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?"

Comments

Re:Small buisness

[Craig Ringer]

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.

widespread

[AndreySeven]

"Is Microsoft trying to compete with open source projects like PXES or ThinStation?"

I used to work for a school district in Washington that deployed ThinClient systems throughout the whole district. At first the staff were whining about how they couldn't install anything(like those dumb picture screensavers) but eventually it quieted down.

If I remember correctly, the ThinClients used Linux to connect to a server running Windows 2000, which made it the same as using a regular Windows box. there is quite a big market for these devices, so I am not surprised that MS is persuing it...

Competing with Citrix

[hellfire]

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.

Re:Small buisness

[Buelldozer]

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.

Competition for SunRay

[Darren.Moffat]

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.

Re:Thin clients don't work

[dublin]

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...

Not Anymore

[Tony]

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.

Answer: TCO

[slashdot_commentator]

Why would anyone choose to cripple perfectly good PC's, especially if they have to pay for it?

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....

Re:Answer: TCO

[TeraCo]

The other problem is that I haven't seen any Microsoft based platform that matches the concept seamlessly. Unlike *ahem* unix/linux....

You haven't been looking too hard then. Since Microsoft got together with Citrix, things have been pretty sweet in terminal services land. A few of our bigger SME customers don't have a home network, their entire company is hosted on our servers, and they use managed/adsl links to get to it.

The REAL problem with this sort of solution is that when it fails in a big way [1], it really fails. Not many companies can absorb all of their staff being down for a few hours. [1] The data centre is redundant down to the last rivet in the racks, the platforms are almost as solid. So the only failures they get are big.

Re:Small buisness

[10Ghz]

Why would anyone choose to cripple perfectly good PC's, especially if they have to pay for it?

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.