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?

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?

[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?

[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:

[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.