'Dumb Terminals' Can Be a Smart Move for Companies

Carl Bialik from WSJ writes "More companies are forgoing desktop and laptop computers for dumb terminals — reversing a trend toward powerful individual machines that has been in motion for two decades, the Wall Street Journal reports. 'Because the terminals have no moving parts such as fans or hard drives that can break, the machines typically require less maintenance and last longer than PCs. Mark Margevicius, an analyst at research firm Gartner Inc., estimates companies can save 10% to 40% in computer-management costs when switching to terminals from desktops. In addition, the basic terminals appear to offer improved security. Because the systems are designed to keep data on a server, sensitive information isn't lost if a terminal gets lost, stolen or damaged. And if security programs or other applications need to be updated, the new software is installed on only the central servers, rather than on all the individual PCs scattered throughout a network.'"

Comments

How many times have we heard this before?

[elrous0]

I swear I've heard this "companies migrating to dumb terminals" prediction about 100 times since the early 90's. And, in all that time, I've yet to personally see a company actually doing it. I'm beginning to think some dumb terminal or server company periodically plants these articles or something.

About the closest thing I've seen to this is a few companies I've worked for who ran certain applications (like Office) on a central server. But even that has become passe I think (in fact, the agency I work for recently abandoned that model due to server strain and just started installing the apps on individual computers).

Does anyone here actually work for a company that currently (or ever has) used true dumb terminals?

-Eric

We call them thin-clients

[genessy]

And all of our tellers and member service employees use them. Not only are they easier to maintain and support, it's a lot harder for users to really screw things up! :)

Re:Not good for large installations.

[delymyth]

In a company like the one I work for, where users use anyway all the same applications, this would be great.
No need to reinstall clients, no need to change broken fans and hard drives and search the whole office for a spare dvd player just to install the operating system into a machine.

Right now it takes me about 2 to 3 hours (4 in the worse cases) to get a client machine ready for the user, and we already have centralized /home directories.
Switching to thin clients could cost a little bit more when it comes to servers, but surely it will be less time-consuming when installing clients (no need for installation) and supporting users (one-time server-side install for all OO.org dictionaries and other applications).

And, most of all, I wouldn't have all the "version inconsistencies" I have right now across the network clients, where one has application X version Y and the other a newer or older version (and plugin problems because of this).
Oh, sure, people won't be able to install their own stuff, but they already can't do it anyway ;-)

Re:Not good for large installations.

[AKAImBatman]

Sounds like it would introduce a single point of failure.

It works both ways. A single point of failure becomes a single point of security. So it's a lot easier to make sure that everyone has the latest patches, and that the system is fully locked down. Besides, you rarely have only one server. You usually have a cluster of servers providing service to the users with the home directories on the network. If one goes bad, you can take it down and do maintenence on it while the users who were using it just log into a different server.

The truth is that there are very few business units that actually need their own desktop machines. The problem is that we developers are some of the few who actually need workstations, meaning that we often fail to push the best solution for the company as a whole. :)

Re:When the power/server dies, it's a paperweight!

[poot_rootbeer]

when the server goes down or we have power problems, my computer becomes a paperweight

Do you have power outages frequently at your workplace? I only recall two times in my career where the building I was working in went black, and both times we all had better things to think than "If I had a battery-powered notebook, I could still be editing that Powerpoint presentation right now!"

If you're expected to work by candlelight, I'd say your company has bigger problems than a poor terminal implementation.

Thin clients are good in PRACTICE

[Paul Doom]

Until you have worked with thin clients you don't know what you are missing. We have over 500 employees spread over the country in offices and a centrally located, 3 person IT help desk. (I think they spend at least 75% of their time on laptop or other non-terminal issues.) You ship out a router, a switch, a printer, and some Wyse Blazers, and that is it.

PROS
* The base models (like Wyse Blazer) are still quite cheap, and for the average worker, just fine.
* Huge security win. Reduces many threats and reduces the tempatation for users to do foolish things. "I like using the local Starbucks WiFi for Internet access..."
* No more users installing junk and breaking things. (Users don't like it at first, but most things are web based now anyway. Not a big loss.)
* No more crashed drives and messed up PC registries.
* We can roll out an app without installing anything on PCs.
* The user gets the same experience everywhere.
* We can provide a remote desktop over the Internet; same experience. Eliminates the whole issue of GoToMyPC, etc.
* No more local backup issues or other local file problems.
* No more worm infected PC hell. (Or PC security patch/AV updating hell)
* No more local desktop support needs, shipping PCs back and forth, etc.

CONS
* Network quality and performance become more crucial. (Our typical WAN link is only 256Kbps and fine for a small office.)
* You need a terminal server farm. (Not that huge a cost considering current PC server strength.)
* CAD/CAM, graphics work, etc. still need local PCs.
* Desktop video becomes much harder.
* Some apps don't work or have huge screen update needs. (Core Office, web apps, etc. are generally just fine.)
* Vendor lockin for thin client software.
* If the network goes down, they are 100% dead in the water instead of 99% dead in the water. I guess with a PC they could edit a local Word doc or something, maybe play some solitire. (Ok, they would like to have their address book. I think that is the major complaint.)

It depends on the organization. Many places have already centralized data centers moved a lot of systems to web apps. Things really are all moving onto the web. Do you want to support a PC just to run a web browser?

power outtage, what about godzilla attacks?

[gad_zuki!]

POwer outages? Hell, those are excuses to not do work. I cant imagine what kind of special wiring problem you must encounter that just affects the server room but not the plugs running your desktop and power-hungry monitor. Or are you saying that if you had a normal laptop you could polish up that word document while the rest of your coworkers are thinking 'why is that moron still working?' Seriously, there are some decent criticism of thin client implementations but this isnt just one of them.

Secondly, do you have permission to install software? I can give you a bad ass workstation and limit you to a limited user. The problem here isnt the thin client its policy. Most large environments have some kind of go-between/approval for software installs or all the users would muck up all the machines with bonzai buddy or whatever crap passes for the amusement only a spyware animated gorilla on your desktop can provide.

>They at least can continue work with documents and files stored on their local drive.

Who uses their local drive on a lan? You should be using a networked drive that gets backed up nightly. Especially with all those power outtages.