Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft to Release a Thin-Client Windows XP
repking writes "I'm reading on Brian Madden's Thin Client Web that Microsoft is about to release (don't know exactly when) two new versions of Windows XP targeting the thin-client market (This products ARE NOT the Lite XP versions that Microsoft is about to release on certain countries like Brazil). Codenamed Eiger and Mönch, these two new releases would let you 'convert' old PC into thin-client Devices. Is Microsoft trying to compete with open source projects like PXES or ThinStation?"
I agree completely.Haveing tinkered with LTSP there is a huge savings potential here. And of course , MS is late to the game on this issue. There are already a several boot to Windows Terminal server options out there already. Available in floppy , cd , or network boot form. There are a few Linux Live cds that have Remote Desktop Client included. Sorry MS party is over.
No matter where you go , there you are.
Thinstation is a thin client Linux distribution that makes a PC a full-featured thin client supporting all major connectivity protocols: Citrix ICA, MS Windows terminal services (RDP), Tarantella, X, telnet, tn5250, VMS term and SSH.
No special configuration of the application servers is needed to use Thinstation!
Thinstation can be booted from network (e.g. diskless) using Etherboot/PXE or from a local floppy/CD/HD/flash-disk. The thin client configuration can be centralized to simplify management. Thinstation supports client-side storage (floppy/HD/CD/USB) and printers (LPT/USB). Prebuilt images and a Live CD are available too!
Mozilla Firefox and lighter browsers are supported as client-side browsers.
I've been using thin clients at work for a while (LTSP based - netbooted X11 thin clients). They work very well, and I'm fairly happy with the results (some of the software could be less buggy, but that's OSS for you). They're delightfully easy to manage, in that they require essentially none. Unfortunately the server side configuration tools for user's desktop environments and apps are almost non-existent so you'll have to do a lot more rolling-your-own than you'd probably like.
Unfortunately, I'm having real troubles with the vertical market vendors as we seek a new newspaper accounts & bookings system. They *all* require Windows desktops - many don't even work with TS / Citrix. Consider this factor VERY carefully before deciding on a thin client roll out, especially Linux thin clients.
How well it works will depend a lot on how much in-house development you do... and in-house development is *expensive* (in time, if nothing else) to a small/medium business.
I share your opinion on TS and CALs. I don't see the point - the CALs negate most of the lower outlay of thin clients. Citrix makes it even worse. Unless you expect to save a *lot* on management and running costs, I don't see how it's worth it.
University of Washington
Student
I love how the OS community assumes it's always about them. In the thin client arena, Microsoft's main competition is Citrix Metaframe. My company sells a solution that works on both citrix and terminal services. Citrix is more expensive but has more features. There are also a ton of addons and configurations that TS doesn't do yet.
The more options MS comes up with, the more they can compete. So far our customers are buying more TS Licenses than Citrix since windows 2000 came out because it's adequate for most users who want a reasonably functional thin client solution.
Yes, thin client options on Linux are a threat, but that's just lumped into the over all Linux beast they are tackling right now and specifically isn't anything special... yet.
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
This project will go nowhere, fast.
The only possible way that it takes off is if MSFT literally GIVES IT AWAY.
I've watched several thin client manufacturers try to leverage into this space, essentially betting the whoel company, and then failing.
Jst because MSFT is doing it doesnt mean its a good idea. Why would anyone choose to cripple perfectly good PC's, especially if they have to pay for it?
... hi bingo
Mmmm,
As a CCEA (Citrix Certified Enterprise Administrator) I'm at least partially biased but...
First lets clear up a misnomer, the TS Cal that comes with Windows XP is ONLY valid with MS Terminal Server 2000, NOT 2003. If you are using TS 2003 you STILL need to buy a TS CAL...even for your Windows XP boxes.
Now, let's look at what Citrix gives you...besides the nifty management utilities.
Citrix gives you UPD I & II (Universal Printer Drivers roxxors)
Citrix gives you the ICA protocol, more efficient bandwidth usuage.
Citrix gives you Secure Access Gateway for SSL Encrypted sessions through any web browser.
Citrix gives you published applications. (awesome)
Citrix gives you load balancing.
Citrix gives you MultiMedia, Browser, and Flash acceleration.
Citrix gives you a common clipboard with a local desktop.
Citrix gives you TS specific policies that allow you to tailor things like printer bandwidth, session bandwidth etc by user, group, subnet or machine name.
Citrix gives you dynamic client names.
Citrix gives you silent client rollout.
In all honesty I could probably put about another thirty things in here, but I think my point is made.
Long story short, if you think that all Citrix gives you is some nifty management tools then you REALLY need to look at the product.
