Thin clients won't cut ownership costs at all, because computers are already commoditized and cheaper than dirt. Energy savings is negligible.

You also can't customize your setup much.

They might provide better privacy control, provided the people at the other end are up on their game. If they're not, they should be prepared to be sued sued sued sued sued. .

"Thin clients won't cut ownership costs at all, because computers are already commoditized and cheaper than dirt. Energy savings is negligible."

For individuals, you are right. But for big orgs like universities, I'm not sure sure..

Heck, I've already seen lots of thin clients (made by SUN) in universities.

Actually, I think 25 percent savings is low. The big advantage is that thin clients last for 10 to 12 years because they never need upgrading and have no moving parts. Add in centralized maintenance, lower bandwidth, etc.

Mark

Flashing on Data General "dumb terminals" circa 1981...and boy were they dumb. I brought a PC to work and set it next to my DG in 1985, whereupon the IT director demanded my firing, sure that it threatened his empire, and rightly so!

If these things catch on in corporate america they will:
Impede telecommuting;
Give increased power to OS cartels to set features and interfaces without user input;
Save extra money because the IT staff can be fully outsourced;
Make it difficult for an individual employee to "justify" a laptop acquisition, which puts them back in old "needs vs wants" loop, controlled by the IT budget dept.

In short, there is much more of import than meets the eye.

I'm sitting on the fence. I think thin clients make all the sense in the world in some cases (libraries, universities -- wherever people just use the computer for a little while and then move on -- it's not "their" computer), but I don't think they make much sense in some other situations..

As usual, it should be a case by case thing, but full PCs certainly are overkill in certain functions.. Half a gig of RAM and a modern CPU to browse a text list or whatever.. pfffbt.

Hi,

If these things catch on in corporate america they will:
Impede telecommuting;
>>>This one I don't agree, you just telecommute into the server via remote desktop.

Give increased power to OS cartels to set features and interfaces without user input;
>>>yes, this is an issue.

Save extra money because the IT staff can be fully outsourced;
>>>No problem there, maintaining this stuff is boring anyway. I say put em into green technology projects!

Make it difficult for an individual employee to "justify" a laptop acquisition, which puts them back in old "needs vs wants" loop, controlled by the IT budget dept.
>>>yes, maybe a small issue there.

The strongest argument I have heard for TC is that everything else is centralized - email, databases, accounting applications, CRM, etc. Why does every user need to have their applications distributed? Makes no sense.

They work well for replacing desktops where you run a limited number of applications. For example a call center where your always in the same app all day long. Instead of a $500 pc then replace it with a $300 terminal and run the app remote from a server. Then you don't have to worry about patching and rebooting , upgrading, all those pc's so you save a lot in support cost.
A user who uses a lot of apps won't be able to run on a terminal because they will use too many resources on the server.

All the innovations in the internet and computing in the last generation have been bottom up. Thin clients kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.

In certain limited appliications, dumb terminals make sense, but they're so limited as to not justify the seperate stream of manufacturing and development.

Wherever I see TCs, they're really acutally just PCs that have been dumbed down. I really never see purpose manufactured TCs. I can't imagine the market will underwrite their development.

For organizations they might be okay, but they won't catch on at home until broadband speeds increase. But when they do they'll fulfill the wishes of most computer buyers of a box, like a DVD player or TV or toaster, that just plugs into the wall and works right away, without setup.

I currently run terminal servers at both an office with mixed businesses and at home. I love them because they allow you to work from anywhere and maintain the same software and settings. I have setup terminal services via freeNX using Gentoo Linux at home. This allows for computers to be spread around the house and to have access to the same interface and software even when away from home. It is also just one computer that needs to be maintained.

I run Citrix terminal services at the office for WIndows programs which allows me to run linux on old desktop units and when they expire, they can be replaced with thin clients. Again, there are only a few servers to maintain instead of tons of workstations. This makes the office much more secure and controlled. I can also support the office (and home) from anywhere via my Nokia 9300 phone.

What happens when the server crashes? Work slows from 100% to 0%. If one PC crashes, it goes from 100% to 99%.

Also, will the servers be powerful enough to handle some of the things people would want to do?

