significantly improved, especially if thin clients are used. Users can access their VDI desktop from potentially anywhere, so the physical device they are using is less important. The same applies to laptops, unless you are talking about offline VDI solutions. I’m not really familiar with offline VDI since it’s still so new (last I checked it was still experimental in both View and XenDesktop), so I can’t really comment on it.

Or does it just reduce the burden of hardware maintenance and allow us more time to work on problems like misconfigurations in user profiles etc?

Profile problems probably won’t go away as long as profiles are persistent, but there can be improvements with VDI. Profiles can be made non-persistent, but VDI doesn’t really change this. You can force a default profile on a physical desktop as well as on a virtual desktop in a VDI environment, if it makes sense for the environment (e.g. kiosks, call centers, etc.).

In a traditional environment it is common to have local profiles, which have all sorts of problems. For example, a failing hard drive, bad memory, a power failure, or user behavior can cause profile corruption. Also, a failed hard drive means the user can’t work on whatever data they had in their profile, all their settings are lost, and so on. Roaming profiles and/or folder redirection can fix this somewhat, but then network utilization comes into play and can really cause problems.

With VDI, if you want persistent profiles, typically you will use profile redirection and/or roaming profiles. Since the data stays within the data center, the network should be less of an issue, and presumably your SAN won’t have as many problems as a desktop hard drive, so the chance of a profile being lost is significantly reduced, and the chance of profile corruption is somewhat reduced.

Fewer profile issues combined with some potential reduction in hardware issues could impact desktop support. There are other responsibilities that are likely to be impacted by VDI (image management, software deployment), but they may not be handled by desktop support.