[THIN] Re: Here's a biggie. Why is thin computing the future.
- From: "Shannon Wyatt" <swyatt@xxxxxxx>
- To: <thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 08:10:34 -0400
This would be true if you didn't factor in the real cost of Thin
Clients. I often hear numbers batted around on the "real" costs of owing
a PC versus the cost of a thin client. But if a thin client envioronment
is managed the same way as a fat client environment then the actual cost
of running a thin client envronment would be pretty high as well. But
after one of your servers gets trashed from the end users the
administrators start clamping down. But lets compare the actual costs of
a thin client per user to run Microsoft Office.
Thin Client $400
Portion of hardware on server for each user $200 (Assumes a $10k server
supporting 50 users)
Metaframe and TS License $350
So the actual cost of a thin client is much higher then the purchase
price. If a thin client doesn't have a host to connect to it is not much
more then a boat anchor.
Sure, I have to upgrade PCs every few years, but I've also had a few
clients that had to replace their thin clients as well. If you purchased
your thin clients in 98 then odds are pretty high that they only support
ICA, so no RDP. And odds are that a client made a year later performed
much better.
Using available tools I can manage a users desktop pretty darn
effectively.
My argument was basically that thin fits a niche, and fits it quite
nicely. But it isn't a good fit everywhere. When you look at small
environments with Terminal Services your costs are actually higher,
since to be safe you are going to have to purchase extra hardware and
software to ensure that in the case of a bad stick of RAM you don't take
down your entire network. At least if everyone has a real pc and the
server is down you can still do something. Now if I need to run a crappy
app a low bandwidth pipe then I'm all over Terminal Services and
Metaframe.
-----Original Message-----
From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Braebaum, Neil
Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2002 5:41 AM
To: 'thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx'
Subject: [THIN] Re: Here's a biggie. Why is thin computing the future.
-----Original Message-----
From: Shannon Wyatt [mailto:swyatt@xxxxxxx]
Sent: 18 July 2002 00:33
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [THIN] Re: Here's a biggie. Why is thin computing the future.
What I meant by that was that the idea of thin client computing was to
have a thin client on the end users pc and your running on a server
somewhere else. A web browser based app technically runs on a thin
client (the web browser) but those browsers are pretty darn fat! In the
end you need a combination of fat applications and thin applications.
But the diference is that a fat application is one that has little or no
interaction with a back end system. If you had 1000 users that need to
run Word and nothing else I wouldn't think that you would use a
metaframe server to deliver it. The cost of the servers alone would
outweigh the cost to have it run on a PC.
Actually I'd argue the reverse. If the applications are relatively
simple, and the demands fairly normal - like office apps - a thin client
implementation makes perfect sense. Sure the overall, capital costs
aren't going to be majorly different between this and a fat client
approach, but capital costs are never truly where it was at.
The TCO costs, for fairly simple app environments, is where the
thin-client approach reaps most benefits - truly where the end user
device is trivial, and all the users really do - or *need* to do is use
apps (well-behaved, and perhaps not huge divergence).
It's the mix and match scenarios, where apps / usage / control may not
be possible for the entire environment that the users use, that fat
client with thin app usage becomes more likely.
But in the real world lots of people need to run Word (not just Word,
but apps like it), and access system that require interaction to a back
end system. But if I can get my back office system to run in a browser
in a low bandwidth environment I wouldn't mind having those office
applications on the front end.
My thoughts, in terms of environment choices for the end user, are
whether they truly need a desktop to use - ie whether their current, or
likely needs, can easily be satisfied with merely app driving
environments, in a thin-client implementation, or whether their needs -
either for apps, or access, are going to be troublesome to implement in
a thin-client environment.
For thousands of office workers, who merely use say, Word, Excel, and
Outlook, thin-clients make perfect sense. End-device trivialised, much
easier to control and administer the desktop environment, and app
version upgrades are remarkably easy to deploy.
A lot of the stated benifits to thin client computing you hear batted
around is just the hyperbole from the companies that will gain
finacially from thin client computing.
I think that's a little unfair. It's not suitable for every environment,
using thin apps, but there are many scenarios, where thin clients can
truly be a boon.
I don't worry about the bulk of the thin clients I have out there - most
of them have been in place since early 98 (early generation WBTs), and
initially ran Winframe 1.7 with Office 97. They currently use W2K with
Office 2k. I don't envisage having any foreseeable issues with the end
device, when possibly implementing .NET terminal services and Office XP,
or whatever version comes next. You can't imagine that sort of future
proofing with a fat client. How many iterations of CPU upgrades, memory
increases, and hard disk upgrades would you need to go through the
generations of OS, and office productivity software, over the existing 4
years, and the foreseeable future?
Neil
***********************************************************************
This e-mail and its attachments are intended for the above named
recipient(s) only and are confidential and may be privileged.
If they have come to you in error you must take no action based
on them, nor must you copy or disclose them or any part of
their contents to any person or organisation; please notify the
sender immediately and delete this e-mail and its attachments from
your computer system.
Please note that Internet communications are not necessarily secure
and may be changed, intercepted or corrupted. We advise that
you understand and observe this lack of security when e-mailing us
and we will not accept any liability for any such changes,
interceptions or corruptions.
Although we have taken steps to ensure that this e-mail and its
attachments are free from any virus, we advise that in keeping
with good computing practice the recipient should ensure they
are actually virus free.
Copyright in this e-mail and attachments created by us belongs
to Littlewoods.
Littlewoods takes steps to prohibit the transmission of offensive,
obscene or discriminatory material. If this message contains
inappropriate material please forward the e-mail intact to
postmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and it will be investigated.
Statements and opinions contained in this e-mail may not
necessarily represent those of Littlewoods.
Please note that e-mail communication may be monitored.
Registered office:
Littlewoods Retail Limited,
Sir John Moores Building,
100 Old Hall Street,
Liverpool,
L70 1AB
Registered no: 421258
http://www.littlewoods.com
***********************************************************************
Other related posts:
