Slashdot Mirror
'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.'"
Sounds like it would introduce a single point of failure. One malicious user or virus, and the sytem goes down for everyone. Plus, software needed by different groups often doesn't play well together, leading to irritating misbehavior. Plus, netwo
I wouldn't want something like this campus-wide.
I could see having one terminal server for each department or lab, though. Not only would that localize failures and software requirements, but you wouldn't need to invest in upgrading your existing network infrastructure.
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
We have dumb terminals at work and their caches are always clogged. We are constantly rebooting them. While setting the cache to a larger size is likely a good idea, someone at head-office has the perms to do this, so we have to sit back and stomach it.
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
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
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
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! :)
I heard of General Electric doing this at a few of their old, large buildings because the AC wiring couldn't handle power-demand of the next PC upgrade cycle. Instead of incurring the cost of rewiring the entire building, they installed low-power terminals at desks. Makes sense to me. GE has some very old office buildings (they are an old company!).
...for dumb users! Doesn't it seem right?
Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)
http://www.lawrenceperson.com/
...now where'd I put my DEC VT102? *Scurries off to the attic* Time to eBay it! :)
The article doesn't say what kind of OS these thin clients support.
Presumably it isn't Solaris, since they would have mentioned Sunray terminals otherwise. Poor Sun, they've been trying for years -- halfheartedly -- to push their sunray terminals without much success.
Personally, I'd be interested in Apple producing a thin client solution. But not just for the office. Consider how many of us have 3-4 computers at home these days for our families? I'd like to see a small home setup where a G5 tower (or smaller!) would support up to four thin terminals around the house. Much easier to administrate and backup.
I think they are thinking more of thin clients with some sort of remote desktop thing.
I myself would like to strive for Linux Termimal Server type of installtion at our work, check out this Story from Newsforge and the one year follow up which chroniclaes the city of Largo Florida government deploying Linux Terminal Server/Clients.
I think it's happening a lot more then you think, it just takes time to configure and roll-out.
"Enjoy what you're doing! If it becomes drudgery, you're doing it wrong!" - Jim Butterfield
Everybody welcome the "dumb laptop", a keyboard and a screen that automatically connects to your company main server no matter where you are in the world.
Joke aside, i fail to see how a dumb terminal could replace a laptop for a commercial/engineer who needs to travel frequently. And theses are the computers that are most likely to be lost/stolen so this is the kind of computer where you should improve security (disk encryption,
.... when I first started reading it as they have a concept called Virtual Desktop Infrastructure. The article sounds like the link below:
http://www.vmware.com/solutions/desktop/vdi.html
This is my opinion. To make sure you don't steal it, it's covered by the DMCA.
Unlike laptops/desktops, when the server goes down or we have power problems, my computer becomes a paperweight unlike some of my co-workers who got laptops/desktops before the thin-client requirements were instituted. They at least can continue work with documents and files stored on their local drive. Me, my work just stops.
Also, responsiveness in a large company is a huge problem when it is a broken process. If I need to add a piece of software, I can't do it on a thin client, I have to go back through IT which might only take a few days (still too long) but can also take significantly longer. Yah, I can't do significant damage but I also can't get crap done when it needs to get done. I know that's a systemic issue and not the fault of the thin clients themselves, but companies in my experience are not adjusting well and it's terribly frustrating.
Finally, it's worth noting in my company anyway that senior management, of course, is exempt from the this client requirements. So when I was describing the paperweight problem to a senior director one day she said "I had no idea!" Hey, no sh**, you with your nice laptop and docking station. They don't give a crap 'cause they don't have to deal with it.
Happy goldfish bowl to you.
I've been working at a site that went to a thin client solution back the last time that was fashionable (so there's been some time for it to settle down). They've saved some I.T. costs but it's at considerable cost in functionality -- application responsiveness is OK for light Office and web use but terribly slow for heavy-duty Excel users, the network is studded with PCs installed for people who just had to have some bit of software or just had to run things fast, network bandwidth is a constant problem and there's also a strange issue whereby users connect to the BigSystem server to run BigSystem, and to the BiggerSystem server to run BiggerSystem, and are surprised when they can't use the same paths, settings, clipboard etc on both.
