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?"
As a sysadmin for a small buisness (~100 employees and growing fast) I've been trying to push thin-clients for a while now. My manager and the other sysadmin is very reluctant to pursue this solution but I cannot find any reason why a recpetionist, data entry, or accounting needs a new, full featured desktop. Thin-clients are rising in popularity again and it won't be long for them to become a familar site in small to large buisnesses. The only reason I can find to purchase Microsoft's XP thin-client is for those of us who would use it with terminal services. Terminal server requires a license for each connecting client, which a Windows OS has. One of the arguments I've heard against thin clients is the licensing fees for terminal service. Why purchase a $200 thin client and then a CAL license[1]when you can purchase a $400 full fledge desktop with XP? If my manager wasn't so strong against Office alternatives[2] a Linux server with OO.org would save the company a fortune. We wouldn't have to worry about costly maintenance[3] or extradanory licensing fees with an OSS thin-client.
[1] can't recall how much a CAL costs
[2] we're a government contractor and worried about compatibility
[3] defrag, spyware, updates, corruption, etc
I'm a virgo and on Slashdot. Coincidence? Yes.
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.
How many times must hitory repeat itself?
1 - Diskless Workstations
2 - X-terminals
3 - Network Computers
None ever saw widespread popularity.
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
Finally, we'll be able to centralize spyware/worm/virus infections on the server, where they belong!
people can still get the image from
http://www1.cs.columbia.edu/~spotter/floppy.bin
though I give no warrenties for it still working, as haven't looked at it in years (and probably needs to be manually setup once it boots). though I recall it working well enough to get me an A on the project it was for.
the idea was that this floppy would give you a full screen X (via tiny X's Xvesa) and you'd run rdesktop full screen on top of it.
Sure they don't work with sucky servers and networks, but with grunty servers, networks and reasonable software thet can work fine.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
University of Washington
Student
I'm a signature virus. Please copy me to your signature so I can replicate.
A Windows 'Lite' (as in low resource usage, not crippled) would be perfect for many corporate environments where most users do not need or want the feature bloat present in normal versions of Windows. If this product helps companies get another couple of years out of their current workstations then I imagine this could be pretty popular.
I don't see that this would go down very well with hardware companies though. I had always thought that there was some sort of conspiracy/cartel in place whereby the big software companies constantly bloated their products in order to drive sales of hardware. This could shake things up a bit...
Unless you have a ton of old reliable boxen to run LTSP or other thin client solutions on, thin clients are way too expensive new for what you get. Local Multi-user systems are much more efficient. Especially when running 4 people on one box, open source (free) software is the only way to avoid killer software costs, so I don't think Microsoft can compete in this arena. You can get new hardware (and all the software you need) for 3 or 4 users for less than $1000 with an open source solution. For more info on local multi-user systems, check out http://groovix.com/ (that's my company, so obviously I'm biased!)
Open Source is Common Sense: http://groovix.com/
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"
Because according to Microsoft, that's all the PC you're using to read this is good for - because it won't run Longhorn.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
"Is Microsoft trying to compete with open source projects like PXES or ThinStation?"
.net framework more widely, so people will actually start to develop for it. They fear people will never deliberately download and try to install it on their older boxes without something like this.
No. Microsoft never heard of PXES or ThinStation. They are absolutely desperate to deploy the
Be interesting to see how this works out for them. I won't lose sleep over it.
Does this mean XP going to have small bugs instead of big ones?
I like that. Sounds kind of like "release the dogs".
Media that can be recorded and distributed can be recorded and distributed.
-kfg
Well, thats true in theory, but where I go to school all the Windows computers use a Citrix server. It is abysmal. The computers will sometimes hang while saving files, crashing the computer and trashing the file. Terrible for my physics class. (not that every computer does this, but a few do. And the server has a tendency for forgetting things... I think its because the tech department is too backup-happy.)
Sweet, lots of companies including the one I work for already run Citrix to allow scarce and expensive software packages to be accessed without having to commit a full installation to every single possible client.
For example, I typically run Citrix to access the the SQL Navigator software, and also certain corporate applications that would necessitate me having a whole lot of configuration to do if I couldn't go through Citrix.
Response times over a typical corporate pipe are pretty decent, and it certainly beats not having an app you need.
One worry for MS though, if this catches on, might the ease of administration, standardised licensing etc, start to hurt full Windows sales ?
-- "It's not stalking if you're married!" My Wife.
However huge Microsoft is, they still need the OEMs, and I don't think they be very happy about this...Recycle old hardware?? A new Windows version that doesn't require a hardware upgrade to run more or less adecuate?? Time will tell,,
please excuse my apathy
Has no one here heard of "Windows XP embedded edition"? That thing's been out for at least a year, maybe two.
I run Hpaq t5700 thin clients. These boxes are nothing more than a Crusoe processor and a small ATA flash disk. You load the XP embedded image onto the thin client, customize it, and it's ready to go. Footprint? Under 200 MB. That sounds large for a thin client, but this is truly Windows XP with a lot of crap stripped out. IE and MSN messenger are included, as well as basic terminal emulation and other normal thin client apps. All in all, not bad for 200 MB and it does almost everything I need it to. For a more functional box you'll want to grab drivers.cab from a real XP machine, but aside from that it's ready and waiting for your apps.
There is no reasonable defense against an idiot with an agenda
:wq
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.
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.
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've been (for the most part) responsible for the implementation
of the second larget thin-client rollout in my country. In fact,
I'm still in that position, since we still have two whole buildings
left to migrate.
The average box in this company is a Pentium II, 333Mhz, with 64MB of RAM
with Trident PCI VGA.
