Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

HP Introduces Transmeta Thin Clients

Posted by Hemos on from the getting-the-new-machines-on dept.

prostoalex writes "HP will announce the T5500 and T5300 thin clients on Monday at the TechEX show in New York City, which use the 733-MHz and 533-MHz versions of Transmeta's TM5800 CPU. Prices range from $599 to $629."

47 of 203 comments (clear)

  1. PC vs thin client by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Wait, I can buy a regular PC for less... what gives?

  2. Uh by NightSpots · · Score: 4, Insightful

    733 MHz, and I'm supposed to celebrate?

    Transmeta missed the boat. Even in thin clients, they're underpowered. At 733 MHz, even low IPC won't help.

    Transmeta was a good company, but they didn't get their product to market in time.

    --

    --
    Use Vobbo for Video Blogs
    1. Re:Uh by cgranade · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Clockrates of different processors don't directly compare. I mean, the Dreamcast had a 200MHz processor, and went faster than PCs for several years. My Athlon XP 1.8GHz is faster than my P4 2GHz. The P3 1GHz was faster than the P4 1.4GHz. So, 733MHz may be a lot more than you think. Besides, the only reason that seems underpowered is due to bloatware. If it were Linux installed...

      --

      #define DRM chmod 000

    2. Re:Uh by smatt-man · · Score: 5, Insightful

      For a thin client 733 MHz is almost over powered. Remember, all it has to do is run Win CE or embeded Linux. The keyword being thin which means the server does the processing.

      --

      ---
      Lousy rotten karmic retribution.
    3. Re:Uh by VEGETA_GT · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I disagree
      Remember they came out with their original processors when the race to hit 1ghz was still on the go. So they where in the right MHz area then. Though they have not done much to keep up since then. What happened tot hem is they lost their contract with IBM, Sony did not make many laptops and there processors never got really well pushed in the mobile computing market as they should have been. It is a great idea of a chip, but things just never went right for them.

    4. Re:Uh by LoudMusic · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I have a slew of 733mhz computers with 128MB at the office that run Windows 2000 extremely well. My friends and I decided a while back that 600mhz is about all you need with any modern operating system. Beyond that you're just gaming.

      It's a thin client, man. Web, email, word processing, maybe play some tunes or desktop games.

      --
      No sig for you. YOU GET NO SIG!
    5. Re:Uh by diz · · Score: 3, Informative
      Uh, maybe you didn't notice that the article said that the 1GHz models have already been on the market for a while and they were releasing slower models. One would expect that these models would be cheaper than the TM5700 clients that are 1GHz and *already on the market* for some time.

      With the amount of effort I see people put into making ultra quiet computers, you'd think something like this might actually do well. I'm tired of my own office sounding like a wind tunnel, and I've considered many times moving the white box machines (yes, they're cheap but loud) into a machine room and using something fanless as a remote desktop in my office.

    6. Re:Uh by dabadab · · Score: 2, Informative

      "Even decoding xvid would strugle on a 733"

      My 500MHz Celeron plays anything without getting anywhere near 100% CPU load. I guess it's mostly a matter of the video card - my Matrox G400 handles some of the stuff (scaling, maybe colorspace conversion).
      And of course you DON'T do Xvid encoding on a thin client just as much as you don't do it on an X terminal (what a thin client basically is)

      --
      Real life is overrated.
    7. Re:Uh by smatt-man · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's also the hardware, and the management that makes it slim. If a company buys 500 thin clients, they can manage the hardware from a single workstation. There are less parts to 'go wrong' with a thin client, plus less power consumption. I used to work at a place that used them, it took 3 minutes to go from nothing on someone's desk, to a thin client setup and connected to the Terminal Server. Of course, we bought $300 thin clients, which made it all the better.

      --

      ---
      Lousy rotten karmic retribution.
    8. Re:Uh by Hoser+McMoose · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Very true, at 733MHz, the Transmeta chips they are using are NO WHERE CLOSE to being as fast as a PIII or Athlon of the same clock speed. In reality, the performance of these chips have a tough time matching 400MHz Celeron processors, let alone anything that has been sold by Intel or AMD in the last 3 years.

