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.'"
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!).
In a company like the one I work for, where users use anyway all the same applications, this would be great.
/home directories.
;-)
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
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
-- Personal Blog: http://www.delymyth.net/ (italian)
...for dumb users! Doesn't it seem right?
If you lock down the server and no users have admin rights (except IT), then no danger of viruses, malware, etc. We support over 200 facilities using Citrix (with users either accessing via workstations with only the OS and a Citrix client installed or a thin client (Windows Imbedded), no problems with malware from end users since they don't have rights to install anything. You do have a point about the single point of failure. If one server goes down, many users can be affected. As well as in our case, each site is connected to corporate via a dedicated circuit. If the connection goes down, the site goes down. But our communications vendor actively monitors the connections and immediately starts work to correct outage (which typically only lasts a few minutes)..
You're messin' with my Zen Thing, man.....
Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)
http://www.lawrenceperson.com/
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.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
.... 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.
Actually, it isn't. If you're doing this right, then you've set up some form of clustering and failover with redundant machines, the same way you run RAID arrays rather than single huge disks, or don't base large commercial web-sites on one standalone machine. If you add in that now the end-user can't access the server, even indirectly (no cd-rom, ports, etc), and the devices lack moving parts like harddrives, then cost of management goes way down. In the end, this is actually ideal for large companies. Having supported stand-alone desktops in a small environment (60 desktop systems), I would say that unless you're harnessing the compute power of those desktops when they're not being used (Folding@Pfizer, for instance) then the cross-over point of easier is around 2-4 machines for Windows, maybe 8 for Unix.
I saw U. of Chicago do this with SunRays years ago for public spaces in the library, and it works beautifully for anything other than intensive 3-d rendering. Unfortunately, too many IT departments are dominated by people who only look at the up-front cost (I can buy a PC for what that thin-client costs), and not the entire life-cycle.
the more accurate the calculations became, the more the concepts tended to vanish into thin air. R. S. Mulliken
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.
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.
Software writen for server or thin-client environments is designed from the ground up to not interfier with other software, so proper software selection goes a long ways towards making sure that this type of project will work at all. Also note that this isn't about completely eliminating workstations/PCs it's about replacing them where it's not needed. Got a secretary pool of 40 and a call center with 200 stations? That's 240 fewer HD's to re-image after a virus gets past your defences. The Secretary for the VP of Marketing still keeps her PC since she is going to have to open/work with image files that no other secretary will.
My last scan of thin-client tech showed that a client server ration of 150:1 is possible for moderate level usage, with it dropping as low as 25:1 for specialized software that's resource intensive. For a 250-300 seat call center, 2 servers can cover the whole floor. Add in the added security of dumb terminals - no vector for USB thumbdrives, floppys, or CD burners to be used to steal data or inject a virus, and the ease of configuring them - usually you either turn them on & DHCP takes care of them or you point them at a server, and it's a winning combination for IT workload and Data Security.
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+
You could also move to an operating system built from the ground with this kind of usage in mind, for example Linux. Then you can stop worry about licensing too.
c++;
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
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.
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.