'Dumb Terminals' Can Be a Smart Move for Companies

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.'"

Not good for large installations.

[Short Circuit]

Sounds like it would introduce a single point of failure. One malicious user or virus, and the sytem goes down for everyone. Plus, software needed by different groups often doesn't play well together, leading to irritating misbehavior. Plus, netwo

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 infrastructure.

GE did this to avoid rewiring office building

[DrDitto]

I heard of General Electric doing this at a few of their old, large buildings because the AC wiring couldn't handle power-demand of the next PC upgrade cycle. Instead of incurring the cost of rewiring the entire building, they installed low-power terminals at desks. Makes sense to me. GE has some very old office buildings (they are an old company!).

Sunray, Linux, Windows or ???

[amulder]

The article doesn't say what kind of OS these thin clients support.

Presumably it isn't Solaris, since they would have mentioned Sunray terminals otherwise. Poor Sun, they've been trying for years -- halfheartedly -- to push their sunray terminals without much success.

Personally, I'd be interested in Apple producing a thin client solution. But not just for the office. Consider how many of us have 3-4 computers at home these days for our families? I'd like to see a small home setup where a G5 tower (or smaller!) would support up to four thin terminals around the house. Much easier to administrate and backup.

Thin Clients?

[JoeCommodore]

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....

[8127972]

.... when I first started reading it as they have a concept called Virtual Desktop Infrastructure. The article sounds like the link below:

http://www.vmware.com/solutions/desktop/vdi.html [vmware.com]

When the power/server dies, it's a paperweight!

[ysaric]

Unlike laptops/desktops, when the server goes down or we have power problems, my computer becomes a paperweight unlike some of my co-workers who got laptops/desktops before the thin-client requirements were instituted. They at least can continue work with documents and files stored on their local drive. Me, my work just stops.

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:Not good for large installations.

[Frumious Wombat]

Actually, it isn't. If you're doing this right, then you've set up some form of clustering and failover with redundant machines, the same way you run RAID arrays rather than single huge disks, or don't base large commercial web-sites on one standalone machine. If you add in that now the end-user can't access the server, even indirectly (no cd-rom, ports, etc), and the devices lack moving parts like harddrives, then cost of management goes way down. In the end, this is actually ideal for large companies. Having supported stand-alone desktops in a small environment (60 desktop systems), I would say that unless you're harnessing the compute power of those desktops when they're not being used (Folding@Pfizer, for instance) then the cross-over point of easier is around 2-4 machines for Windows, maybe 8 for Unix.

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.

Re:How many times have we heard this before?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, my company uses thin clients rather extensively throughout the corporate environment. We use Citrix with a few servers at each site, and at least half the desktops are thin clients.
We use a mix of Wyse terminals and PC's running a version of the Thinstation project from sourceforge that I customized, running the linux Citrix client.
The Thinstation terminals skipped at least a major upgrade cycle, as we can run it fine on P400 desktops, and the users have a much more responsive environment than if they were running XP. With only an 8MB linux image and citrix client running, it's much faster than running XP on the same machine. Even local drives, CDs, USB and printers are supported, pending policy allowance.

On top of that, application upgrades and rollouts are much faster and easier.

We thought about this...

[SlashdotCrackPot]

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. On the other hand of this matter, the same equation for in-house equipment can be a tremendous savings. With alot of medium to large companies using SAP servers these days, it really is not that bad of an idea to run these "dumb" terminals. Due to the fact that if your VMware server goes down anyway, you aren't going to get much done anyway with centralized storage and application deployment.

.02 cents

I've been working at a thin client site for a bit.

[kahei]

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.

Not a dumb terminal

[oshkarr]

This article is talking about network appliances, not dumb terminals. See http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/D/dumb_terminal.html [webopedia.com]

I don't think anyone is going back to using green screens anytime soon. In fact, even the VT100 wasn't so dumb. It could show bold, blinking and double-width characters, among its other features.

Home solutions?

