Slashdot Log In
'Dumb Terminals' Can Be a Smart Move for Companies
Posted by
Zonk
on Tue Jan 30, 2007 09:36 AM
from the up-is-down-black-is-white dept.
from the up-is-down-black-is-white dept.
Carl Bialik from WSJ writes "More companies are forgoing desktop and laptop computers for dumb terminals — reversing a trend toward powerful individual machines that has been in motion for two decades, the Wall Street Journal reports. 'Because the terminals have no moving parts such as fans or hard drives that can break, the machines typically require less maintenance and last longer than PCs. Mark Margevicius, an analyst at research firm Gartner Inc., estimates companies can save 10% to 40% in computer-management costs when switching to terminals from desktops. In addition, the basic terminals appear to offer improved security. Because the systems are designed to keep data on a server, sensitive information isn't lost if a terminal gets lost, stolen or damaged. And if security programs or other applications need to be updated, the new software is installed on only the central servers, rather than on all the individual PCs scattered throughout a network.'"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Not good for large installations. (Score:2, Interesting)
I wouldn't want something like this campus-wide.
I could see having one terminal server for each department or lab, though. Not only would that localize failures and software requirements, but you wouldn't need to invest in upgrading your existing network infras
Re: (Score:2)
it wasnt too bad except for the bandwidth (slower response time than a desktop).
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I like to vary the loop amongst APF authorised tasks, a TSO user, CICS regions, batch, and occasionally a non-swappable system task.
Its been some years since I've taken down a running mainframe, though.
Re:Not good for large installations. (Score:4, Insightful)
No need to reinstall clients, no need to change broken fans and hard drives and search the whole office for a spare dvd player just to install the operating system into a machine.
Right now it takes me about 2 to 3 hours (4 in the worse cases) to get a client machine ready for the user, and we already have centralized
Switching to thin clients could cost a little bit more when it comes to servers, but surely it will be less time-consuming when installing clients (no need for installation) and supporting users (one-time server-side install for all OO.org dictionaries and other applications).
And, most of all, I wouldn't have all the "version inconsistencies" I have right now across the network clients, where one has application X version Y and the other a newer or older version (and plugin problems because of this).
Oh, sure, people won't be able to install their own stuff, but they already can't do it anyway
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Not good for large installations. (Score:5, Insightful)
The truth is that there are very few business units that actually need their own desktop machines. The problem is that we developers are some of the few who actually need workstations, meaning that we often fail to push the best solution for the company as a whole.
Parent
Re:Not good for large installations. (Score:5, Interesting)
I saw U. of Chicago do this with SunRays [sun.com] years ago for public spaces in the library, and it works beautifully for anything other than intensive 3-d rendering. Unfortunately, too many IT departments are dominated by people who only look at the up-front cost (I can buy a PC for what that thin-client costs), and not the entire life-cycle.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If you stick with Windows RDP terminals, they can, particularly the Wyse Winterms. Now there are Linux terminals (that can be configured via LTSP [ltsp.org] to be RDP clients) as low as $90 in volume [norhtec.com] and $149 [devonit.com]. (The NTA 6020P is $149, although they have removed the line-item pricing for some reason).
So things are looking good for these units. The City of Largo has an administrator that keeps a blog that is interesting reading [blogspot.com] on how they are stepping up from b
Re:Not good for large installations. (Score:5, Informative)
Software writen for server or thin-client environments is designed from the ground up to not interfier with other software, so proper software selection goes a long ways towards making sure that this type of project will work at all. Also note that this isn't about completely eliminating workstations/PCs it's about replacing them where it's not needed. Got a secretary pool of 40 and a call center with 200 stations? That's 240 fewer HD's to re-image after a virus gets past your defences. The Secretary for the VP of Marketing still keeps her PC since she is going to have to open/work with image files that no other secretary will.
My last scan of thin-client tech showed that a client server ration of 150:1 is possible for moderate level usage, with it dropping as low as 25:1 for specialized software that's resource intensive. For a 250-300 seat call center, 2 servers can cover the whole floor. Add in the added security of dumb terminals - no vector for USB thumbdrives, floppys, or CD burners to be used to steal data or inject a virus, and the ease of configuring them - usually you either turn them on & DHCP takes care of them or you point them at a server, and it's a winning combination for IT workload and Data Security.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
8-core Opteron @ 2.8GHz/2MB Cache per core
128GB RAM
6TB (750GBx8 RAID-0) HD
4-Port Gig Eth (3-ports serving, 1-port internet)
Cost: ~$76k
Number of users I estimate would be well served via VNC:
512 Users would get:
256Mb RAM
1.95G swap
~750Mhz, assuming 5% average CPU time per user
(From Task Manager: 1037952 secs active, 7588 secs CPU time, I work 7 hrs/day, 3 days/wk)
9.76GB storage/user
5.85 MBit to server, 1.95 MBit to internet
cost of a thin client per user: $75, total: $39k
To h
Re:Not good for large installations. (Score:5, Funny)
You could also move to an operating system built from the ground with this kind of usage in mind, for example Linux. Then you can stop worry about licensing too.
