Microsoft App-V Reviews

I have used Microsoft App-V for more than 10 years in the past, but my company currently does not use it because the systems for application visualization here are a bit expensive.

In general, I think application virtualization is not effective because technology has changed. Currently, there is no longer a proper way to stream applications, which is a significant issue because virtualizing an application requires many changes every time, especially with security concerns when needing to integrate certificates into applications.

Business discussions often involve a resistance to change applications frequently, as they require automatic updates directly within the application without causing outages.

The situation with Microsoft App-V usage is challenging because it requires substantial infrastructure management and numerous features to identify and resolve issues, such as cache clearance and ensuring that all packages are correctly signed.

This has led us to search for other solutions; we are considering using FlexApp from Liquidware, but the licensing is quite costly.

Additionally, over 95% of our applications run on Citrix, and we are looking to transition to application layering, which also has its complications and requires significant management.

There seems to be a lack of good solutions available on the market, and some technologies need to be reevaluated, potentially considering older technologies since Citrix has also shifted its model, requiring installations on a master rather than streaming, which hampers the identification of issues with old applications still in production.

From my experience with Microsoft App-V, the feature I liked the most is the streaming.

The problem with Microsoft App-V is that there is no choice since Microsoft has decided to stop it, and we are searching for alternatives.

Microsoft App-V needs to evolve, possibly with better integration with other solutions, particularly since we use Citrix and want to integrate App-V packages more efficiently.

The management of packages should be easier, possibly through a web console for visibility in versioning, and options to convert packages when changing technologies.

Many companies avoid using tools like Admin Studio due to high costs. Additionally, Microsoft App-V has been slow, and users experience delays when launching applications, which presents significant challenges.

I have used Microsoft App-V for more than 10 years.

For new users with no experience in Microsoft App-V, deploying it initially is completely difficult because they would lose significant information during the process.

Most of the information provided by Microsoft is outdated and support is limited.

For someone new without prior exposure to RDS application deployment or equivalent Level 2 application experiences, it becomes challenging due to the significant base knowledge required, particularly in scripting and PowerShell.

I have experienced problems with stability, but this is not only related to Microsoft App-V; it often ties back to the design and infrastructure in place.

Issues arise if there are problems with the network or storage.

Scalability primarily depends on initial capacity planning.

If you do not understand the type of storage you will need based on how many applications you expect to deploy in your data center, you might face issues.

The limitations exist if there is insufficient storage space for your packages and if the connectivity is inadequate, particularly if applications need to be accessed from different global locations.

I have not contacted technical support because obtaining a Microsoft support contract is very costly, and typically only large international companies have them.

Support is an area for improvement, although I understand why Microsoft is not putting more effort into App-V, potentially due to their partnerships with Citrix, who offers better solutions.

We do everything ourselves. We have support from a partner based in the UK, but we have a ticket limitation due to costs.

Additionally, we do not use Microsoft App-V anymore since Microsoft's support is inadequate and often favors those who pay for support.

We have completely moved from Microsoft App-V to FlexApp from Liquidware, which is the only similar solution we consider.

Our company is also evolving towards SaaS applications and web apps, as they are more efficient; however, we still have some applications that require a client-server model.

When discussing with vendors, they often suggest moving to cloud or SaaS models, but geopolitical concerns prevent our company from using cloud solutions, leading us to establish a private cloud to maintain control over our applications and data within Europe.

From the end-user perspective, maintenance is minimal, primarily for the infrastructure and application team.

The cache must be cleared every time an application is updated, that is something that needs to happen at both the infrastructure and client side.

In terms of pricing, I believe the model that some companies are adopting, which is based on user licensing, is problematic because the more users you have, the more you pay. A better approach might be to have a flat site or company-wide pricing structure, reducing the overall costs annually.

Previously, with licensing, Microsoft App-V was difficult due to variable costs and specific licensing requirements, and many organizations, including ours, want a central management solution for application virtualization.

However, we still have instances where we create master applications and install clients without robust virtualization.

On a scale of one to ten, I rate Microsoft App-V a six.

Working with legacy software is my only use case for Microsoft App-V because the company I work for has many old software that are used for different tasks. Additionally, the previously mentioned old developers are no longer with the company, either retired or moved to other places, so it was necessary to find a way to make those applications work from old compatibility operating systems to the new ones. That was the study case and implementation of Microsoft App-V inside the enterprise where I'm currently working.