What about just using small form pc's? Although it is not yet its purpose, I think devices like Apple TV are going to offer low price low energy computing. For 300 dolars you get a pretty fast machine with a 45 watt power supply that can handle most computing tasks (browsing, office use, movies and music, chat etc.). A centralised system with a server is way more expensive with few clients, since the server adds much money and big electricity hunger.

The idea of thin clients is not new and some large companies have tried to get them going over the last decade. While they do improve the effort to support and manage, it overlooks the true need.

The reason for this type of system is to make it easier to support, but not really reduce energy requirements. That is to say it is a harder variable to determine. If the group of users are power users such as an accounting group in a company, it will not really reduce the need for heavy processing. However, light users will not notice as much.

At one time it worked this way with green screens. But at that time not many people were power users.

Distributed processing has proved better for cost management such as lower cost computers could be given to most of the work group, and only those that need higher performance (thus higher energy consumption) could be minimized. If one of the PC's failed others kept running.

I work in IT and have for many years. One of the biggest goals in IT is to have redundant components and systems. Not exactly the best of green, but we are charged with keeping the operation going. Typically when buying a server, you are buying two so if one fails no one will notice. The other thing that most servers have are 2 to 3 power supplies in case one fails.

While thin clients have a place, they will not meet the demand of all users. Not until something different comes along. They have tried a couple different solutions, but nothing has caught on yet. I agree with the one solution that is starting to gain bigger acceptance and that is to find ways to make the existing pc require less power.

"What happens when the server crashes? Work slows from 100% to 0%. If one PC crashes, it goes from 100% to 99%.

Also, will the servers be powerful enough to handle some of the things people would want to do? "

This is currently in use now by many companies using Citrix. You have multiple servers in a farm that are load balanced and if one server fails the users move onto another, its almost seamless, you see a couple second pause. Ita ll depends on the application as to if you can use it under a technology like citrix. Your basic MSOffice users you can run dozens on a server, some applications may not work well in that environment,
These are intended for corporate environments, the overhead of setting up a server/terminal system in your home wouldn't justify the savings but in a corporate environment you can replace hundreds of pc with termials and a handful of terminal servers. The main benefit is total cost of ownership which is way more than just the initial cost of the hardware.

What about just using small form pc's? Although it is not yet its purpose, I think devices like Apple TV are going to offer low price low energy computing. For 300 dolars you get a pretty fast machine with a 45 watt power supply that can handle most computing tasks (browsing, office use, movies and music, chat etc.). A centralised system with a server is way more expensive with few clients, since the server adds much money and big electricity hunger."

Apples and Oranges. Apple TV is for home use were you might replace a one off. Dumb terminals are for corporant environments where you replace hundreds of desktop pc's with a handful of servers

There are products out there that take a full PC and using a network boot turn it into something that is manageable like a TC, those products are the best. All the benefits of a TC setup but none of the risks. I saw a presentation at work a few months ago and was impressed.

Not for everyone and you wouldn't get the treehugging benefits that this article mentions, but from a business standpoint it is one step closer to a TC environment.

No-one has mentioned the fact that you can save old PCs from the landfill by putting them to work as thin clients- many offices have a load of old pentium 2s or equivalent just sitting around waiting for someone to throw them away. In many cases they could be resurrected as thin clients and continue to have useful lives.

I've let this simmer down a bit to see if anyone else would think of it, but they haven't--so here goes.

Did anybody think about the time that machines are left on overnight (mostly so that backup software can run)?

Thin Clients are often run off of flash rom or some sort of locally cached copy of an OS image which "lives" in storage on the server. Becuase they don't provide long-term user storage (that's done by something down in the machine room) they don't need to be backed up. That means that the time they spend unused can be spent off, in sleep mode (CPU almost off, most peripherals off), suspend (everything off except the memory and the power management circuitry), or in hibernate mode (saving all of memory to a special place on disk and then shutting down the local system). That's a whopping lot of savings, before one figures in other costs.

Inspired by this and other articles, I decided o put the whole electricity system of computing and other stuff in the house upside down. In this concept your TV can be a thin client on your home server, but also your light bulb can be a thin client.
Blonde-proof wiring of the house, solar-panel savvy and 1 remote that really does all. What do you think?
Click my name for the full concept.

The only way these noncomputers will be influential is by cutting down bandwidth usage which is a major weakness of the internet as a whole at the moment