They are way too slow to run a modern desktop (before we started the
thin client rollout, they were mostly running their original Windows 95
installation), but they are fast enough to run Xfree 4.3 with accelerated
2D Trident drivers. They run *beautifully*. The large amount or RAM
let's us add small webservers and telnet servers to the thin client disk
images, and a Samba nmbd process so they have a NetBIOS name. We are using
Terminal services on a Windows 2003 Server to provide a modern and relatively
secure OS.
So far, the absolutely biggest complaint we have ever had is that Office
2003 does not include the "Office shortcut bar" (boo-f*ng-hoo) so we ended
up installing the damn bar from an Office XP CD we had lying around.
The users are happy with their "new computers". They crash a lot less, Word
and Excel open instantly, and if power goes out or the machine breaks, their
whole session is intact. Help Desk is a lot easier now: When a thin client
craps out, the techies just dump it and plug another one in, turn it on,
and the user keeps on working as if nothing happened.
locked down? yes, they are. Very. But in this particular company there are
nearly no "power users" and they barely even notice things the lack of a
wallpaper. They just power it up and use it to work.
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.
Not only do I work for a company that has done what you just said, I was the one that implemented it. (CEO's decision) Users complained for about a week. Oh I can't get to website X... if website X was deemed work accesable, it was opened up. Or I can't do blah blah. After all settled down, we found our users no longer used the web for surfing but actually started doing work. Productivity is much higher (along with taking some things away, we were also able to give new tools to users that would have been security nightmares on local machines) And my job as a sys admin/programmer has been made much simpler. Oh my machine is crashing, or my hard drive died, or well you get the idea.... All I do is replace it with a freshly formatted machine (we keep two in rotation) and install a Remote Desktop Icon on their desktop. If you were doing your job, you wouldn't care about the invasion of privacy. The company is paying you, you are on their time. If you are doing your things on their time, you are STEALING. I'm not trying to say we discourage people from using email to contact family, etc. But things like buying concert tickets, etc can be done on one's own time. Also, loggin emails made it easy for us to spot a salesman (who has since been fired) that not only wasn't using the company email, but actually had the name of a different company in his signature. (found it in a reply from a customer that was cced to another salesman who has been using our server (as is company policy)
A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned to walk forward. -- FDR
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?
Don't hold back. Tell us how you really feel.
"You spoony bard!" -Tellah
I am part of a team that runs a network with around 250 employees... currently about half of the organization is running on thin clients... the time spent administrating these clients is much less than the ones with regular desktops and laptops...
Yes when you say $200 thin client plus CAL would probably equal an XP machine... but... we have thin clients that are around 6 or 7 years old now from compaq that are still being used... how long do desktops or laptops last?
how long does it take you to install a new desktop for a user versus a thin client where you just drop and go? I understand you can just "ghost" a machine... but unless you're very diligent in keeping your ghost image up to date you still have to patch the darn thing...and any software that has been implemented since... as well as any special software specific to the person. Whereas when I do have to patch my servers... it's done once for the 100+ users...
I think the savings in your time alone would outweigh the cost of that XP box.
I also find helping end users with problems is so much easier... I just hop in on their session to show them what to do... almost everything can be diagnosed over the phone! (Yes you can also do that with other software like PC Anywhere, Dameware or even XP's own "Remote Assistance"... but sometimes getting that stuff to work is more pain than it's worth... whereas with this if you can get on the server you can remote control the user) I've even worked from home a few days =) (VPN and Cable modem are great together)
Granted there are still certain things that require a PC... some applications just don't play well with Terminal Server... we've had some major problems with some of the older Access 97 applications that people have developed and which are no longer supported by Microsoft. Palm pilot users can't sync (that I know of) on a terminal server... and you can't share out printers from thin clients... like our label printers which are difficult to network. And then there are those people who are travellers and require their laptops and data with them... so thin client isn't for everyone... but I'm sure it's good enough for most...
For the people who we've switched to thin clients... people seem to like it... it "boots up" faster... and most people really don't know the difference... everything is stored on the server so we can backup everything on our tapes... which you can't really do with 100+ desktops...
The single point of failure is a relevant argument for some... but if you create a cluster of terminal servers for redundancy you reduce that possibility of one server crash breaking all your eggs =) If you have all your eggs in one basket you can watch them carefully... versus having hundreds of eggs in hundreds of baskets being attended infrequently.
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.
Which is why most medical practice management software (I wrote some for several years) runs on extremely low-end machines. Assuming the doctor isn't gaming the books (chiropractors are especially famous for this), there is a great deal of value in having everybody on the network. Medical billing is painfully complex -- having patient information and appointments online is itself more than enough justification to put her on a low-end PC.
And hell, these days, the PC you described would probably be cheaper than that typewriter.
Slashdot quality declines as the number of hot grits posts decreases. - Provolt's Law, Apr-09-2005
I have XP Pro on my main CPU
My crappy windows ME laptop has a cheapo 15" lcd attached to it, sitting out in my shed- with a g network adapter... running a 2055 hack, I can- with one of the two monitors in my shed, run a full screen XP session and a full screen windows ME session at the same time-- the ME session serves up any video stream (rdc sucks at motion video) and stat monitor on my wlan connection- the XP screen affords me power to run whatever I run....
Consider- I can run any of my commercial software while my wife is inside running the same commercial software... one license....
this has extended the useful life of my winme laptop immesurably-- if it powers up, and runs mstsc.exe- it's a windows xp machine...
that's what will mess over the hardware manufacturers...
A lotta folks are annoyed at oracle for charging a per-processor fee, and counting dual cores as two processors.... I say-- fuck em! pay for two processors, and connect to it from 50 machines!
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random