Where Are the Cheap Thin Clients?

Yes by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-19 22:06 · Score: 5, Funny

Am I missing something here?

A cheap thin client?

*ducks*

Re:Yes by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-20 01:42 · Score: 5, Funny

In my experience ALL clients are cheap.
Re:Yes by wampus · 2009-12-20 05:08 · Score: 2, Informative

Some of us have jobs that involve lots of users. I wouldn't want to put together more than two or three boxes, let alone hundreds or thousands of them.
Re:Yes by orlanz · 2009-12-20 05:15 · Score: 3, Funny

And few consultants are thin.
Re:Yes by InlawBiker · 2009-12-20 07:23 · Score: 2, Funny

I got color on my 80x24 terminal running at 9600 baud full duplex, bitches. Lynx screams now.
Re:Yes by NotBornYesterday · 2009-12-20 08:20 · Score: 3, Funny

Which color? Amber, green or white?

--
I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.

It's like bicycles... by Eric+Smith · 2009-12-19 22:07 · Score: 4, Insightful

The more you pay, the less you get.

Though not for the same reason. You get a complete PC for less than a thin client because complete PCs are made in insanely high volumes compared to thin clients, which are a niche item.

Re:It's like bicycles... by geekmux · 2009-12-19 22:29 · Score: 4, Interesting

The more you pay, the less you get.
Though not for the same reason. You get a complete PC for less than a thin client because complete PCs are made in insanely high volumes compared to thin clients, which are a niche item.
Er, sorry. I consider dual-socket desktops with 64GB of RAM and 8 cores attached to a 30" monitor running 3D CAD programs a "niche" item. Thin-client hardware has been around now for at least 10 years. I'm struggling to find the connection there, especially when those that truly find the value in deploying this hardware usually do so with an order for hardware in the hundreds or thousands.
They charge what they want to charge more likely because companies like WYSE know that when you buy their hardware, the functional lifespan is likely 2 to 3 times that of a traditional desktop, and it's gonna be a while before you're knocking on their door for a purchase again.
Re:It's like bicycles... by bigsteve@dstc · 2009-12-19 22:57 · Score: 2, Informative

I'm struggling to find the connection there ...
The comparison is not with massively over-spec'ed gaming machines or CAD monsters. It is with the bottom end desktop boxes, etcetera that millions of office workers use.
Two of the factors that drive price in the PC marketplace are competition and scale. On the one hand, if WYSE (or whoever) are the only people selling thin client machines, then they don't need to worry about competitors undercutting them. On the other hand is WYSE is only selling low volumes of thin client machines (because most customers are buying regular desktops/laptops/notebooks/whatever), then they have to sell them at a higher price to recoup development costs, costs of setting up production lines, costs of buying components in smaller volumes, marketing costs and so on.
Re:It's like bicycles... by Znork · 2009-12-20 00:03 · Score: 4, Informative

It is with the bottom end desktop boxes
Which usually contain COTS hardware. Which a thin client can also use today. Like the submitter said, slapping together a thin client is easy.
they have to sell them at a higher price to recoup development costs
There are basically no development costs in this case, nor are the components high margin enough that production volume can make a significant difference in purchasing price. We're not talking special hardware here, we're talking miniITX/laptop MB's which are produced in the bazillions range whether or not a thin client producer uses them.
Personally I'd say the higher price is because the target market is almost fully corporate and corporate purchasers usually have difficulty comparing prices with anything that's not explicitly listed as equivalent. Which gets you the old triple-the-list-price and then let them negotiate a 50% discount and the customer will feel good about his leet bargaining skillz.
Re:It's like bicycles... by jonbryce · 2009-12-20 00:26 · Score: 2, Informative

Chip PC also sell thin client machines. I don't know how the price compares to Wyse. They don't sell direct, so you need to contact one of their resellers.
Re:It's like bicycles... by drinkypoo · 2009-12-20 00:30 · Score: 4, Informative

The more you pay for a bicycle the less you get? What on Earth are you talking about?
The most expensive bicycles are not full-suspension mountain bikes that can go anywhere. They are racing bikes with few gears and really suited only for flat terrain (although with a sufficiently powerful "motor" you can go up hills, of course.) So yes, the more you pay, the less you get. It's not just weight, but it's largely because of weight.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:It's like bicycles... by vegiVamp · 2009-12-20 01:23 · Score: 5, Funny

> The more you pay for a bicycle the less you get? What on Earth are you talking about?