Parent
Sometimes Not Good (Score:2, Informative)
How many times have we heard this before? (Score:5, Insightful)
About the closest thing I've seen to this is a few companies I've worked for who ran certain applications (like Office) on a central server. But even that has become passe I think (in fact, the agency I work for recently abandoned that model due to server strain and just started installing the apps on individual computers).
Does anyone here actually work for a company that currently (or ever has) used true dumb terminals?
-Eric
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Works great, and they have a far lower TCO per store than Advance does with their windows based setup. Wyse terminals are dirt cheap. Hell, thin X terminals are dirt cheap compared to a PC running windows for a sales terminal.
Re:How many times have we heard this before? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.sun.com/sunray/sunray2/faq.xml [sun.com]
They are fairly popular in call centers (Score:4, Informative)
And, in all that time, I've yet to personally see a company actually doing it.
Obviously such companies must not exist since you have never seen them... (Sorry - I find that logical fallacy quite irksome.)
The new+improved dumb terminals are reasonably popular in call centers. The terminals offer detailed granularity over the limited and very specific needs (including required permissions) of the call center employees.
I have seen terminals that run Linux as well, and appear to be sold with the server and requisite applications as a package.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Unless you are a consultant, you probably haven't spent time at enough different organizations in the past 5-10 years to gauge the overall industry usage of dumb terminals. (I'm not saying I know everything about all industries, but I have seen a lot of widely-varying environments.) Even if you are a consultant, if you spend time only at certain types of companies, you won't see a lot of variation.
You shouldn't conflate "call center" and "front desk at AutoZone": desktop terminal != Point of Sale (POS
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Most of the departments where I work use text-based dumb terminals for most operations. They are actually full PCs with telnet interfaces, but they are essentially dumb terminals. The main reasons we didn't use X-Window terminals were:
1) The bandwidth at the time was limited, and full GUI interfaces saturated our network. With everything now being gigabit fiber, this wouldn't be an issue anymore.
2) Most of our programmers at the time knew nothing about
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I did visit one company that ran citrix on every desktop. I believe the desktops were either full blown versions of windows or windows ce. The citrix client ran on top of that and connected to a serve
We call them thin-clients (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
it's a lot harder for users to really screw things up
It may be a lot harder for the user to screw up hardware,
but I don't see how it makes harder to screw up software.
You can make it harder to screw up software by setting
permissions, but that can be done both on thin or
thick clients.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
GE did this to avoid rewiring office building (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:GE did this to avoid rewiring office building (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Dumb terminals.... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Dumb terminals.... (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Thin Clients! The Future of Computing Since 1994! (Score:5, Funny)
SWEET! (Score:2, Funny)
Thin Clients? (Score:3, Interesting)
I think they are thinking more of thin clients with some sort of remote desktop thing.
I myself would like to strive for Linux Termimal Server [ltsp.org] type of installtion at our work, check out this Story from Newsforge [newsforge.com] and the one year follow up [newsforge.com] which chroniclaes the city of Largo Florida government deploying Linux Terminal Server/Clients.
I think it's happening a lot more then you think, it just takes time to configure and roll-out.
This actually sounds like a VMware ad.... (Score:4, Interesting)
http://www.vmware.com/solutions/desktop/vdi.html [vmware.com]
When the power/server dies, it's a paperweight! (Score:4, Interesting)
Also, responsiveness in a large company is a huge problem when it is a broken process. If I need to add a piece of software, I can't do it on a thin client, I have to go back through IT which might only take a few days (still too long) but can also take significantly longer. Yah, I can't do significant damage but I also can't get crap done when it needs to get done. I know that's a systemic issue and not the fault of the thin clients themselves, but companies in my experience are not adjusting well and it's terribly frustrating.
Finally, it's worth noting in my company anyway that senior management, of course, is exempt from the this client requirements. So when I was describing the paperweight problem to a senior director one day she said "I had no idea!" Hey, no sh**, you with your nice laptop and docking station. They don't give a crap 'cause they don't have to deal with it.
Re:When the power/server dies, it's a paperweight! (Score:4, Insightful)
Do you have power outages frequently at your workplace? I only recall two times in my career where the building I was working in went black, and both times we all had better things to think than "If I had a battery-powered notebook, I could still be editing that Powerpoint presentation right now!"
