Lenovo to Sell Blade Desktops

Some guy writes "Having acquired IBM's PC division, Lenovo will become the first major reseller of blade desktops. Blade desktops feature only input devices and a 'networking unit,' connecting to a blade server for computational power. Such thin client designs reduce support needs and cluttered desk space, but require complex deployments to work well."

Comments

Re:Thin Client Redux

[Jeff DeMaagd]

On the surface, it looks like a thin client, but I think the difference is that each user would still get their own dedicated computer, so really, it's just a long distance KVM.

Re:And how is this different?

[bhtooefr]

Sun Ray == true thin client. It connects to a server running apps.

This == glorified one port KVM. Basically, it uses a blade server as a desktop PC. It extends the keyboard, mouse, and VGA to the desk from the server room.

The right tool for the job

[kebes]

I see lots of posts that are reminding us how thin clients are nothing new. Indeed having thin clients and centralized processing is nothing new... and sometimes it seems that the pendulum swings back and forth between "imagine how cool it would be if each user had this much power on their desktop" and "imagine how amazing it would be if all this computing power could be centralized and used efficiently."

I think the point to take out of all this is that we should use the right tool for the job. There are lots of good desktop PCs, and lots of good thin client solutions (or being worked on). For any given task, you have to decide what's right. What is easier to manage, a centralized server or a bunch of desktops? (depends on how many users you have, what software you're running, etc.) What's more powerful, having good desktop PCs or a central server? (depends on your software needs) What's more cost effective? (again... it depends!)

Obviously hard-core coders and video game designers are going to need their own dedicated machines for testing (and crashing!)... whereas alot of managers, secretaries, and data entry personal would do fine with thin clients.

Maybe this is totally obvious to slashdotters... but it's something that perhaps the higher-ups in companies should come to realize. There is no perfect solution... you have to crunch the numbers for any particular corporate environment.

Re:The right tool for the job

[aaarrrgggh]

The other advantages are that you can scale up systems as required centrally. Desktop blades offer a lot of cool advantages, but the ultimate problem is that they aren't designed for the server room, they are intended for the wiring closet.

This is a problem because most wiring closets aren't designed for the cooling requirement (even just puting in a 6500 series switch can be hard), and when you have a good number of PCs in one place you have to look at a UPS.

Starting from scratch it can be great, but it is hard as a retrofit to actually make work.

Re:Thin Client Redux

[Anonymous Coward]

So what's the point?
Well for one thing, the 'thin client' can have a single 'System on a Chip' instead of all the seperate ICs you're talking about... since it's all in a single piece of silicon, it can be pretty cheap/low power.

For another, rather than running say 300 computers at 10% utilization you could possibly get by with 60 blades averaging 50% load for 300 users. If you're a big company that has a lot of people doing very low cpu intensive stuff like data entry/etc, it can make a difference in TCO to run a thin client environemt Vs a full blown desktop for everyone.

And because it's really a cluster, people who need to have more processing power than a standard desktop can have it.

Re:Thin Client Redux

[timeOday]

1) They refresh from the server so if something goes wrong you can simply push the off button and turn them on again

Moving components to the server room doesn't stop them from breaking, especially since (like I said) the thin clients are still nearly PCs in themselves. Especially in the case of this Levono system where each user apparently has their own blade. Hopefully there is a reduction in hard drive count, which would help. On the other hand there's increased reliance on the network, which will cause downtime.

3) Your end users don't have physical access to machines with data on them. This is a huge plus for security.

For every user who steals a hard drive, a thousand will use email. Think clients don't help.

I predict that, once again, the thin clients will end up costing about as much as mid-spec PCs, leaving nothing left over to justify the cost of a big expensive server for the backroom.

You can accomplish practically the same thing by using PCs with a standardized configuration and putting home directories on a fileserver.

the economic case

[Budenny]

The thread is very critical of thin clients, but its not very clear why. Here is the case I am looking at: a museum with no money, and 3 old windows machines, plus one reasonably fast recent one. They would like to give the public access to their catalogue, run some kind of shared calendar for the various volunteers who staff the place. At the moment one of the old machines is in storage, the fast machine is in the office but used only a couple of days a week when their secretary comes in and does mail and accounts, one runs their catalogue, but since it is Win98 and has no security they cannot let the public use it...

What I am thinking is, use Skole Linux, buy cheap network cards, and run three thin clients off the fast recent machine. Is this not a case where without spending hardly any more money the institution gets a lot more functionality out of what it already has? And may there not be lots of public sector/charity cases where this sort of thing applies? Or is there something about thin clients or Skole Linux that I don't know?