It works exactly the same for bikinis, really.

--
What a depressingly stupid machine.
Re:It's like bicycles... by Daengbo · 2009-12-20 01:26 · Score: 3, Informative

People are looking in the wrong place. Move outside Intel and AMD.
$99 for a computer in a keyboard from Norhtec. (In fact, the prototype is still linked in my sig, but I have no connection to the company.) Video is available at Linux For Devices, but the Gecko Surfboard doesn't appear to be listed on tNorhtec's site yet.

--
Put identity in the browser.
Re:It's like bicycles... by Linuxmonger · 2009-12-20 02:32 · Score: 2, Informative

Thin clients have been around more like 40 years.
Re:It's like bicycles... by dimeglio · 2009-12-20 02:36 · Score: 4, Insightful

I think the savings in deployment and long term maintenance of these terminal units are just an illusion. 1. it simply switches the cost of the workstation maintenance to the back office as you need an immensely powerful data centre to drive thousands/tens of thousands of these terminals; 2. you still need a service desk as most requests we get are for new employee accounts and handling typical release incident; 3. people want to stay competitive and having a one size fits all typically prohibits one-offs, even if there is an obvious advantage; 4. problems affecting a cluster will affect everyone so you still need backup PCs for critical service delivery. It was a great idea when all you needed was amber on black text and typically only ran 3-4 applications but now people expect full multi-media experiences, web 2.0, and although terminals are able to a certain degree to deliver these, it is often awkward and demands more than a cheap disk-less unit.

--
Views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the author.
Re:It's like bicycles... by kFiddle · 2009-12-20 02:41 · Score: 4, Insightful

This basically just reaffirms the submitter's point. The PC-in-a-keyboard is not a thin client--it's a full, although lightweight, computer in a keyboard. It's $100. Want to buy an actual thin client? Expect to pay $300-$1000. Throw in a keyboard and monitor, and that ups the price quite a bit.
Also, the argument that thin clients are "specialty" items that drives up production costs doesn't hold up, since one would assume the $99 computer-in-a-keyboard is also a specialty item. It contains, at a minimum, a hard drive and a keyboard, which is already much more than a thin client has (not incl thin client laptops).
So why are thin clients so expensive? I've had the same question for a while now, since I've been looking around for a thin client laptop that's cheaper than a traditional laptop/netbook. So far I haven't succeeded, with most thin client laptops being much more expensive.
My guess is that the marketers hear phrases like "high security," "low energy consumption," "remotely managed," "longer longevity," "virtualization," "cloud computing," etc and think they have features that can drive the price up. The geeks, though, understand that they could build their own "thin client" by just subtracting physical parts from their existing computer and doing a little configuration.

--
In the world of kung fu, speed defines the winner.
Re:It's like bicycles... by Sikmaz · 2009-12-20 06:47 · Score: 3, Informative

Let me answer your points directly as someone who has been doing some POC's of thin clients in a large (40k+ environment)
1. it simply switches the cost of the workstation maintenance to the back office as you need an immensely powerful data centre to drive thousands/tens of thousands of these terminals;
True except it is always cheaper to manage and maintain those systems than desktops. We know per unit how much each desktop costs us to manage and maintain and we also know the same information for our big-iron boxes and Citrix farm and it came out that if we could serve 20 users per server it was a large cost savings and it helped with support. We even got savings at 10 per
2. you still need a service desk as most requests we get are for new employee accounts and handling typical release incident;
You need this now anyway in a large enterprise environment and you now need less deskside people and remote support is easier.
3. people want to stay competitive and having a one size fits all typically prohibits one-offs, even if there is an obvious advantage;
Not if you do VDI which means you deliver a full desktop to the users
4. problems affecting a cluster will affect everyone so you still need backup PCs for critical service delivery.
No you just have a multiple deployments and redundancy. In most large corporations most apps are client server (Regardless of if that is a fat client or web client) so there is experience in making systems redundant.
Does it work for every user? No but it does for most, the challenges are:
1) The initial cost of deployment
2) User and business acceptance
If you can solve those issues you will experience year to year cost reductions.
Re:It's like bicycles... by mysidia · 2009-12-20 07:21 · Score: 2, Insightful

