Thin Client PC Fits in Wall Socket

ukhackster writes "Last year, there was a lot of excitement about a cut-down PC that fitted into a wall socket. Next month, the Jack PC will go on sale in the UK for just £209 ($390)." From the article: "At a low price and using low power, MacLellan believes the device is 'one of the biggest developments in PCs that we have seen' and is one of the 'ever-growing range of thin clients, which are rapidly replacing PCs as a more effective desktop computing solution for modern businesses'. The Jack PC runs Windows CE, is designed to connect to 'any terminal server-based environment' and has Citrix ICA and Microsoft RDP clients built in. It runs Internet Explorer 6.0 to connect to Web-driven applications, and runs an 'up to 500MHz' AMD RISC processor, which the company says is equivalent to a 1.2GHz x86. It can come with up to 64MB of flash memory and 128MB RAM."

Comments

If it fits in a wall jack...

[rootofevil]

...why do you have to plug in a DC 5v connector to the front?

Re:If it fits in a wall jack...

[King_TJ]

Because most likely, they figure people pre-planning an installation of these will opt to power it with "power over ethernet" instead of using the 5VDC jack on the front anyway.

Power over ethernet allows use of normally unused wires on your standard CAT5 cabling to supply power for devices like this.

Re:If it fits in a wall jack...

[Anonymous Coward]

RTFPDF, it fits in an ETHERNET jack, not an AC power jack. It runs on POE (Power-over-ethernet), but the 5v socket is there for people who don't have a POE-capable switch.

And heres's what's so great about POE - no need to make 120 and 220 volt USA and Rest Of The World models, it's an international standard, hurray!

what would this be used for?

[yagu]

This is an interesting device, but:

advantages:

• tiny
• low power consumption

disadvantages:

• difficult if not impossible to move around (though it's not entirely clear -- is it a "plug and play" into a pre-installed wall jack? If so, then it becomes "moveable", but requires custom installation of jacks anywhere you'd use it.)
• low powered processing
• WinCE
• IE6
• limited standalone capability (designed to leverage Terminal Services)
• price (not really that inexpensive, no bargain over current desktop prices, but much less functionality)
• video memory (max video memory is 8M)
• video resolution (max is 1600x1200)
• expandability

I can't quite figure where this product fits. I'm guessing it's more of a business solution, but if that's true, I can't imagine it in any of the business settings I've experienced.

It's kind of cool technology, but is it a solution in search of a problem?

Re:what would this be used for?

[Overzeetop]

It's kind of cool technology, but is it a solution in search of a problem?

I think you've really identified the issue here. It's got fanstastic "wow" power, but when you sit down to figure out where it can/will be used, the applications seem so be pretty narrow in scope. I could see it as part of a POS system, or in a cube farm for non-technical types. It might have been a real contender if the server-terminal system popular 20-30 years ago hadn't devolved into a 2GHz machine on every desk. It might make a neat HT client, but that's a niche market to begin with, and it's going to need a big investment in software to get it running. Maybe it's a good terminal for medical facilities, or possibly for secure environments.

As for price...it's middling I'd say. A little much for dropping in every cube, but not too much in a high-dollar installation.

Now, if they'd move this to a Power Over Wireless, that'd be really neat (it's a joke, folks. no you don't have to laugh).

Re:what would this be used for?

[AchilleTalon]

Since it is a low power device, it is targetted at all those workers not reputable to be 100 Watts guys. Since, it requires only 5 Watts, seems the right fit for marketing employees.

Jokes aside, multiply the power consumption for the average PC by the number of employees and many of them obviously don't need much powerful CPUs, and anyway, the CPU power is on the terminal server and available if needed. So, this is a green solution to reduce electricity bill in many shops. And it's not to say this is a low maintenance device, nothing to install on it and/or maintain, except the OS, oooops, it's Windows CE.

Re:what would this be used for?

[grasshoppa]

# difficult if not impossible to move around (though it's not entirely clear -- is it a "plug and play" into a pre-installed wall jack? If so, then it becomes "moveable", but requires custom installation of jacks anywhere you'd use it.)