This is very likely in response not just to Citrix but to Sun's SunRay technology which is the ultimate thinclient - there is no OS on a SunRay it is basically a remote keyboard/mouse/usb hub/audio/framebuffer-display all hanging off a network interface.
SunRay is very heavily used in US Military applications because they really like the zero state on the desktop and no ability for state to be put there. It is even used with Trusted Solaris (which provides Mandatory Access Controls), to access Citrix services.
SunRay also has very simple and very effective desktop mobility, pull out smartcard move to new SunRay unit plug in card, reauthenticate, and off you go.
SunRay however does require dedicated Sun specific hardware, but that hardware is pretty cheap.
How many times must hitory repeat itself?
1 - Diskless Workstations
2 - X-terminals
3 - Network Computers
None ever saw widespread popularity.
I've run networks of literally thousands of the first two (I'll agree NCs never really took off, as they were neither fish nor fowl - running limited applications locally, but without enough power to do it well...)
XTerms and Diskless workstations (to a lesser degree) are by far the most effective, consistent, cost-effective, and easy-to-manage computing environment I've ever run across. (And I have worked for a company that had only a dozen or so Unix Administrators supporting several thousand users in a business unit that generated a billion dollars on the bottom line. Over half of those users were on high-performance NCD or Tektronix X-terms.)
The concept has a LOT of merit. There's really no question that it's the optimal way to set things up from a minimal managment point of view. (I've also been on the corporate staff of the world's largest vendor of remote managment solutions, and no, there's no managment tool or framework on the planet that can achieve the same leverage you can get through a well-designed X-Term deployment.)
I'm convinced that if MIT hadn't abandoned X, but continued to develop it for multimedia support, Windows XP might never have gotten where it is. To a sad but somewhat true degree, it may have been the lack of MP3 playing ability that doomed the X-term approach...
"The future's good and the present is nothing to sneeze at." - Roblimo's last
Not anymore, it doesn't. SunRay server software is now available for Linux, as well. So you can run a *cheap* SunRay lab. Get some SunRays off eBay, buy the server software (it's kinda spendy, but cheaper than the Sun hardware), and run a couple of dozen SunRays off a single server.
They are really nice machines. Fanless. And their software is getting very capable. You can even mount USB pen drives off the back of them.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
No, they're mountains in Switzerland.
You're right and you're wrong, though you did bring up a good point. I forgot to mention that in my original post as we're still at Windows 2000 Server. Windows 2003 server requires a CAL to be purchased seperatly given your copy of XP was purchased after April 24, 2003. Windows 2000, however, still allows your copy of XP or 2000 to be a "free" Terminal Services CAL (and it is permitted under the Windows 2000 Server EULA.)
I'm a virgo and on Slashdot. Coincidence? Yes.
I really don't think there are enough "old" machines out there to justify this.
Answer: Total Cost of Operation
If you have a screen, CPU, RAM, and a NIC, you will not be wasting time extensively debugging problems, running viruses scans on each machine, etc. Less points of hardware failure. The logical bugs can come from only one place, the server. Its a matter of competence to make sure your servers are redundant, reliable, virus and bug free.
You would probably avoid running a thin client on a full blown PC. You sort of add another point of failure. The other problem is that I haven't seen any Microsoft based platform that matches the concept seamlessly. Unlike *ahem* unix/linux....
There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
I run an LTSP with ~30 thin clients attached, and I guess that I'd be one of the nazi's you speak of. I don't let the users run viruses, and no, they can't load any dancing bunny screen savers.
They run OOo across the board, but M$ Office2K is installed (under Cross Over Office), and is available at the odd times that it is needed, we run Firefox, Mozilla, Netscape, Evolution, and Gaim. There are a few games that the users know about, and a lot that they don't.
Video is usable (not full screen though), sound works, users can plug in their thumb drives, and help desk calls went from 3 / day with this group of users to 2 / week.
Users have a home directory where they store files, but no, they don't have write access to any of the folders where system files are (do you feel they should?).
And the numbers;
The server is a P4/1.8GHz box with dual 100GB drives in a hardware raid, 1GB RAM, GigaBit ethernet, redundant PS $1700
The Clients are fairly expensive, $300 each, plus an LCD and a nice Keyboard and mouse.
Software is all free except for the O2K.
Total cost for 30 users, $11,000
If we had put a box on every users desk, we could have forgone the $1700 server, but the PC's would have cost about $450 (Win2KPro or XPPro - not home), then we would have had to load them with Office ($350) Adobe Writer ($200), Virus Scanners ($20/Month?), and more frequent help desk requests . Total for 30 users; $35,000+
I could give the users a $500 christmas bonus and come out way ahead.
The clinchers - no fans on the workstations, they last at least 5 years (so far I've had 1 failure since 2000), and I've got over 150 days uptime on the server. I bought one tape drive that backs up all of the users every night, whether they left their terinals up and running or not.