The PC-in-a-keyboard is not a thin client--it's a full, although lightweight, computer in a keyboard.
No. It's a fricckin thin-client. This argument is something like saying a computer monitor that has an HDMI input in addition to DVI is not a monitor, because computer monitors only have DVI/VGA inputs.
OMG: being a computer doesn't disqualify something from being a thin client. All thin clients are computers.
It's the lightweight part and low-cost that by definition makes the system a thin-client.
Having a hard drive or other storage media doesn't mean it's not a thin client either.
The actual qualification to being a thin client refers to how the machine is used, not the actual specs of the machine.
For a machine to be used as a thin client, it indicates the bulk of the data processing and long-term storage will be handled by the server.
Re:It's like bicycles... by Toonol · 2009-12-20 08:35 · Score: 2, Informative

So why are thin clients so expensive?

My gut feeling is because the people shopping for them are demonstrably suckers. If you have a customer that's willing to spend money based on ridiculous fashion trends, why not convince them that an expensive specialty thin client is magically better than a cheaper, more useful, low-end pc?
Re:It's like bicycles... by mysidia · 2009-12-20 17:59 · Score: 2, Interesting

No.. I think some players in the industry just want to create confusion, and make you think a thin-client is a specially-packaged "diskless workstation" for their own benefit.
First of all, the term thin-client came way before there were any products named thinclient.
It's true that many packaged thinclient products today will be diskless, or will utilize compact flash for local storage (Just like that PC in a keyboard product, by the way, with the SD/SDHC card option), and include curious features like smartcard readers.
Anyways: companies that sell products for implementing thin-clients want to convince you that their product is somehow different (or better) than using an old ordinary PC, so they can differentiate their product in the marketplace.
IOW: They want you to believe their product is different (even in ways that it is not). In the case of thin clients: they want you to believe their product has a lower TCO; they would have you think it will (A) last longer, not be likely to fail, (B) use less electricity, (C) be more secure, than using generic thin-client hardware.
They will try to convince you that using no local disks or using CF instead, somehow makes the product better, or make it last longer, while costing less to maintain, than anything using something capable of being a PC. Even though these claims have not really been shown to be true.
Otherwise you would just use uber-cheap PC hardware, instead of paying the extra premium for a brand-name "packaged thin client".
Unplug the power cable to the HDD if you want, slap an internal USB stick, or PXE boot mod, and call it a day.
In other words, the motive of companies that speicalize in thin-clients is inherently self-serving, they want to warp the industry's perception of what a thin client is.
The truth is... when you aren't talking about solutions packaged by major vendors:
Not all thin clients have to be diskless.
Not all thin clients have to be off-the-shelf products "designed originally to be thin clients"
All ultra light-weight PCs are good candidates, especially units that don't need fans for cooling or mechanical storage (e.g. systems that use SD/SDHC, CF, or SSDs, are great candidates for quiet low-power thinclients).
Sometimes a local HDD may be used to boot a thin client, or you may use PXE boot or a simple $5 USB thumb drive to startup the thin-client (despite any existence of local disk).
In some cases it could be simply read-only storage to load a ramdisk from. In other cases, there could be local caching of various things.
HDDs don't drop dead that often -- if you execute power management well, and use HDDs only to boot the thin-clients, they will be spun down most of the time, anyways, extremely low mechanical wear, and you can expect 10+ years on average, easily.

Nettops? by sznupi · 2009-12-19 22:09 · Score: 4, Interesting

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nettop

Comes assembled, quite cheap, can drive usual resolutions, often Atom/x86 compatibility...typically has few redundant things though, like HDD; but that might be useful, together with x86, in case you change your mind.