For some environments, these are cheap enough to just scatter around the office. But even for locations that aren't, in most places workstations hardly move around. My workplace, for example, the same damn systems are in the same damn spots from 6 years ago.

# low powered processing

I don't need a lot of power. I have 3 apps I need to work ( two propriety dental apps, and ms office ). That's it. Not a whole lot of processing required.

# IE6

Again, most enviroments don't need workers going on the web for anything, so this is a moot point.

# limited standalone capability (designed to leverage Terminal Services)

This is actually a benefit..of sorts. A more centralized computer model is what we should have been moving to this entire time. Why do my clients need all this horsepower and harddrive space if they are just doing basic word processing?

Answer: No reason in the world. This is a far more efficient solution. Technical merits of Terminal Services notwithstanding.

# price (not really that inexpensive, no bargain over current desktop prices, but much less functionality)

Except what you end up paying for maintence in the long run. Fewer things to break, lower chance of breaking.

That alone makes this gold.

# video memory (max video memory is 8M)
# video resolution (max is 1600x1200)

Most industries, this doesn't matter worth beans. As long as the damn thing can display windows and a reasonable res ( 1280x1024 is the high range of reasonable ), then it's fine.

# expandability

My clients don't need expandability. They need reliability and simple.

Re:what would this be used for?

[djwoodard]

"...is it a "plug and play" into a pre-installed wall jack?" From the vendor's Web site (http://www.jadeintegration.com/jackpc.php), "Please note you MUST use the custom mounting boxes - the units will NOT fit into standard 1G pattresses." As to who might use these, I work in a public school and am the only IT for four buildings, 1000 students and teachers, 250 PCs/laptops, and four (soon to be eight) servers. We are looking into thin client devices to cut down on the number of trips I have to make to school buildings in order to repair PCs. One of the concerns we've had is the physical damage the clients will sustain from young children accidentally knocking them off the table. A walljack thin client would alleviate that concern, while reducing (physical) maintenance, centralizing system maintenance, and improving my support times. BTW, one of the points of thin clients is that you do not need to move them around. If someone moves into an office, they can just use the thin client that is already there - no need to swap PCs. Some of your other disadvantages are solved on the server end. Need more powerful processing? Upgrade the server. Don't like IE? Install Firefox on the server and give users access to it. Granted, no one is going to use these for AutoCAD or Quark, but for general office programs the video memory and resolution are sufficient. All of which is a long way to answer the question, "Who would use these?" Someone who needs to adminster lots of computers that are only used for general office applications, that's who.

Re:what would this be used for?

[Nevynxxx]

This isn't sold as a "You want to go out and replace all your systems with this." deal.
It's sold as, "So, your getting more office space, your re-wireing it, and you use terminal services? This is the Box you want".

Think hotels (as others have said) any sort complete rewire situation.

Oh and the really nice part, they need a custom tool (supplied) to get them out, you can have your *own* personal tool if you are buying a lot.

Try steeling my PC's now! Yeah, the TFTs can still go, but the clients are very nicely secure!

Re:what would this be used for?

[wwest4]

The product fits in cube farms where everyone needs to use Office & Outlook at a minimum (i.e. nearly everywhere on God's Green Earth).

-mobility: it can't be that difficult to move, and who cares anyway? it's meant to be install-and-forget. you don't upgrade/repair thin clients as often as PCs. that's the idea--they're appliances, not PCs.

-CPU: thin clients don't run much locally. that's the point. apps runs on the server. only the user interface stuff is done on the client (keyb, vid, mouse)

-OS: All WinCE has to to is run ICA and RDP, which it does just fine.

-IE6: Just have the users run mozilla in their terminal server session. problem solved.

-limited standalone capability is a feature, not a bug.

-price: not actually bad considering what you're getting.

-video memory: thin clients are not meant to be graphics workstations.

-resolution: 1600x1200 is (arguably) plenty for everyday office productivity use

-expansion: Most modern thin terminals support at least USB peripherals (scanners, flash memory, drives, etc) in concert with Terminal Services and Citrix; I don't see whu this one would be any different. Aside from occasional firmware updates, you don't change much on the client. You're not meant to.

