WHITEPAPER

With the desktop portable, improving desktop management
and reducing instances and length of end-user productivity
disruptions are possible. For example, if the host device is lost
or stolen, the portable desktop (provided a back-up exists) is
replicated on a replacement host device in less time than
provisioning a replacement physical PC. Similarly, if the
operating system or application software becomes corrupted,
a ‘golden image’ of the corrupted software facilitates rapid
recovery.
While there are important portability differences across
alternative personal computing models (e.g., range of
compatible host devices), which will be discussed later, the
portable desktop’s location is equally important. By location,
meaning two locational dimensions: within the host device,
and proximity to the end user. The first, within the host
device, refers to whether the portable desktop operates
directly on top of the host device’s hardware (native; no
hypervisor) or on top of a hypervisor. Additionally, there are
two types of hypervisors: Type I hypervisor (also referred to as
bare metal), which runs directly on the host device’s
hardware, and Type II hypervisor, which runs on top of the
host device’s operating system. Exhibit 1 below illustrates the
locational differences in relation to the host device’s
hardware layer.
Exhibit 1: Portable Desktop Locational Differences within the Host Device
Portable
desktop
Host Image
Host O/S
Portable
desktop
Hypervisor
Host Image
Host O/S
Portable
desktop
Hypervisor
Hardware
Hardware
Hardware
Source: Frost and Sullivan
The ‘within the host device’ implications are:
• Performance Degradation: Two performance implications
associated with hypervisor-based models are the
virtualization and contention caused by multiple active
desktops vying for the host device’s hardware resources. In
practice, the magnitude and variation in performance
degradation are partially controllable through technology and
architecture (e.g., optimizing hypervisor operation, and the
interplay with the host device’s hardware), and by good
desktop management practices in sizing and configuring the
host device’s hardware infrastructure based on realistic
workload requirements; and then actively monitoring and
managing this shared infrastructure.
• Security Risk: The host device’s operating system and
hypervisor operating below the portable desktop represent
reams of security risk. As software, the operating system and
the hypervisor are vulnerable to hacker exploits. Additionally,
each is potentially outside the direct and continuous control
of the issuing agent of the portable desktop (i.e., the IT
organization); for example, in a BYOD (user-owned device)
circumstance or in a subscribed service instance, such as
desktop as a service (third-party environment). Also, similar
to other forms of software, the likelihood and severity of a
security incident or incidents is unpredictable and changeable
over time. Nevertheless, security risk exists and should be
evaluated relative to the sensitivity and criticality of the work
performed through the portable desktop.
As in real estate, location also matters in the portable desktop.
Distance between the end user and the location of the hosted
portable desktop can negatively impact the end-user
experience. Similar to performance-affecting contention of
the shared computing resources in ‘within the host device,’
traffic congestion on shared communication networks can
also be performance impacting. Technology and management
proficiency assist in curbing performance fluctuations and in
reducing instances of unacceptability across the network
connections between end users and portable desktops.
pg | # 04