--
One that hath name thou can not otter

Re:other costs by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-19 22:10 · Score: 3, Insightful

A PXE-booted Atom board has neither drives nor fans.

Cart before the horse? Use a PC if its cheaper! by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-19 22:10 · Score: 3, Insightful

To me the compelling aspect of virtualisation for the desktop is to be able to use a standard computer to access specialised systems, such as CAD (check out RHEV with SPICE), legacy software or test environments. At work our conference room PC's are actually normal PC's that connect to a 'conference' room virtual machine, it allows instant display of said specialised systems without effort.

AB

1996 called, by type40 · 2009-12-19 22:20 · Score: 4, Insightful

they want their "future of desktop computing" back.
Seriously, I remember talking with some IBM engineers back in high-school and they were so certain that thin clients were the hot new thing that would change the face of computing.

You want to know where to buy thin clients? Goto www.dell.com and buy the cheapest POS they have with a fast network card. Thin clients will always be a more expensive niche player to the PC. After all what is a thin client? A PC with no local storage that can only work if it has a network connection.

--
"You can see I know very little about pimp policy." George McGovern.

Re:1996 called, by timmarhy · 2009-12-19 22:32 · Score: 4, Insightful

err no they aren't. you can buy an entry level thin client for $99.
thin clients never caught on because not enough MCSE's get taught about them and the CIO doesn't like all the restrictions it puts on his playing of porn.
in environment's where things like CAD are used thin clients aren't a viable option (yet), but for a lot of businesses it's by far the best way to go.

--
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
Re:1996 called, by Keruo · 2009-12-20 00:39 · Score: 4, Informative

The problem with thin clients isn't the lack of knowledge. It's the break-even point.
In order for thin clients to become more affordable than deploying standalone workstations, you need to deploy atleast 200 of them, and 200 workstations rules out a lot of businesses.
Cost of licensing and server infrastructure is really the problem, not the cost of thin clients themselves.

--
There are no atheists when recovering from tape backup.
Re:1996 called, by Hognoxious · 2009-12-20 01:31 · Score: 2, Insightful

but if it doesn't offer enough stuff that those pesky users want then it will be resisted and then subverted.
They're supoosed to get what they need, not what they want. The don't need dancing pigs.

IT Departments cannot impose there will on their clients in the long term.
Finance can (we're using this because it's cheaper), Legal can (installing unauthorized software puts the company at risk) and HR can (if you don't like it, then get out).
IT just needs to convince them.

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Re:1996 called, by ThePhilips · 2009-12-20 01:46 · Score: 2, Insightful

It may be easier to support; it may mean greater security; but if it doesn't offer enough stuff that those pesky users want then it will be resisted and then subverted. IT Departments cannot impose there will on their clients in the long term.

Or in other words, the IT becomes "single point of failure." While PC can run without any infrastructure or IT involvement.
That has been always the biggest argument against thin clients.
Plus few people actually want to work on the thin clients, so you rarely see any grass root support for them coming from employees. And "better PC" is often used by management as an incentive for subordinates too.

--
All hope abandon ye who enter here.
Re:1996 called, by greenreaper · 2009-12-20 02:35 · Score: 2, Funny

You forgot the world's most popular office application.
Re:1996 called, by gedhrel · 2009-12-20 02:39 · Score: 3, Informative

The organisation I work at (it's a university) spends about a million quid a year because people fail to turn off PCs overnight. The running costs of your cheap Dell POS are much higher; the power consumption too.
For clerical and administrative staff, we can put 7-14 virtualised desktops onto a single box/blade - more with non-whole-stack virtualisation or terminal services. We put our heat generation in a few places, we do get better utilisation. We also export pictures of our data to users, not the data itself, which is quite a bonus.
The downsides are what you'd expect: mostly, we have fewer spindles to deliver storage to the desktops (this is the biggest issue we face, I think); multimedia is okay-ish; for heavy computational users there aren't really gains to be had.
It's certainly got its place. Anyone selling you a "one size fits all" for your organisation probably doesn't understand your organisation, but this isn't not a completely incredible approach.
Re:1996 called, by Clover_Kicker · 2009-12-20 02:59 · Score: 3, Insightful