No offense, but I'm continually amazed by the general ignorance of the intended application of thin clients. If it's as good as advertised, this box is a sweet thin client. Brain-dead installation, low cable mess factor, PoE ready, tiny footprint, low-power... it sounds almost too good to be true.

The obvious question:

[Dzimas]

1. at £209, wouldn't it make much more sense to purchase an office full of cheap Dells, which offer much more processing power as well as local storage? The only advantage I can see of this device is that it is very compact and wall-mounted... and that advantage is totally wiped out by having to have a bulky LCD panel, keyboard and mouse on each desk.

IOW, this is an interesting idea that will probably fail in all but a few niche applications - I wouldn't invest in the company. ;)

Re:The obvious question:

[Penguin Programmer]

1. at £209, wouldn't it make much more sense to purchase an office full of cheap Dells, which offer much more processing power as well as local storage?

Local storage is a bad thing. Local storage means office workers can put shit on the hard drive and the hard drive doesn't get backed up. I've worked in offices where they rely on local storage to keep all their files and it's administration hell. In my mind, the one really nice feature of thin-client networks like Citrix (and I _hate_ Citrix) is that they force users to keep all their files on the server. In fact, the user doesn't even need to know that there's a server and a client, it all just looks like a PC. This means you don't have to teach people things they have trouble understanding and it makes administration much easier.

Now, that doesn't mean this device will be a success. There are already small, low-power, noiseless thin clients out there and I believe they can be had for less than $390. They're not as small, but still much smaller and quieter than a regular PC.

Re:The obvious question:

[rtaylor]

No. If you can save 1 sqft of space for each person in say a call centre, which allows you to squeeze in a few extra people, this is well worth every cent.

At £20+ per sqft of space per month in your office lease, £200 to save 1 sqft is a pretty good deal.

beep beep beep

[MrSquirrel]

Cute toy -- but it doesn't seem practical... yet. While this seems like a decent thin-client (some of the ones I've seen come with horrid built-in displays and they still are a box -- if I'm going to have a box on my desk either way, I'd rather have it be a fast one) it's still a little too expensive. As the price comes down I can expect these to be a little more popular -- these are not the right kind of machine for everyone (or probably even most people)... but for a business I can see this working if the price came down enough.
Thin clients can definitely be useful -- if you have a powerful server you can still run high-end programs while saving costs (it is usually more cost efficient to invest in beefy servers that will serve everyone's computing needs than to buy every user a super powerful desktop [or laptop] especially from a support stance).

Re:performance up to 1.2ghz x86...

[misleb]

1) Any floating point operations are goign to be performed on the server
2) Type types of systems that thin clients are meant to replace don't generally deal with fp ops.
3) It is Windows CE!

-matthew

Re:How much??!!

[jrumney]

I'd love to move our office to thin clients however I really can't justify the cost. For £200 I can get a 2.4Ghz Celeron with 512MB of RAM, XP Pro, a keyboard, mouse and 17" flat panel monitor.

What are your monthly electricity bills?

Re:How much??!!

[Teckla]

I'd love to move our office to thin clients however I really can't justify the cost. For £200 I can get a 2.4Ghz Celeron with 512MB of RAM, XP Pro, a keyboard, mouse and 17" flat panel monitor.

I'm calling bullshit on this. However, I'm happy to be corrected on this if someone can point me to a reputable company that'll sell a system with these specs for £200 (which is approximately $375 USD, according to Google).

But hold on, that box doesn't include monitor, keyboard, mouse, or operating system.

You're right about the monitor, keyboard, and mouse. But you're wrong about the operating system. It includes an operating system. Did you even review the specs?

Hmm... so right now I can replace a £200 PC if I spend about £600 per user on a thin client solution... and that will save me money how exactly?

Way to pull random numbers out of your arse.

Until somebody takes a brave leap of coming up with a simple design and mass producing these the prices simply aren't even nearly competative.

The point of thin clients is to reduce administrative costs. Users can no longer install viruses, trojans, worms, etc. on their computers. You give people a username and password, and they remote into a server where everything they need is already installed and maintained - in one central place.

I'm not saying thin clients are better than fat clients, I'm just pointing out where the benefits supposedly exist.

How your post managed to get modded informative is beyond me.