I think they could have achieved the same effect by just scaling back IT in the usual way -- cutting staff, sticking with older computers, fixing only the most critical problems. I'm not saying the thin client system hasn't worked, because this organization isn't computer-focused and doesn't generally demand much from its computer systems. But it certainly makes me doubt whether the idea would work well in a demanding, information-driven business.
Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
This article is talking about network appliances, not dumb terminals. See http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/D/dumb_terminal.html
I don't think anyone is going back to using green screens anytime soon. In fact, even the VT100 wasn't so dumb. It could show bold, blinking and double-width characters, among its other features.
I'd love to have a couple of dumb terminals around the house hooked into my main computer. What options are out there for home users? I know there are some diskless linux options but I really don't almost full systems around the house... Just something compact with most of the room only needed for monitor, keyboard and mouse.
"Thanks to the remote control I have the attention span of a gerbil."
And, in all that time, I've yet to personally see a company actually doing it.
Obviously such companies must not exist since you have never seen them... (Sorry - I find that logical fallacy quite irksome.)
The new+improved dumb terminals are reasonably popular in call centers. The terminals offer detailed granularity over the limited and very specific needs (including required permissions) of the call center employees.
I have seen terminals that run Linux as well, and appear to be sold with the server and requisite applications as a package.
I want to drag this out as long as possible. Bring me my protractor.
FTA:
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
The TCO is not in hardware, but in software and support. What makes a PC network so horrendously expensive (Gartner estimated 4K to 10K USD per seat per year at one time) is the army of technicians required to keep them running. Dumb boxes allow centralization of support which is much less expensive. So you spend less on hardware and labor, and use some of those savings for a really, highspeed network and a really reliable server cluster.
BTW, now-a-days this is often pronounced 'Citrix' or 'Remote Desktop'. Same basic principle.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
The things they're describing aren't "dumb terminals" (which is a TM of Lear Siegler International), by any stretch of the imagination. They're dumber than Xterms, but they're smarter than any of the "smart terminals" that LSI was competing with.
Simplified terminals can translate to less freedom for individual users and less flexibility in how they use their computers. Without a hard drive in their desktop machines, users may place greater demands on computer technicians for support and access to additional software such as instant messaging, instead of downloading permitted applications themselves. Analysts say it takes time for employees to get used to not controlling their own PCs.
Most companies lock the desktops down so tightly that the employee has no freedom to install applications whatsoever. In fact, one company I worked for allowed customization of keyboard, mouse, and background display only. And, you had a limited range to choose from on approved backgrounds.
In fact, going to thin clients, from a managerial stand point makes an incredible amount of sense. The downside is the phasing out of the desktop technician. Many people would be facing unemployment but networks would ultimately become more secure and stable. The Active Directory and SMS woes would be gone because instead of having to manage several thousand desktop PCs, the IT professional would be looking at management of a few hundred servers.
Having worked for Sun I must say that this is one of the things I miss the most. Apart from being able to bring your card to any colleague when asking for advice, the absence of noisy fans is really noticable.
How about "Dumb client" or "Thin terminal". Oh wait, "Dumb Client" is already taken. The people that use SCO.
I did this for my small business, and it rocks.
... I bought a couple to use at home as well because they were so cheap on eBay and the sunray server is available for linux (and I think Windows now).