Or in other words, the IT becomes "single point of failure." While PC can run without any infrastructure or IT involvement.
Eh?
Without email, files on the network, network printers, whatever corporate apps you have, internet... what good is that PC?
Re:1996 called, by poetmatt · 2009-12-20 03:46 · Score: 2, Insightful

you missed one group: users can fight it (bitching from every group in the company).
It's all about the compelling argument. whoever makes it, wins. that's standard business practice anyway.
Re:1996 called, by basscomm · 2009-12-20 03:51 · Score: 2, Funny

Or in other words, the IT becomes "single point of failure." While PC can run without any infrastructure or IT involvement.
Eh?
Without email, files on the network, network printers, whatever corporate apps you have, internet... what good is that PC?
Solitaire.

--
http://crummysocks.com
Re:1996 called, by tenco · 2009-12-20 05:22 · Score: 2

Edit a local file. When files on the network become available again, import from your local file into a file on network. Was it really that hard? I know, a reason to procrastinate in case of network failure just went out the window. And license servers are a bad idea anyway.

economies of scale by petes_PoV · 2009-12-19 22:20 · Score: 2, Informative

development costs, tooling, bespoke firmware, safety testing, promotion and the cost of supporting another range of kit.

All these costs are largely independent of the number of units produced, yet must be recouped from their sales. By buying a dedicated thin client, you have to bear your share of the product development. Since thin clients sell far fewer units than PCs these costs are higher.

--
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons

Re:economies of scale by RAMMS+EIN · 2009-12-19 23:10 · Score: 2, Insightful

I don't think that argument holds water. After all, the parts that go in thin clients are the same parts that go in PCs, so that can't be the difference. Then there are some custom things, such as the case, but if you consider the countless PC cases, motherboards, etc. etc. already out there, I think that, even though total volume for PCs may be higher than total volume for thin clients, the volume for a given combination of parts that make up a PC isn't necessarily higher than the volume for a given combination of parts that make up a thin client. I think thin clients cost more simply because their target market will bear higher costs (if you are a large company or government agency, spending a hundred dollars more or less on your thin clients isn't such a big deal).

--
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.

Slow news day? by hairyfeet · 2009-12-19 22:34 · Score: 2, Insightful

Well here you go a 1.7GHz off lease Compaq desktop for a whole $75 with shipping. That is pretty much the only choice if you don't want to DIY, because thin clients are a niche that will cost you $$$ that it doesn't sound like you are willing to spend. This is small, can fit under a monitor, and has 20Gb of local storage. Perfect for a thin client.

The simple fact is that is as cheap as you're gonna get, because PCs have economies of scale and thin clients don't. If you just have to have an OEM thin client be prepared to shell out the $$$ buddy.

--
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.

Market Segmentation by RAMMS+EIN · 2009-12-19 23:03 · Score: 4, Insightful

I think the explanation may be market segmentation. Thin clients are aimed at large organizations, where a few hundred dollars for a machine is chump change. They will happily buy greatly overpriced thin clients, because even the cost of an overpriced thin client on a desk is still dwarfed by the cost of the employee at the desk.

For home users, the picture is different, because they tend to see the computer in isolation. But the vast majority of home users wouldn't want to buy a thin client at any price, because they wouldn't know what to do with it.

If you want a cheap thin client, I would recommend to either buy one second hand (you can get them for under 100 dollars), or to just get whatever box you can and pretend it's a thin client.

--
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.

stand of the shoulders of others by seringen · 2009-12-19 23:04 · Score: 2, Informative

Dave Richards is well known in the Gnome community for working with thin clients, specifically for the city of largo, florida. if you wanted some input on the subject you might want to ask him. he's on gnome's planet, or http://davelargo.blogspot.com/

Sun Ray's work well and are cheap by therus121 · 2009-12-19 23:07 · Score: 4, Informative

Have a look at the 'Sun Rays' from Sun - they've been around for years; they are cheap and very reliable: http://www.sun.com/software/index.jsp?cat=Desktop&subcat=Sun%20Ray%20Clients The prices shown on the Sun site are list-price - we get a Very healthy discount off of this, which brings the prices down even further.