My use case for Microsoft App-V is that I'm using it now, but I'm not the one who is maintaining the platform; it was handed over to others. I'm just using the applications that are published on those servers for my VDI solution.

The most valuable feature of Microsoft App-V that I found is the possibility to bring old software back to life and publish it for users to do their jobs using those applications. Additionally, this came free with an agreement with SCCM since it did not require any additional licenses; it was an add-on to SCCM when the enterprise acquired the solution.

One of the latest releases allowed for easy publishing via SCCM, making it quite flexible and easy to maintain. Once you package one app, it can be delivered to many users, creating a win-win situation because if it was packed in a capsule, the interaction with the user was minimal. The users could not break the app or ask for support because there was no support; they simply had this app in a container that would function correctly, without altering the content.

The downside is that not all software worked perfectly due to how they were written—as either machine or user context—which impacted how applications could be delivered. In a virtual environment with many users on the same machine, surprises could happen.

I utilize the feature of Microsoft App-V for running multiple versions of applications concurrently, where they are pushed by SCCM. We can have different populations with different versions published simultaneously, either through SCCM or Microsoft App-V. However, I'm currently contemplating whether the enterprise I'm in still uses the old App-V infrastructure or if they have completely switched to SCCM packages, as they have multiple personnel for managing SCCM and only had three individuals for the Microsoft App-V infrastructure.

I believe there is no room for improvement in Microsoft App-V since it is officially at the end of life. Microsoft does not negotiate extensions for their end-of-life solutions.

It has been a great tool over the years, but the company has managed to write most applications to bring them up to date, many written from scratch or as web-based applications. It's highly likely that we will decommission the Microsoft App-V solutions next year, keeping backups for a period until the new applications stabilize.

I'm confident that once they transition to newer versions, they will phase out Microsoft App-V just like they do with operating systems. When Microsoft decides to close a version, such as Windows 10-22H2 or 21-H2, it happens. Paying for extended support is costly and, in the end, not worth it. Organizations must think of alternatives, possibly leaning towards MSIX, although MSIX doesn't support very old software used on Windows XP or 2000, which raises doubts about what can truly be improved. It's clear they won't introduce anything new; they will only provide security patches as they approach the end-of-life timeline.

I have been using Microsoft App-V for about 10 years.

The stability of Microsoft App-V improves once you fully understand how it operates. Initially, it may not be seamless, but it requires fine-tuning as it doesn't always function as intended due to software issues or limitations of Microsoft App-V technology.

One specific problem I recall is its inability to capture all changes made to the registry, as advertised, requiring manual entries to ensure optimal results. Despite these weaknesses, the technology has endured, evidenced by its ongoing presence in enterprise environments, though I believe its decommissioning is imminent as MSIX isn't a free alternative for enterprises.

The scalability of Microsoft App-V has been decent for us; we didn't have a vast number of users—around 2,000. For that user base, what Microsoft App-V offers has been adequate. Furthermore, the integration with SCCM greatly assisted us, allowing for rapid deployment.

Before using Microsoft App-V, we were utilizing Citrix, specifically Citrix XenApp.

The decision to choose Microsoft App-V over competitors was driven by a proof of concept that we conducted with some old software that we knew couldn't be managed with XenApp at the time. After the proof of concept was successful and we received positive feedback from users, we decided to adopt Microsoft App-V, especially since it was free.

Initially, we utilized it in full infrastructure, and then we used SCCM as a distribution point. I'm now sure they have shifted away from the App-V infrastructure and rely solely on SCCM packages for their application distribution as it provides a more convenient source.

In our large company, we handled the installation of Microsoft App-V internally. We did engage consultants twice to help us with the setup, providing direction and correcting areas that were unclear or uncertain if they would work. Our setup was unique due to security restrictions, so when we encountered situations not documented anywhere online, we had to bring in a consultant both times to answer outstanding questions.

I have not integrated Microsoft App-V with any other tools because we have Citrix XenApp as an alternative. It was possible to publish Microsoft App-V through Citrix, but we kept them separate; what worked with Microsoft App-V remained as is, and what ran on XenApp stayed there. Ultimately, we ended up with a hybrid workstation capable of utilizing either XenApp applications or Microsoft App-V based applications. We decided on this separation because both tools worked best independently.