      For a thin client though, this might be enough computing power. A thin client really doesn't do a heck of a lot other than display simple graphics. Power consumption (and therefore heat produced) is also quite low, though a ULV mobile Celeron would offer comperable power consumption. The real reason why HP went with these chips is because they are cheap. I have to wonder why they didn't go for a VIA C3 instead though. Similar power consumption, low cost and much more widely available/better supported chipsets.

    9. Re:Uh by Delirium+Tremens · · Score: 3, Interesting
      ...many major analyst forecasts which see TMTA hitting 2.50 in the next year.
      Well, with this announcement, this might even happen today:
      TMTA $2.39 +0.48 +25.13% 12,305,832
    10. Re:Uh by sketerpot · · Score: 4, Funny

      And a 230 Mhz K6 can't run super nintendo games as quickly as the original console, despite having a much higher clock speed. The trick: the SNES had lots of hardware acceleration. And how does this apply to the discussion? It doesn't. Ladies and gentleman I am not making any sense. Here, look at the monkey. Look at the silly little monkey.

  3. $600 for a thin client? by TWX · · Score: 4, Insightful

    When I can go buy a cheap $129 Via C3 motherboard with integrated everything, slimline case, memory, keyboard, mouse and flat panel for $500, why should I consider buying this thin client? Once you get away from the standard PC mentality, the costs do become increasingly important...

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    1. Re:$600 for a thin client? by JanneM · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Basically, you shouldn't buy it.

      A company might, however. These units cost about the same, or a little more, than a standard PC. Unlike a standard PC, however, they are geared from start to be slave units to a server. The user can mess up far less on one of these than they can on a PC, and any software updates and other administration happens on the server and not on the individual desktop units. A user can use any client anywhere; nobody's locked to one particular machine (and replacing a faulty unit is done in minutes, with no need to mess around with backup restoration). And, of course, if you need more capacity, you only need to upgrade the server backend, so these have a lifespan that is a good deal longer than a standard PC.

      The decrease in administration hassles, the improved security, the decreased power consumption and the interchangeability all add up to a pretty compelling advantage compared to putting a full-blown PC on every desk - for a medium to large organization.

      --
      Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
    2. Re:$600 for a thin client? by CommandNotFound · · Score: 2, Informative

      Also, this place has headless units for $350, and they are ready to run as LTSP clients.

      Even then, you can get older PII class systems used for less than $50 USD, which would run just fine as X terms, with a decent monitor and GFX card.

    3. Re:$600 for a thin client? by Trigun · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I am actually testing the VIA M10000 motherboard right now for a potential office rollout. Even with their 1GHz proc's, they will rival most machines for basic word processing, e-mail, and client-server apps. I can put one together for $500 cdn, and it will handle everthing the office wants it to, for 1/3 of the cost of a new PC.

    4. Re:$600 for a thin client? by tashanna · · Score: 5, Informative

      This is Slashdot.Why would anyone look at the HP Website and check prices.

      The 533 MHz = $349
      The 733 MHz = $369

  4. Whatever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    When are we going to see the Transmeta chips' unique code morphing technology used for something OTHER than just making unexceptional x86 clones with questionable benefit over just a normal intel/amd chip?

    It's nice to see Transmeta doing SOMETHING, but it still looks like they've been running themselves in circles since the day they first used a product.

    Never mind the PC world for a minute. Is Transmeta having ANY luck selling their chips for use in embedded systems?

    1. Re:Whatever by pope1 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yes, they have had luck in embedded systems.

      Checkout this company site.

      They use transmeta chips in thier blade servers (multiple physical computers in one enclosure, for super high density computing).

      Heres a direct link to the model 1000t, pretty neat design, and a company worth watching.

      --
      /* * pope1 */
  5. Wrong pricing by TrentC · · Score: 5, Informative

    The submitter misread the article; those prices are for the TM5700, which HP already sells.

    It says right at the bottom of the article that the prices for the new units have not been announced.

    Jay (=

  6. What's the deal. by FreeLinux · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Thin clients are an excellent, though not new, idea. One of the big advantages of thin clients is cost. A thin client device that supports the RDP or Citrix ICA protocols can be had for just a couple of hundred dollars but, if you want X Term support the cost is through the roof. I want to know why the X capable clients cost so much more than the Winterm clients. I can't see any real justification for this.

    1. Re:What's the deal. by neo8750 · · Score: 3, Funny
      I want to know why the X capable clients cost so much more than the Winterm clients.



      This is what we in the industry like to call the X factor.

  7. Specs and Diagrams here: by watanabe · · Score: 3, Informative

    http://h18000.www1.hp.com/products/quickspecs/1174 6_ca/11746_ca.PDF

    The specs look like this is aimed at a corporate market? Strange since a whitebox computer would be cheaper. I suppose power consumption, etc. are all important. The T5500 comes with 128mb of RAM, and the 733mhz Crusoe 5800 processor, runs Windows CE and IE 6, and supports Citrix, etc.

    I still think I'd prefer a whitebox with no hard drive running LTSP.

  8. When will they give up? by jbellis · · Score: 5, Interesting
    It's nice to see transmeta getting some press but how many times do we have to try thin clients before realizing they peaked in the early 90s and probably aren't coming back?

    Most recently, the sun ray is about half the price, has cool take-your-session-anywhere technology, and last I heard isn't selling like hotcakes. So either HP knows something I don't or this is just more evidence of clueless management...

    1. Re:When will they give up? by Lxy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I am by no means an industry analyst, but here's my observations.

      We started off here at work with a System 36 and dumb terminals at everyone's desk. Everyone got their work done, and aside from hardware problems, there was no need to get up and walk to somone's desk. If anyone had problems, it was all centralized. All my work was done from my desk.

      We then moved off dumb terminals and replaced everything with PCs. Trips to people's desk are frequent (probably 20 a day) and the rest of the time is spent building replacement PCs. Users store their own data, and if their drive crashes without a backup, they're SOL. How do you get a user to backup their data on a regular basis? Got me.

      Now we start looking at server based solutions like Citrix and $300 Wyse terminals on the desk. Hmm.. minimized trips to the desk, all management centralized, hey, didn't we used to have that?

      It looks to me like we have a trend. We got off the diskless/helpless workstations in favor of robust, useful boxes. Now we're heading back that helpless box stage and centralize our configuration, installation, and data. I predict that diskless will always be, and in fact will be favorable in reduced admin costs. because of that I welcome a market that is competitive at the thin client level.

      --

      There is no reasonable defense against an idiot with an agenda
      :wq
    2. Re:When will they give up? by Lxy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I can rattle off a list about ways of going about it. The question is, how the hell do I backup 500 PCs in an efficient manner on a regular basis? I agree that there are some cool techniques (including the one you mentioned) but getting a setup that works well would take far more time than our current method. Not to mention that doesn't solve the original problem, user issues and hardware upgrade.

      Oh, and I should also mention that something like telling users to save their data on the server makes sense, but there are folks above me that have fundamental issues with this.

      --

      There is no reasonable defense against an idiot with an agenda
      :wq
    3. Re:When will they give up? by mystran · · Score: 2, Insightful
      In addition I predict, that in a decade or so, we'll be moving back to "robust, useful boxes" and then in another decade back to dummy terminals.

      It's kinda like "client/server", then "decentralized" then "client/server" then "decentralized" then "client/server" etc..

      History is good at repeating transitions between different computing paradigms and back..

      --
      Software should be free as in speech, but if we also get some free beer, all the better.
  9. Go Transmeta! by pope1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Its always great to see an underdog/specialty chip maker gain some market share, even if its in the mostly-corporate-lan-dominated arena of Thin-Clients.

    At least Sun Micro's "Sun Ray" system will get some much needed competition out of this.

    We use Sun Ray's here at work, and while they do thier job pretty admirably, they do have some quirky lock-up issues we haven't been able to resolve.

    --
    /* * pope1 */
  10. Price is incorrect by Llurien · · Score: 5, Informative

    The article actually says that the 5700 model which was allready sold by HP for some time has a price range of $599 to $629. The 5700 model uses the 1GHz version of the TM5800. The new thing is that models based on the lower speed processors are introduced, but no prices are known about those yet. I may be kicking in open doors here, but they probably will be lower.

  11. In Other News... by I8TheWorm · · Score: 3, Funny

    GM has announced a smaller, harder to drive vehicle than the small-mid sized cars. It has less power and room as well. It will sell, however, for slightly higher than other vehicles, as it will be cool to own, given a very high geek rating.

    --
    Saying Android is a family of phones is akin to saying Linux is a family of PCs.
  12. Perhaps for console apps by heironymouscoward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I have a Transmeta 533 in the form of a Sonic Blue frontpath surfpad.

    It is a wonderful toy, but too slow for human consumption, modern software just craaawls, and it only works as a surfpad via a thin and tuned Netscape 4.7. OOo is painfully slow. MP3 playback worked OK.

    The only use I can see for this kind of device, and I admit that it'd be enough for me, is for remote ssh administration of my servers with some music rocking in the headset.

    ssh runs just dandy on a 533 Mhz Crusoe. Anything with pretty pictures does _not_.

    --
    Ceci n'est pas une signature
    1. Re:Perhaps for console apps by BenjyD · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Hence the fact that it's a thin client. In other words, virtually none of the processing (apart from some basic drawing to the screen functions) is done locally. It's all done on some big server the user never has to see.

  13. Pictures of T5500 and T5300 by ShadeARG · · Score: 5, Informative

    Pictures of the T5500 and T5300. (German text)

  14. Fat Client For Same Price by SlipJig · · Score: 2, Informative

    You can get an NEC Powermate Eco, which also uses the Crusoe chip, for the same price ($600-650), with 256 MB RAM and a 20GB hard drive. Oh, and a 15" LCD monitor in a compact design.

    --
    Read my keyboard review.
  15. Larry Ellison failed twice. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Larry Ellison has tried to sell thin clients and failed. TWICE. Why does Carly think this will work?

    1: Take a failed business model.
    2: ???
    3: Profit

  16. Or an X-Box, surely? by Channard · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Which also runs at 733Mhz and can be made to run Linux, to act as a web server and a myriad of other apps. Granted, it's not a 'thin' client so much as a 'who's eaten all the pies' client, in physical size at least. But it's still quite compact compared to tower PCs. Plus MS supposedly loses money on each box sold which should surely encourage some enterprising admin would set up an X-Box powered office.

  17. Thin Client Prices by Brian+Blessed · · Score: 4, Insightful

    When I was setting up my LTSP-style arrangement at home, I shopped around a bit for clients. I already had an old Javastation Krups, but found it much to slow for heavy use.

    These thin clients are $599 to about $629, similar to the prices I found but I can't understand why companies make them so expensive. I decided to build my own using VIA mini-ITX boards for less than $300.

    It amazes me when companies fail to analyze why previous thin client computing initiatives haven't caught on, and put out thin clients that cost the same as a full desktop PC. My local bank (Barclay's) have replaced old X Terminals with Dell desktop PCs (P4s!) running Exceed, and I assume they chose this based on price.

    - Brian

  18. Too Expensive by codepunk · · Score: 3, Insightful

    We run mini-itx booting from compact flash...total cost 250 and boots in 10 seconds...

    Check out peewee linux....

    --


    Got Code?
  19. Hey, Mini-ITX fanboys by stratjakt · · Score: 5, Funny

    For everyone complaining and bragging about how they built a mini-itx box for much cheaper, it's time for a whack from the clue by four.

    These are terminals, not stupid little computers shoved up an ET dolls ass.

    Terminals generally include monitor, keyboard and mouse, ready to plug and play.

    Thank you, that is all.

    --
    I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
  20. When Less Is More by istartedi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Of course as others have pointed out, there is no pricing info; but let's assume for a minute that the things are priced the same or more than a regular PC.

    Why buy one?

    Because these things aren't aimed at J. Random Linux Hacker, or even Joe Blow Windows user. They're aimed at corporations who want to keep people locked down. Just try keeping a PC made from standard parts totally locked down. I've even seen standard PCs kludged with locks and keys, which people just ended up jimmying open so they could install a video card they could use to play games when the boss wasn't looking!

    With just a stupid thin client on your desk, you have to stay focused on the budget spreadsheet, or the timeline for ordering new timeline forms, or TPS reports, or whatever it is that's infinitely more boring than what a standard PC can offer.

    In other words, it's more likely to be secure by design right from the start.

    Also, there are fewer players in this space. Basic economics tells us that when there is less competition, prices remain high.

    Just to disclose, I do have some stock in Transmeta, and it's doing really well today.

    Would I buy such a device? Of course not. I have no need for it. I'm not a corporation that loses $50/employee/day in lost productivity due to PC maintenance and games.

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
  21. Re:alternative by geekoid · · Score: 2, Insightful

    then you get to install all the software($), set up a back-up program for each individule PC($$), and when the user screws up a setting, send somone to the desk to fix it($$$), then when a virus hits, you have to be sure their updated($), and each machine will have to be indivule scanned($$$$).

    get the picture?

    Now I would use one for the home, but for a lot of business, this is the way to go.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  22. what about the t5700? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Too fast for ya? T5700 with 1Ghz Transmeta

  23. Re: PC v. Thin Client by MuParadigm · · Score: 4, Insightful


    Well, you can get a Thin Client for as little as $200-$400. I just bought several for one of my clients at about $650 a pop, but that was because I wanted them to be capable of Windows emulation and X Windows.

    The real savings is in support costs, though. With regualar PC's and hard drives, the initial costs to setup and secure the workstation are much higher, and even then the users are always screwing things up with Bonzia Buddy, assorted screensavers, etc. Using thin clients with Linux or Terminal Server really cuts down on support costs.

    Anyway, the statement in that article which I found odd was that HP was the leader in the Thin Client market. Everytime I have to set clients up with more TC's, I research the market again, and Wyse is always the best deal. Frankly, I thought they were in the lead for the thin client market, though I may be wrong.

  24. I agree by prisoner · · Score: 3, Insightful

    but at ~$600 there really isn't a compelling reason to consider them instead of a regular desktop...

  25. Thin Clients Vs. PC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm seeing alot of posts stating "I can buy a PC for two hundred bucks cheaper..." etc. There is a HUGE advantage and cost savings when using thin clients. First and foremost, the initial cost of implementing thin clients on hardware vs. hardware comparison is more expensive, this is a given. When you look into IT cost associated w/ the maintenence/implementation it is MUCH MUCH cheaper and easier to manage. The company I work for is top reseller of IGEL based thin clients in North America (http://www.igel.de) Infact most of our business originates from Thin Client sales. Here is a common scenario: Company ABC looks at PCs because of the cheaper cost. Company XYZ looks at thin clients. Company ABC pays for a PC, OS License, and deployment costs. For a large corporate rollout, lets say 1600 workstations (across the country) this takes approximately 18 months. Then six months afterwards you need to start all over, updating/reimaging, and updating the hardware. Hard drives go bad, users screw up their system etc. Company XYZ on the other hand, has us ship the units directly to the location, they plug it in, connect over the internet to the "management server" where the client is configured in less that 5 minutes by tech support, rebooted and its done... no IT personel are used for installation, and when it comes ot upgrading an image, or setting it back to defaults... how about the ability to do 10000+ machines within 10 minutes at the same time, REMOTELY? Sounds like thin clients kick some PC ass, huh?

    1. Re:Thin Clients Vs. PC by codepunk · · Score: 2, Interesting

      No you don't get it... I use mini-itx boxes in a thin client environment. Yes it is a pc but I boot them from compact flash hanging off a ide adapter. It boots in ten seconds and is totally silent(no fans) and all solid state. Did I mention the whole rig costs 240 dollars...Oh yes the power supply is sealed and the machine only burns 17 watts in this configuration.

      --


      Got Code?
  26. Lock down your desktops by msobkow · · Score: 2, Insightful

    In an environment which locks down the desktops to keep the users from installing additional software, Bonzai buddies, and all that other drek, your support costs are not substantially different between cheap PCs and thin clients.

    The problems show up when you have to deal with users demanding access they don't need. With a thin client, you tell them it can't be done and they believe you. With a cheap PC, they know it can be done and some PHB always forces you to make an exception for that one user. And another. And another.

    If system/network admins were allowed to make the final security decision, half of the problems would be gone before the users could finish typing the email requesting special access.

    --
    I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.