If you're expected to work by candlelight, I'd say your company has bigger problems than a poor terminal implementation.
Parent
power outtage, what about godzilla attacks? (Score:5, Insightful)
Secondly, do you have permission to install software? I can give you a bad ass workstation and limit you to a limited user. The problem here isnt the thin client its policy. Most large environments have some kind of go-between/approval for software installs or all the users would muck up all the machines with bonzai buddy or whatever crap passes for the amusement only a spyware animated gorilla on your desktop can provide.
>They at least can continue work with documents and files stored on their local drive.
Who uses their local drive on a lan? You should be using a networked drive that gets backed up nightly. Especially with all those power outtages.
Parent
I've been working at a thin client site for a bit. (Score:5, Interesting)
I've been working at a site that went to a thin client solution back the last time that was fashionable (so there's been some time for it to settle down). They've saved some I.T. costs but it's at considerable cost in functionality -- application responsiveness is OK for light Office and web use but terribly slow for heavy-duty Excel users, the network is studded with PCs installed for people who just had to have some bit of software or just had to run things fast, network bandwidth is a constant problem and there's also a strange issue whereby users connect to the BigSystem server to run BigSystem, and to the BiggerSystem server to run BiggerSystem, and are surprised when they can't use the same paths, settings, clipboard etc on both.
I think they could have achieved the same effect by just scaling back IT in the usual way -- cutting staff, sticking with older computers, fixing only the most critical problems. I'm not saying the thin client system hasn't worked, because this organization isn't computer-focused and doesn't generally demand much from its computer systems. But it certainly makes me doubt whether the idea would work well in a demanding, information-driven business.
Home solutions? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Missed the point (Score:5, Informative)
Because the terminals have no moving parts such as fans or hard drives that can break, the machines typically require less maintenance and last longer than PCs. Mark Margevicius, an analyst at research firm Gartner Inc., estimates companies can save 10% to 40% in computer-management costs when switching to terminals from desktops
The TCO is not in hardware, but in software and support. What makes a PC network so horrendously expensive (Gartner estimated 4K to 10K USD per seat per year at one time) is the army of technicians required to keep them running. Dumb boxes allow centralization of support which is much less expensive. So you spend less on hardware and labor, and use some of those savings for a really, highspeed network and a really reliable server cluster.
BTW, now-a-days this is often pronounced 'Citrix' or 'Remote Desktop'. Same basic principle.
These aren't "dumb terminals" (TM LSI) (Score:3, Informative)
Sunrays on eBay (Score:5, Interesting)
I run an online and brick-and-mortar retail shop. Starting out on a budget is always a challenge, and for our computing needs I went with eBay (this was 3 years ago):
Sunblade 1000 workstation with 2G ram, 2x700mhz uSparkIII, D1000 raid array: $700
Sun Ray thin clients: $30 a piece
21" monitors: $50 - $100 a piece (Now a days I'd prob go with cheap flat panels)
17" sunray 150 (monitor/thin client combo for the counter) $70
HP Laserjet 4mp+: $50 (And it's still cranking out pages 3 years later)
Done. Everyone has a nice setup on their desk, I have one machine to admin, and life is good. We don't need any MS software, so that wasn't an issue for us (the Sunblade is running Solaris 10)
The sunrays really work great
- Roach
Thin clients are good in PRACTICE (Score:5, Insightful)
PROS
* The base models (like Wyse Blazer) are still quite cheap, and for the average worker, just fine.
* Huge security win. Reduces many threats and reduces the tempatation for users to do foolish things. "I like using the local Starbucks WiFi for Internet access..."
* No more users installing junk and breaking things. (Users don't like it at first, but most things are web based now anyway. Not a big loss.)
* No more crashed drives and messed up PC registries.
* We can roll out an app without installing anything on PCs.
* The user gets the same experience everywhere.
* We can provide a remote desktop over the Internet; same experience. Eliminates the whole issue of GoToMyPC, etc.
* No more local backup issues or other local file problems.
* No more worm infected PC hell. (Or PC security patch/AV updating hell)
* No more local desktop support needs, shipping PCs back and forth, etc.
CONS
* Network quality and performance become more crucial. (Our typical WAN link is only 256Kbps and fine for a small office.)
* You need a terminal server farm. (Not that huge a cost considering current PC server strength.)
* CAD/CAM, graphics work, etc. still need local PCs.
* Desktop video becomes much harder.
* Some apps don't work or have huge screen update needs. (Core Office, web apps, etc. are generally just fine.)