Based on what I have observed, there were substantial savings because it prevents the need to rewrite software from scratch or troubleshoot unmaintained legacy applications. Microsoft App-V worked effectively for those applications, saving a lot of money—since you can't just ask, "How can I make this software work on Windows 11?"

I don't currently have a use case or a situation in mind regarding the integration of Microsoft App-V with different third-party tools.

I have not noticed that using Microsoft App-V for virtual application distribution across a network has significantly helped with business continuity; it was too weak for that. We have VDI from Citrix, which is top-notch for this kind of work. Microsoft App-V is more suited for legacy software usage, and trying to make it work in that context usually feels tricky and unreliable.

On a scale of 1-10, I rate Microsoft App-V an eight out of ten.

The main use cases for Microsoft App-V nowadays are mainly for legacy support. In the past, it was also the overall deployment tool.

Microsoft App-V is a simple, very good working product that just works. It's starting to age, but it still is one of the better products available.

The specific area of virtualization in Microsoft App-V keeps the application separate from the local OS without deploying unwanted files.

I have utilized Microsoft App-V's feature for running multiple versions of an application concurrently. This capability helps when migrating from version one to version two of software, as it allows easily pointing the software to people who need the current or next version. It usually works seamlessly as long as there are no services involved.

Using Microsoft App-V for virtual application distribution across a network has definitely helped customers with their business continuity plans. It works very stably, meaning that if there's an issue, things can be quickly switched around. It can be moved to a local system, to an end-user system, or used in VDI. If Microsoft App-V is working, it usually works in all systems, making it flexible. Even if there's an issue and the VDI environment is not working, it can easily be deployed to another environment or to the end user, and the customers can keep working with the application. From their standpoint, it is a very robust system.

Microsoft App-V brings measurable benefits in terms of improvement in operational cost because it is a well-defined solution. There are many best practices available on how to use it. The costs of keeping it running are limited and easy to quantify. The system resources needed to keep it running and especially to make new ones are very limited, and as that is even starting to be phased out, it keeps the companies running without hidden costs.

Regarding improvements in Microsoft App-V, I would appreciate seeing the successor, MSIX, work better, as nothing is going to be implemented anymore since it is end of life by the end of the year. I want it to work as they've claimed for the last 10 years.

I have been working with Microsoft App-V for approximately 15 years.

I did integrate Microsoft App-V with the SCCM, System Center Configuration Manager.

Integration with the SCCM provides benefits as it makes it easy to deploy Microsoft App-V without having to do manual deployment tasks. Setting up the streaming servers and doing the assignments of the App-V to the users allows them to use the application as if it is natively installed, and it is made available as soon as possible or as soon as they need it. While I'm not a real fan of it, it works and for large companies, that is how they prefer to work.

The integration capabilities of Microsoft App-V work, but I'm not a fan of it. Making plug-ins for office applications work is nice, but if there are multiple and you enable and disable it on the run, it is not always stable. Especially if there are calls from other applications to the main application, first running it without the Microsoft App-V plug-in, and then with it often produces errors.

After everything is set and done, Microsoft App-V does not require difficult maintenance. There is no development anymore, so when it is running, it is stable and keeps running. The only time that it breaks is most likely when Microsoft pushes out an update that breaks something. But in general, if it works, it keeps working.

In terms of scalability, I have not faced any limitations. The biggest scalability issue with Microsoft App-V is when using the shared content mode. Then file shares and network connectivity could be a threat or bottleneck, but if using the local deployment features with a streaming server and the system is persistent, it is all stable and there are no real issues.

The initial setup process for Microsoft App-V was more challenging when it was still SoftGrid. There were complex tasks involving streaming servers, and documentation at that time was limited. For a new user to understand how it works without consultancy to explain things, they might think they need all the modules that Microsoft delivers, whereas 99% of situations can be handled with much less - just a file share and the agent deployed, and a few scripts to manage the deployment and assignment are sufficient.

The main differences between Microsoft App-V and competitors in the market are that its biggest advantage is it just works and is a proven system. It is Microsoft only, which is not necessarily an issue. The biggest disadvantage is that it is approaching its end-of-life date, and we are still looking for a good alternative. For many legacy software applications, MSIX is not the solution.