And the users are salesmen (and sales women), and they can figure out how to use it.
Hi, Assuming your post was addressed at Open Sense Solutions, let me try to answer:
1. Business is slowly but steadily growing.
2. We take Debian sid, mirror our own copy, then adjust our repository to make sure that everything is tested and works well. We keep our repository stable, and add security updates. This gives our customers all the latest software, but without the churn and occasional breakage of Debian Sid. Our customers have liked the software repository, but some have wanted something more like linspire. We are actually duplicating a lot of the goals of Ubuntu, and we may switch to Ubuntu in the future.
3. If you could build us boxes for 50% to 60% of what we are charging, please contact us with more details, because we cannot aquire quality hardware for anywhere near those numbers. For example, we use Antec quiet cases and power supplies, which cost us over $60, not the usual $20-$30 junk that most online linux retailers use. Furthermore, we'll give you our software and support standalone for only $50, and you can put it on any box you build yourself! Look at our detailed specs, look up the prices, consider shipping, and remember we have to research and develop our systems, and there is almost no hardware markup. We encourage people building there own systems, but there is no way an individual can do it for less if there time is worth anything. If our prices were any lower, there would be no way we could stay in business.
4. You can play 3d games head-to-head at reasonable resolutions with reasonable frame rates, but these are not hard core gaming machines. You are free to use more powerful video cards, any nVidia cards will work.
5. These systems are extremely fast for the money, you would have to pay 50% more to get 10% better real world performance. Our generous amounts of RAM and fast hard drives are key. We optimize for cost/performance.
6. There is absolutely no network latency, that is the beauty of local multi-user systems.
Thin client setups cannot even begin to compare in terms of performance, and they aren't cheaper if you're buying new hardware.
Thank you for the feedback, and if you have any other questions drop up a line.
Open Source is Common Sense: http://groovix.com/
and they aren't cheaper if you're buying new hardware.
Here's a brand new and cheap fanless thin client
I've also bought a few of these and have been very happy with them.
And buying from this vendor directly supports the development of LTSP.
"If they have both, tell them we use Linux. And if they have that, tell them the computers are down." -Dave Chapelle
confused, wasn't arguing that web browsers dont do well on thin clients (in fact I think they do), just that a lot of the raster operations don't help as they are mostly gifs/jpgs and text. all of which get blt'd directly and aren't raster operations like fills.
It's a shame for me as a Swiss citizen to see that Microsoft uses the names of two beautiful Swiss mountains for their software.
WillhelmTell
The fact that something does not see widespread popularity does not mean it does not work. I know the first two on your list worked because I used a few of them. They were not as popular as standard PCs, but in the right environment they were nice.
In any case it's not exactly history repeating itself if the conditions are different. Typical network availability, reliability, and speed are much better now than they have been in the past. Do the current conditons mean thin clients make more sense than they used to? I don't know, but I'll tell you this: The computer I'm writing this on (at home) is an ancient POS with a nice screen. It occasionally runs a web browser directly, but 99% of the time it is on, it is running Remote Desktop pointed at a much nicer box (at work) across town. So I've got to disagree with your assertion. Thin clients work great for me.
...are 2 mountains in Switzerland. They come in 3's, as they are a part of a famous Alpine range. So... what is Jungfrau, the 3rd mountain in the range?
Ever been to a bank, an airport, a car rental agency, an insurance agents office? Chances are better than 50% that they were using a diskless workstation/dumb terminal to access a mainframe/mini for their backend apps. If they weren't then they were almost assuradly using a dumb terminal emmulation app to do the same with a full fledged PC. These days some of this is being moved to web services accessing the same backends, but that just serves to slow access down but make it a bit easier to learn.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
I believe that is a different market altogether... the HP T5700 come installed with Windows XPe... this is an OS made specifically for thin clients of the variety you speak of... which come with hardly any components at all... USB slots, a sound card, Parallel port, and some flash RAM/ROM... if you want a CD-ROM you buy an HP specific CD-ROM Dock that is supported by the OS... certain USB printers don't even work on the thin clients...
This new OS will be used to convert old PC's (like your PII 333's) into thin client like devices... these machines weren't originally designed for thin client use... and so it will have to have XP's expanded device driver list in order to support all the myriad of different things PC's can have as components...
You can't just buy Windows XPe to install on something... unless you're OEM planning to create hardware yourself.
This is for the regular joe administrators and small businesses with aging hardware that can still be put to use as thin clients while they spend their money upgrading their TS box.
I did my final thesis on the subject. The reasons for using thin-clients instead of full-blown desktops are numerous:
1. Cheaper machines. Minimal amount of RAM and CPU-power, no HD etc. etc. It does add up, and it does save money. And thin-client consume less electricity as well.