* Vendor lockin for thin client software.
* If the network goes down, they are 100% dead in the water instead of 99% dead in the water. I guess with a PC they could edit a local Word doc or something, maybe play some solitire. (Ok, they would like to have their address book. I think that is the major complaint.)
It depends on the organization. Many places have already centralized data centers moved a lot of systems to web apps. Things really are all moving onto the web. Do you want to support a PC just to run a web browser?
I've been there, done that, and it works sometimes (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't have much experience using Windows as a terminal server. What I do have is experience using CentOS [centos.org] Linux as a terminal server, with HP thin clients on the desktop. It works phenomenally well.
The thin clients themselves cost about $350 a pop in small quantities, closer to $300 a pop if you do a mass migration. You put some of your funds into nice displays, but most of your funds into the back end server. Lots of cores, lots of RAM, very fast disk. Plan on replacing it every 2-3 years with newer faster hardware.
The vast majority of the users will be idling the processors most of the time, so long as you disable fancy screen savers and other CPU-wasters on the central terminal server. Depending on what kind of hardware you use on the back end, you could potentially have hundreds of office workers happily working with one back end server. Honestly, though, I think the ideal way to go would be with something like an IBM pSeries box with a bunch of department level LPARs so you don't have one department hogging resources and crapping all over everyone else.
The thin clients can boot off a local read-only flash drive, but better yet have them boot off a tftp server so you can more easily keep their software levels up to date.
X11 has been doing this stuff for ages. The technology is pretty mature.
Other than those issues, I have been thrilled with the technology. It's an idea that was pushed out there before the technology was ready before. Now the hardware has caught up with the concept. It's worth another look now.
Nostalgia (Score:3, Informative)
VT-xxx machines were all character-mapped and text-only. But I suppose if you needed graphics, you could have a machine running just a very cut-down OS and X server, straight from ROM.
What next? (Score:3, Funny)
VDI (Score:5, Informative)
The Wyse terminal integrates with the connection broker, which handles authentication. Once the user is authenticated, the connection broker assigns the user to one of your virtual workstations and creates a remote desktop session to it on the terminal. The connection broker is responsible for tracking which users are assigned to which VMs. If one crashes, the broker knows about it, removes it from the pool of available workstations, and when the user logs back on they are re-assigned to another VM.
VDI has most all of the benefits of Citrix, like centralization of data and tighter control over user access. There are also some benefits of this over the traditional Terminal Server/Citrix model. One, the user experience is much closer to what they're used to with a regular PC, because they are essentially accessing a fully-featured workstation. Second, you don't have Citrix and Terminal Server weirdnesses, like apps that just won't run in a multi-user environment. Each user's VM, while centralized, is a completely siloed OS instance sharing the resources of the host server. What one user does on their VM typically has much less impact on other users than what can happen in a Citrix environment. With VMware VI3 and their dynamic resource concept, it opens a whole new avenue of dynamic load-balancing between your entire pool of hardware.
There are some downsides, too. A major one is cost. If you're using Windows, you're paying for XP licenses for each user, you're typically paying for VMware licensing for each server, you're paying for thin clients (the S10 is around $300), and you're paying for connection broker licenses. Citrix licensing isn't cheap either, but in my experience, VDI with VMware comes out more expensive. You can typically fit WAY more users per server in the Citrix world than you can with VDI, which adds to your per-user cost for VMware licensing and server hardware. You're also still having to manage individual desktops (although some cool disk streaming products like Ardence can help with this) for patches and new software installs, as opposed to the one-per-sever work you have to do under Citrix.
VDI is still pretty new, but the advancements I've seen just in the past year are making it a pretty exciting world to work in.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
How about "Dumb client" or "Thin terminal". Oh wait, "Dumb Client" is already taken. The people that use SCO.
Re:data is not lost when a dumb term is stolen (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Someone with mod points... (Score:3, Interesting)
I work for a POS dealer, and we thought about using this type of machine for our terminals. In the long run for us, it would actually cost us money, since we make most of our money on support and maintenance.
Frankly it's a shame that Taco hasn't added a category of "+1 tragicomical": This one little comment says more about business models and business ethics in the 21st century than you'd be taught in a decade at Wharton or Harvard Biz.
Intentionally convincing [i.e. "
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
About the same - $300-400 for a low end PC or a thin client w/ monitor, keyboard, & mouse. The slight savings in the TC will be eaten by the heavier server needed
A custom install of corperate software can take over an hour - 40 minutes even if you are installing a Ghosted Image and with registration it's not unusual to have them require you to re-validate your OS.
Connect power/network cable/keyboard/mouse - turn on - DHCP can handle most of the remai