In my evaluation process for alternatives to Microsoft App-V, I am considering Microsoft's MSIX, Citrix layering solutions, and moving toward SaaS, which means getting rid of legacy applications and migrating to new web-based software. Microsoft App-V is used for the legacy applications while everything that no longer works is migrated to a new solution using a web-based approach.

I received an invite from a colleague via LinkedIn about discussing my experience with Microsoft App-V. The question of why Microsoft App-V remains relevant is important because it is approaching end of life.

I currently work with Microsoft App-V as I still have customers using it. Regarding environments, I mostly use Microsoft App-V for on-premises setups.

The impact on the infrastructure setup and overall organizational needs of Microsoft App-V in the on-premises environment is minimal because it only requires a file share and deployment of the App-V agent which is currently implemented in Windows.

I have a partnership with Microsoft as a small partner, focusing only on implementation support. I maintain a minimal partnership as I cannot obtain silver or gold partnership status since I am a single employee and cannot meet the minimum requirement of three or four technicians and salespeople needed to sign up.

On a scale of 1-10, I rate Microsoft App-V a 9.

Neutral

I have been using Microsoft App-V for quite some time, and I can describe my use cases, which include various applications that enhance productivity.

What I appreciate best about Microsoft App-V are its user-friendly features that simplify application management, although I did encounter some issues when troubleshooting.

There is definitely room for improvement with Microsoft App-V, especially in terms of enhancing troubleshooting resources and user guidance.

I have been using Microsoft App-V for quite some time.

Based on stability, I can say that I faced some issues with bugs and breakdowns at times, but I did have the support from Microsoft, which was responsive and knowledgeable.

The support from Microsoft was responsive and knowledgeable when addressing bugs and breakdowns.

Positive

I am a Microsoft customer, and I would recommend Microsoft App-V for other people looking for effective application virtualization solutions.

I would advise newcomers to familiarize themselves with its documentation to get the best out of it.

Currently, I am not using anything else that I would consider reviewing. I appreciate the process of being able to change or review my answers.

I rate Microsoft App-V 8 out of 10.

We use the solution for the Docker container.

It is easy to scale. You can quickly deploy additional instances. Rollbacks are easy because there is an automatic backup every hour. Deploying the application is straightforward and efficient.

The process was streamlined but didn't make our work simple. We encountered an issue with the person responsible for designing the website. They installed a plugin that disrupted the services and made the website inaccessible. We resolved the problem using the automatic backup preconfigured on the platform. The website was restored quickly, making it easy to address the user-created issue.

I have been using Microsoft App-V for two to three months.

It is simple to scale and simple to maintain. It improves the time of our IT team. It's simpler for our financial team because it's on another Microsoft product. We didn't have to pay another provider.

The documentation is good. I have pretty much everything that I need. I found articles from Microsoft.

Positive

Our IT team's deployment was quick, but it had an impact on the business. We have two options: how many virtual CPUs and how much memory or disk space?

I rate the deployment a ten out of ten, where ten is the easiest.

It is way more expensive than other platforms. It is almost twice the price of other platforms.

I rate the product’s pricing an eight or nine out of ten, where one is cheap and ten is expensive.

I recommend the solution.

Overall, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

The solution is useful for deploying applications.

We can deploy applications incredibly fast. The implementation time is really fast. I like the way the Sequencer works. The publication and management console are really helpful. We switch from the classic MSI through SCCM deployment to App-V with an in-house publication server. The delivery time has decreased by 40% to 45%.

Microsoft has announced that it is going to discontinue the solution. I wish the vendor would not discontinue the tool. The reporting features could be improved. We use our in-house tools for reporting.

I have been using the solution for 12 years.

We use the tool in the production environment. Stability is very important to us. I rate the stability a ten out of ten.

The tool is highly scalable. We can add as many publication servers as we need. We can split our architecture into different sites. We have 3000 to 4000 users. We use the tool on a daily basis.

The support is highly reactive.

The setup is quite simple 90% of the time. The architecture is pretty simple. To deploy the product, we sequence, publish, validate, and move it to production.

The deployment can be done in-house without external help.

The product is free, but we must pay for Microsoft licenses.

Microsoft has planned to decommission the solution. There are other solutions in the market, but they don't cover all the functionalities that App-V does. Overall, I rate the product a ten out of ten.

We are integrators. We integrate this product.

We use this solution to deploy applications to end-users in a very fast, secure manner, and in an isolated container.

The most interesting and powerful feature for us is the fact that we can upgrade any kind of app instantly.

We like that we can deploy apps, both globally or per-user.

Also, that the applications follow the user. For example, if the end-user connects to a different station and the application is published for him, the application will follow him no matter where he is.

We can run scripts on different triggers for when an application is published, unpublished, or when a package is added or removed.

It's very flexible.

The downside is that Microsoft bought this product and they are going to discontinue it in 2026. This is worrisome for us.

I would like to see them continue to maintain the product. From my point of view, it reached a maturity where we can consider it to be perfect.

If we wanted to be picky, Microsoft could improve the synchronization of the client. We were forced to put our own PowerShell script, which mimics the built-in functionality of the syncing. It would avoid errors.

Another feature that has not been implemented, but would be nice to have is the possibility to publish different shortcuts within the same package, to different groups. 

There is a solution in place, but it's not really working. If you have two different groups on two different shortcuts, everything works fine, as long as you don't have a common set of users in those groups. As soon as you have one user in both groups, then the client won't know which one to publish, and it is not able to do a merge between those two settings.

I would like the synchronization improved and to have the possibility to publish different shortcuts to different groups within the same package.

I have been using this solution for a very long time. Since the time that it was still SoftGrid.

We are using the latest version.

It's a stable product.

It is very scalable. We have approximately 4,000 users.

From my point of view, the interaction with Microsoft support was great. 

Actually, at one point in the past, they were delivering patches just for us. So I think they're great.

Before Microsoft App-V, we had MSA, which is still a great product. 

The disadvantage of MSA is that it is difficult to deploy compared to App-V.

You need to perform an installation on the user's computer in a timeframe where the user is not there. 

Everything runs in the system account. You have conflicts with other apps because everything is locally installed, with MSA being the main installation engine, in MSA through SSCM. 

I believe that they are trying to put MSA X in place, which is not very good, but MSA would remain the main way to install applications.

If the installation is on the client it is a part of the Windows 10 Operating System.

If it is on the server-side, or publication, it is straightforward. Depending on the complexity of your infrastructure, there may be some configurations to do.

In theory, for a small company, it is straightforward. You deploy the setup and that is it. For a normal infrastructure, with a publication server, management server, and reporting server, this can be done in five to six hours.

A more complex infrastructure, where you need to load balancers and multiple servers, with test and production infrastructure, it can take up to one month. This is not the installation itself, it's the normal workflow so that you make sure you don't impact end-users.

We have a team of five that includes one manager, three packagers, and one admin to deploy and maintain this solution.

I have a lot of experience with Microsoft App-V and VMware as a normal user. I'm not managing the infrastructure, and we do a lot of publications through Citrix.

We use it on-premises and I am not aware if there is a cloud version for App-V.

This solution would be suited for big companies with many users. A normal user at home would never use this product. 

In the current context, since the end of life has already been reached and we are at the extended end of life, I wouldn't recommend adopting this solution.

With this critical exception, Microsoft App-V is a great product.

I would rate Microsoft App-V a nine out of ten.

I have had two projects that involved working with Microsoft App-V. During these projects, the requirements changed to have all of the needs addressed, as well as the servers.

This product helps to protect business applications that are in the cloud.

It is very easy to use from an administration point of view.

If it were possible to integrate App-V with a cybersecurity solution then we could implement a documentation registry, which would be useful.

This is a stable product.

App-V is suitable for enterprise-level businesses.

From my point of view, to keep security, scalability has to be changed a little bit.

The technical support had been quite good until now, which is usually the case with Microsoft cloud services. They have wonderful support and it meets the customers' expectations.

Microsoft support is 24/7 and for technical issues, most of them are resolved in one day.

I also have experience with Citrix.

Prior to App-V, I worked with Microsoft RMS and another product that had document control.

The pricing of this product is competitive. Especially when it is bundled with Microsoft Office 365.

From a technical point of view, it meets most of the customers' needs. In addition to App-V, we have solutions to protect the architecture that includes data encryption.

In summary, they have smart features, a good user experience, and a competitive price. From my point of view, it is 100%.

I would rate this solution a ten out of ten.