[Stone316]

I'd love to have a couple of dumb terminals around the house hooked into my main computer. What options are out there for home users? I know there are some diskless linux options but I really don't almost full systems around the house... Just something compact with most of the room only needed for monitor, keyboard and mouse.

author

[DaMattster]

For the most part, the author of this article seems to be on target. However, one of his reasons for not going to Thin Clients is just so plain wrong that it is worth commenting on.

Simplified terminals can translate to less freedom for individual users and less flexibility in how they use their computers. Without a hard drive in their desktop machines, users may place greater demands on computer technicians for support and access to additional software such as instant messaging, instead of downloading permitted applications themselves. Analysts say it takes time for employees to get used to not controlling their own PCs.

Most companies lock the desktops down so tightly that the employee has no freedom to install applications whatsoever. In fact, one company I worked for allowed customization of keyboard, mouse, and background display only. And, you had a limited range to choose from on approved backgrounds.

In fact, going to thin clients, from a managerial stand point makes an incredible amount of sense. The downside is the phasing out of the desktop technician. Many people would be facing unemployment but networks would ultimately become more secure and stable. The Active Directory and SMS woes would be gone because instead of having to manage several thousand desktop PCs, the IT professional would be looking at management of a few hundred servers.

Re:Not good for large installations.

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually... The environment I'm in now used to have ALL dumb terminals in a network that covered about 1/3 the state of Ohio. They only went away from that system due to vendor pressure and buyouts in 2004. Of course, many of our clients had abandoned the dumb terminals in favor of Windows PCs with terminal emulation in the 90s during the PC boom. However, what they didn't understand and that they lost was the simplicity of configuration from an admin's point of view. Essentially a dumb terminal was much easier to swap out than a PC. You'd have a user back up and running in a few seconds not including the time to get a new terminal out.

With the decentralized approach of a PC, you now had users beginning to (mis)use the power of the local device for their own purposes depending on the policy of the local admin. With that (mis)use, you wound up with PCs that suddenly had a lot more value to the end-user, but not necessarily to the organization. So, when the PC would inevitably blow up or get replaced due to upgrades, the users would complain about what they perceived to be the important stuff that was now missing. You also got saddled with people making requests for software that they weren't able to use on dumb terminals and the associated evaluation to determine if it should be allowed. Wasted time in many cases (witness the people who want iTunes on their PCs).

There are definitely benefits to having decentralized desktop systems, but they have to be weighed against the type of organization and it's work. In our case, dumb terminals were perfect as the majority of our organization is in the public service arena. They don't need to be able to do a lot of extras that extend outside of their realm of experience. However, the desktop PC allows for them to do more than they should even though some of those functions may be relevant to work. Take web browsing for instance. You could proxy them so that they only go to approved sites that relate to their jobs, however in this arena, since they provide public service, there are times when hitting something that would be considered entertainment is quite appropriate. So for our organization, that doesn't work.

In addition, the vendor buyout/pressure I spoke of was what I see as a disastrous migration from a set of old character based applications to a poorly designed GUI application. One of the nicest things about a centralized model is that ALL the work is being done on a single system or cluster of systems in one place. The client is actually local to the server in terms of the actual application. So, if the network connection for the dumb terminal goes down, there is much less of a chance for partial transactions to hose the data as the local client can time out and the server process knows to stop or roll back the transaction.

The current system we have has a really stupid client that is local to the PC and talks in a proprietary fashion to the middle tier server. If the network connection goes down, the client just disappears with no notification to the server. The server (being of a poor design) has all sorts of cruft left over in process. This is apparent when the network connection returns and the client attempts to connect, but the server says the client is already connected and rejects any further connections from that user. The only saving grace is that the back end DB server is robust and knows how to manage its transactions properly to prevent things from getting hosed. The fact that they are now using this particular DB for the back end is relatively new as they used to use their own proprietary DB in the past which likely would have suffered corruption if it's designed like the rest of their software.