Re:Sun Ray's work well and are cheap by up4fun · 2009-12-19 23:28 · Score: 5, Interesting

I agree with this, too. The sunrays are excellent.
But I think the OP is still missing something here. The transition to VDI is not just about replacing one box with another doing the same old same old. It is also an opportunity to start to transition away from local storage, login, screen savers, etc. While there are many many advantages at the back end, there are also some significant gains at the front-end, too.
As an example, the sun rays have card readers that allow you to authenticate to the back-end very quickly. Using this feature you can roll out always-on desktops that let your users sit down at a desk, any desk, pop their card in and get their desktop, just as they left it, anywhere. As they get up, their card goes with them. No need for screen savers and the whole thing is very very fast. This kind of facility is a big win for our users. No more logins! No more password resets!
So perhaps consider VDI as a way to seriously improve the end-user experience of computing.
D

Re:You're not missing anything by OolimPhon · 2009-12-19 23:28 · Score: 4, Informative

Eh? Don't know what you're on about. I'm sitting here posting this on a thin client. I have a standard PC keyboard, monitor and mouse. I am looking at a normal PC session (in my case Gnome on Linux, but whatever). No retraining required, either for software or hardware. My hardware is an old PC with nothing but the motherboard left in it, running LTSP client. Cost me effectively nothing.

Thinnish thick clients. by SharpFang · 2009-12-19 23:45 · Score: 3, Informative

A minor computer firm is subcontracted to assemble cheapest PCs. They build normal self-contained PCs running the cheapest OEM Windows available. These are $80(+OS) machines running on parts that are a storage surplus after they went out of sale. Then they install the "thin client" software which is some kind of Telnet or VNC or a web browser with intranet connection, pointed at a PHP web app.

So basically the employee boots up the computer normally, starts the app fullscreen and does most of the work remotely.

This has several advantages. The workstations can be troubleshooted locally. They can back up your work if network connection goes down. They allow for custom PC hardware (card readers, barcode scanners, webcams for teleconferencing and so on). They can be upgraded if the need arises, and fixed using off-the-shelf hardware (unless it went so obsolete it's unobtainable). And due to economy of scale, they are cheaper than dedicated thin clients despite being way overpowered.

I've seen quite a few markets and institutions running a system like this.

--
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2

virtualised setup even by gedw99 · 2009-12-19 23:58 · Score: 2, Interesting

I agree fully.

With the KVM & the new spice drives, you can virtualise even your HTPC !!
It does HD quality video over my network with no problem.
This is in the basement.

So all i need on All dekstops is a very simple thin client.
100 mbit nic
hdmi.

Re:virtualised setup even by gedw99 · 2009-12-20 00:00 · Score: 2, Informative

Here is the link:
http://www.linux-kvm.com/content/rhev-spice-guest-drivers-released-windows

Re:You're not missing anything by drinkypoo · 2009-12-19 23:58 · Score: 2, Informative

$200, $300 is missing the point. If you've going VDI, most of the money will be spent in training the end user, in the displays and their mounting.

You can regularly get quite decent 22" LCDs for under $200 now. So, no, the thin client is a massive part of the cost, and the whole point of moving to them is that the maintenance costs decrease.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"

CapEx vs OpEx by Krokant · 2009-12-19 23:59 · Score: 5, Insightful

Don't forget that the biggest cost in a client is not necessarily the purchasing of the hardware (which is obviously the most visibile cost). Various studies (Gartner, IDC, ...) indicate that a PC that is purchased for $500 (one-time cost) in fact costs somewhere between $1500 and $4500 per year (!) to manage. These hidden costs are mainly into the backend infrastructure supporting these PC's in corporate environments, people managing them, deploying software on them, ... Google for desktop TCO and you'll find plenty of information. Sure, you might disagree with the exact numbers provided by a Gartner /IDC /Forrester but at least it gives an indication.