2. Reliability. No fans that could break, no HD's that could break. No moving parts at all (unless the machine is equipped with a CD-drive).
3. Ease of service. The thin-client breaks down, what do you do? Unplug it, plug another machine in it's place, continue working. It takes about 5 minutes. Hell, the user could do it himself!
4. Longevity. You don't have to replace the clients in order to use newer software. Also, you could convert your obsolete desktops to thin-clients. Instead of buying new machines every few years, you could keep on using your machines for 5-10 years.
5. Ergonomy. Totally silent operation, tiny footprint. All that makes for a nicer working-environment
6. Ease of administration. No need to run around fixing clients, just work on the servers instead.
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
Please note, the OS can only be based 'on' the architecture ... not 'based off' and most certainly not the doubly foul 'based off of'
Two comments:
1) This is a retread of devices with WinCE(pocketPC); XPembedded. (I beleive that both have some of the same code-base)
2)This is a thin ploy to keep people from using Linux on their thin client devices: NCD; MaxSpeed; Wyse; etc.. have generally made their thin clients in two versions a) LinuxOS and b) MicrosoftOS. Generally, both come with RDP (and all the native Microsoft Technologies that go with it... such as printing) and a web-browser. If you get the Linux Version - you generally also get ICA (a premium item on the MS version); X; 5250 emulation; a little other junk.
2a) The real key here is that if you purchase the MS-OS thin-client, you historically get a client license for the "current" version of Terminal Server: In 97-8 if you bought a WinCE Thin-Client you got a NT4 TS-cal. Now you get a Win2k3TS-Cal.
So lets see:
Option1) Buy Thin-client with MS-OS and not have to buy TS-cal. Have to pay on upgrade of TS-server for new CAL. Have vendor lock-in on Thin-device. Not be able to upgrade RDP client b/c, well it has not happened in six years yet, you think it's going to change now? Not have any other window-manager-clients other than RDP (and perhaps ICA for a few bucks more).
Option2) Buy a Linux based Thin-client-device. Have more emulation options out of the box (RDP; ICA; 5250; X, etc...)- And have to buy TS-CALs. Be able to re-use/re-sell devices when you are done because they can have all their clients updated.
This Moench version of XP is just to keep people from seeding a crapload of nano-itx / Linux machines on the market.
They do? I have built LTSP-systems, and they seem to work just fine. Clients were 100Mhz (or so) Pentiums with 32MB of RAM, and the servers were in the 1GHz range. Network was regural switched 100MB Ethernet. And everything worked smoothly. Hell, I could watch near DVD-quality movies on the server, and the client still had bandwidth to spare! And in many cases the thin-clients had BETTER performance than fat-clients. Reason being that many times the apps that were loaded on the clients, were already on the servers RAM, since someone else had already launched the app from another client. So the app loaded instanteniously (since it didn't have to be loaded from the HD)
That's why you could use more than one server and more than one CPU.
Like I said, I did USE the "godforsaken things", and they worked very, very well. Using regural apps worked just fine, as did watching movies (although I never bothered to make the sound work on the clients, I just wanted to see that could it be done). Granted, this was with LTSP, I don't know how well (or badly) Windows would work.
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
Your comment that the TS CAL that comes with XP Pro is not valid with Windows Terminal Server 2003 is not quite accurate.
u y/licensing/tsletter.mspx.
We hit this exact problem when upgrading our TS server to 2003, and found that Microsoft actually have a transition plan in place: http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/howtob
Essentially, any copy of XP you owned at the time Windows Server 2003 was launched is eligable for a 2003 license. As is any version of windows with Software Assurance or Upgrade Advantage at that time:
"In light of the discontinuation of desktop operating system (OS) equivalency, Microsoft has developed a transition plan to accommodate customers who were licensed for Microsoft Windows® XP Professional (or entitled to upgrade to Windows XP Professional under Software Assurance or other upgrade protection) at the time that Windows Server 2003 became available on April 24, 2003. Customers who have acquired Windows XP Professional licenses (or active upgrade protection coverage, including Campus and School Agreements, for Windows Professional), prior to April 24, 2003, will be granted complimentary Windows Server 2003 Terminal Server Client Access Licenses (TS CALs)."
Ross
>> Not to mention if one person uses all the terminal server's CPU everyone else's thinclient freezes up.
>>
> That's why you could use more than one server and more than one CPU.
We use dual Athlon XP CPU 2003 Servers for our thin clients at uni. When a student runs matlab, the whole system grinds to a halt. Scrolling a document in MS Word is a nightmare - pages keep scrolling long after letting go of the mouse. Using any of the selection tools in Photoshop make the app slow to a crawl or freezes. Various unexplained pauses freezes the entire desktop for seconds/minutes.