So my experience has been that centralization, especially on a non-Windows system, is the best way to go. I do it at home as well with Linux and VNC for the family desktops (as in virtual desktops, not real ones). I've been running that way for the past five years with no issues. My wife and daughter can e

Sunrays on eBay

[BrianRoach]

I did this for my small business, and it rocks.

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 ... I bought a couple to use at home as well because they were so cheap on eBay and the sunray server is available for linux (and I think Windows now).

- Roach

Re:Not good for large installations.

[el_womble]

I use Citrix as an end user for internet access. I can say that it is the worst user experience I've ever had. Slow page loading, having to log on twice (once to the OS, then again for Citrix) and perhaps worse of all it is incredibly unstable. I've ended up using a 3G phone and a personal laptop to access the internet because its faster.

I live in tornado alley, soooooo yes.

[ysaric]

So, yes, a few times a year we end up in the tornado protection areas of our building, and a couple times a year we find ourselves without power for certain spans of time. It's a bigger problem on the manufacturing side, where a power loss can have more significant effects. No, I don't know whether the company cares or what they're doing about it.

I included it because it is one of the two circumstances that definitively makes this worthless POS on my desk even more useless. And yes, sporadically there are server problems also. In both cases it would make my time less of a waste if I could do something, especially when doing a specific something at that specific time happens to be important. And that's just one of the gripes about this setup. I hope that is responsive.

What I like is that the responses this comment is receiving is focusing on the smallest of the issues and treating it as if it's the biggest one. Makes a ton of sense.

I've been there, done that, and it works sometimes

[Yonder Way]

For most /. users, this is not going to work as a desktop replacement. But for most general office workers, this can and does work.

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. :) Though I am not thrilled with the security, nor am I thrilled with the state of remote audio in X11. Those are the two big caveats I would warn you of if you're considering something like this.

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.

Someone with mod points...

[mosel-saar-ruwer]

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.

...please mode this as hilarious.

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. "conning"] your customer to purchase the wrong solution [undoubtedly at a loss, i.e. as a "loss leader"] - a solution that is, furthermore, INTENTIONALLY CRIPPLED - so that you can recoup costs and achieve your profit in the future on "support and maintenance" calls?

Edward Teach would be in awe of your audacity.

Re:Cost

[tinkerghost]

Look at TCO again:

• Initial price

  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

• Installation cost

  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 remaining configuration.

• Software Cost

• Per seat licenses usually cost slightly less than individual software packages.

  This is offset by the added cost of the actual server software.

• Maintenance Cost

• No HD failure, no virus cleanup, virtually no per seat maintenance at all.

  Software upgrades go on the server once - everyone get's the same upgrade at the same time - no need to take a seat out of production to upgrade it.

• Operating Cost

• The low end processors/MBs eat a lot less electricity - depending on load averages, you can be talking 75+W/machine - in a 100 seat call center that's $13+K a year savings

• Lifespan

  A typical business PC is on a 3-5 year upgrade cycle (not coincidentally the span of the average extended warrenty) This is where fans & HDs start to go at a higher than acceptable rate.

  A typical thin client is on a 5-7 year upgrade cycle

So, if you examine the TCO, thin clients are highly desireable. Examining the initial outlay, they come in at slightly more costly due to the increased costs of the server & server software

Re:Not good for large installations.

[CommandNotFound]

The thin clients cost the same as the PC but do a lot less
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 basic terminals to using advanced terminals to add 3D eye candy, presumably driven by the cost savings over the past 5-10 years. I particularly like this posting [blogspot.com] that shows some daytime loads on the different servers.

Re:How many times have we heard this before?

[Anonymous Coward]

umm. Sun Microsystems has been using thin clients as the primary desktop for most of its employees for several years.

I drove a SunRay thin client myself for 2+ years.

Yes, there is the single point of failure issue. You definitely do not want to be in the office on the day the network gremlins come out. However, on the whole it works pretty well.

Sun is actually pushing out thin clients to staff who work from home as well (with a VPN module of course). Reviews so far have been mixed from the folks who participated in the pilot but service levels seem to be at acceptable levels and are improving, generally...