I run an online and brick-and-mortar retail shop. Starting out on a budget is always a challenge, and for our computing needs I went with eBay (this was 3 years ago):
Sunblade 1000 workstation with 2G ram, 2x700mhz uSparkIII, D1000 raid array: $700
Sun Ray thin clients: $30 a piece
21" monitors: $50 - $100 a piece (Now a days I'd prob go with cheap flat panels)
17" sunray 150 (monitor/thin client combo for the counter) $70
HP Laserjet 4mp+: $50 (And it's still cranking out pages 3 years later)
Done. Everyone has a nice setup on their desk, I have one machine to admin, and life is good. We don't need any MS software, so that wasn't an issue for us (the Sunblade is running Solaris 10)
The sunrays really work great
- Roach
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?
"Life is life." --Laibach
It still doesnt solve the problem of the user being the worst part of security and problems. Someone runs the wrong code on that mainframe and you might be in a whole new world of hurt. You do save money on repairing a PC but I would perfer to swap out a desktop at an office and get the user back up and running than going and repairing a corporate server that prevents the whole company from operating.
Recently in my county I work at, the county clerk mainframe died. All the clerk computing that used dummy terminals on that mainframe were unable to be used.
Secondly, imagine running all your applications on a remote site off the central server. Again, saving money on workstations but there is terrible slowness over the internet lines.
Bryan
So, yes, a few times a year we end up in the tornado protection areas of our building, and a couple times a year we find ourselves without power for certain spans of time. It's a bigger problem on the manufacturing side, where a power loss can have more significant effects. No, I don't know whether the company cares or what they're doing about it.
I included it because it is one of the two circumstances that definitively makes this worthless POS on my desk even more useless. And yes, sporadically there are server problems also. In both cases it would make my time less of a waste if I could do something, especially when doing a specific something at that specific time happens to be important. And that's just one of the gripes about this setup. I hope that is responsive.
What I like is that the responses this comment is receiving is focusing on the smallest of the issues and treating it as if it's the biggest one. Makes a ton of sense.
Happy goldfish bowl to you.
For most /. users, this is not going to work as a desktop replacement. But for most general office workers, this can and does work.
:) Though I am not thrilled with the security, nor am I thrilled with the state of remote audio in X11. Those are the two big caveats I would warn you of if you're considering something like this.
I don't have much experience using Windows as a terminal server. What I do have is experience using CentOS Linux as a terminal server, with HP thin clients on the desktop. It works phenomenally well.
The thin clients themselves cost about $350 a pop in small quantities, closer to $300 a pop if you do a mass migration. You put some of your funds into nice displays, but most of your funds into the back end server. Lots of cores, lots of RAM, very fast disk. Plan on replacing it every 2-3 years with newer faster hardware.
The vast majority of the users will be idling the processors most of the time, so long as you disable fancy screen savers and other CPU-wasters on the central terminal server. Depending on what kind of hardware you use on the back end, you could potentially have hundreds of office workers happily working with one back end server. Honestly, though, I think the ideal way to go would be with something like an IBM pSeries box with a bunch of department level LPARs so you don't have one department hogging resources and crapping all over everyone else.
The thin clients can boot off a local read-only flash drive, but better yet have them boot off a tftp server so you can more easily keep their software levels up to date.
X11 has been doing this stuff for ages. The technology is pretty mature.
Other than those issues, I have been thrilled with the technology. It's an idea that was pushed out there before the technology was ready before. Now the hardware has caught up with the concept. It's worth another look now.
He gets about two feet before his back gives out?
He tried to kill me with a forklift!
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.
Ah, the good old days. At Aston Uni, we had mainly VT-220s and QVT-203+s. Some VT-100 clones, too; even at least one real VT-100 with the remotely programmable indicator lights! {Why did they stop putting those on terminals? Even the VT-220s didn't have them, not even emulated on the status line.}
VT-xxx machines were all character-mapped and text-only. But I suppose if you needed graphics, you could have a machine running just a very cut-down OS and X server, straight from ROM.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
I work for a POS dealer, and we thought about using this type of machine for our terminals. In the long run for us, it would actually cost us money, since we make most of our money on support and maintenance.
Frankly it's a shame that Taco hasn't added a category of "+1 tragicomical": This one little comment says more about business models and business ethics in the 21st century than you'd be taught in a decade at Wharton or Harvard Biz.
Intentionally convincing [i.e. "conning"] your customer to purchase the wrong solution [undoubtedly at a loss, i.e. as a "loss leader"] - a solution that is, furthermore, INTENTIONALLY CRIPPLED - so that you can recoup costs and achieve your profit in the future on "support and maintenance" calls?
Edward Teach would be in awe of your audacity.
- Initial price
- Installation cost
- Software Cost
- Maintenance Cost
- Operating Cost
- Lifespan
So, if you examine the TCO, thin clients are highly desireable. Examining the initial outlay, they come in at slightly more costly due to the increased costs of the server & server softwareAbout the same - $300-400 for a low end PC or a thin client w/ monitor, keyboard, & mouse. The slight savings in the TC will be eaten by the heavier server needed
A custom install of corperate software can take over an hour - 40 minutes even if you are installing a Ghosted Image and with registration it's not unusual to have them require you to re-validate your OS.
Connect power/network cable/keyboard/mouse - turn on - DHCP can handle most of the remaining configuration.
Per seat licenses usually cost slightly less than individual software packages.
This is offset by the added cost of the actual server software.
No HD failure, no virus cleanup, virtually no per seat maintenance at all.
Software upgrades go on the server once - everyone get's the same upgrade at the same time - no need to take a seat out of production to upgrade it.
The low end processors/MBs eat a lot less electricity - depending on load averages, you can be talking 75+W/machine - in a 100 seat call center that's $13+K a year savings
A typical business PC is on a 3-5 year upgrade cycle (not coincidentally the span of the average extended warrenty) This is where fans & HDs start to go at a higher than acceptable rate.
A typical thin client is on a 5-7 year upgrade cycle
What's next? Minicomputers?
I've been working a lot in the VDI realm as of late. The concept is using virtualization (usually VMware ESX 2.5 or VI3 w/ VirtualCenter) to create a pool of standalone virtual desktops, a "connection broker" which can dynamically assign users to a particular VM and give them an RDP or VNC connection to it, and a thin client terminal (Wyse's S10 Blazer works well for this).
The Wyse terminal integrates with the connection broker, which handles authentication. Once the user is authenticated, the connection broker assigns the user to one of your virtual workstations and creates a remote desktop session to it on the terminal. The connection broker is responsible for tracking which users are assigned to which VMs. If one crashes, the broker knows about it, removes it from the pool of available workstations, and when the user logs back on they are re-assigned to another VM.
VDI has most all of the benefits of Citrix, like centralization of data and tighter control over user access. There are also some benefits of this over the traditional Terminal Server/Citrix model. One, the user experience is much closer to what they're used to with a regular PC, because they are essentially accessing a fully-featured workstation. Second, you don't have Citrix and Terminal Server weirdnesses, like apps that just won't run in a multi-user environment. Each user's VM, while centralized, is a completely siloed OS instance sharing the resources of the host server. What one user does on their VM typically has much less impact on other users than what can happen in a Citrix environment. With VMware VI3 and their dynamic resource concept, it opens a whole new avenue of dynamic load-balancing between your entire pool of hardware.
There are some downsides, too. A major one is cost. If you're using Windows, you're paying for XP licenses for each user, you're typically paying for VMware licensing for each server, you're paying for thin clients (the S10 is around $300), and you're paying for connection broker licenses. Citrix licensing isn't cheap either, but in my experience, VDI with VMware comes out more expensive. You can typically fit WAY more users per server in the Citrix world than you can with VDI, which adds to your per-user cost for VMware licensing and server hardware. You're also still having to manage individual desktops (although some cool disk streaming products like Ardence can help with this) for patches and new software installs, as opposed to the one-per-sever work you have to do under Citrix.
VDI is still pretty new, but the advancements I've seen just in the past year are making it a pretty exciting world to work in.