For thin clients (and desktop virtualization for that matter), this is also where the cost savings are. No serious VDI vendor will tell you that the CapEx (investment in hardware, licenses,...) is cheaper with thin clients and virtual desktops: you need to buy additional licenses, you're going to run desktops on server hardware (ok, 100 at a time on the same box) and then I still didn't start about the licensing galore (Microsoft VECD, Citrix XenDesktop or VMware View or...). The real cost savings are in the fact that it's much easier to manage, and being able to let your very expensive system administators do something else than troubleshooting a desktop (which costs you twice for the end-user downtime and the sysadmin troubleshooting it).

The same goes for thin clients: the up-front investment is larger, but they are very easy to manage (plug into the network and the thing autoconfigures itself, pointing you to your virtual desktop -- which means fewer expensive sysadmin interventions on-site for replacing hardware!), they live longer compared to traditional desktops (these used to have three-year lifecycles whereas thin clients typically have a five-year lifecycle -- roughly speaking you'll need to buy two traditional desktops for one thin client in a 5-year desktop lifespan; I'll concur to the fact that with the economic situation, you'll see prolongued lifetimes for both thin clients & desktops but the idea remains the same, numbers might differ today).

So is the thin client cheaper? In most situations and looking at the total picture, sure it is. Even despite a higher up-front investment. The real problem is not really the price of a thin client but whether your applications and IT environment support thin clients/server based computing (TS/Citrix/VDI).

Sidenote: I work for a consulting firm where I work a lot with VDI & Server Based Computing in general; we strive to be independent as possible (trying to nuance the vendor claims as much as possible for our clients) but that might mean I am a bit biased towards using SBC if it works ;)

That's because thin clients are PCs... by itsdapead · 2009-12-20 00:10 · Score: 3, Insightful

"I find many aspects of desktop virtualization compelling, with one exception: the cost of the thin clients, which typically exceeds that of a traditional box.

Thing is, if you're using office productivity apps or database front ends (the usual applications for desktop virtualization) then the most computationally intensive part of the job is probably rendering the user interface - so your thin client needs to have pretty much the same CPU and GPU clout as the desktop it is replacing. The Flash RAM costs as much as 10x the amount of HD storage and (since most people expect Thin Clients to be Thin) you're probably paying a premium for laptop-class components. The only real saving is DRAM - which is dirt cheap.

Also, since the main market for these is corporate, any retail prices you see will be inflated so that corporate clients can be offered a nice "discount".

--
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.

Re:32x32 by Jerry+Smith · 2009-12-20 00:24 · Score: 2, Insightful

(give me non-vaporware that will drive a 22" LCD at full resolution)

K. Will 32x32 (1024) pixels be enough? We can use a TI-83, not even silver, to accomplish this! Oh, you mean you wanted a non-stupid resolution. As far as I'm concerned "full resolution" means the maximum native resolution a monitor can output.

Erm, yeah, I guess he expected non-stupid reactions, from people who'd automatically assume a 1920 × 1080 resolution.

--
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die.

Acer Aspire Revo AR1600-U910H by _LORAX_ · 2009-12-20 01:40 · Score: 3, Informative

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16883103228

$200 and should drive a 22" monitor no problems, can't confirm PXE bootable, but with 160GB HD it should be easy enough to load up a netboot stack.

Re:I'm Confused by larien · 2009-12-20 01:45 · Score: 5, Informative

There are varied benefits, but some highlights:

Desktop breaks? Ship out a new box, they plug it in and away they go. You don't need to worry about what software they need as it's all on the server.
Security - no hard drives on desktop which can be stolen.
Patching/maintenance. Would you rather maintain patches on 1000 desktops or 10 big boxes in the data centre?
Power/cooling/noise at sites. A "real" thin client (as opposed to a PC masquerading as a thin client) will have minimal power requirements which leads to less cooling and noise (no fans or crunching hard drives)
Portability. I don't care which desk I sit at, my virtual desktop will automatically have all my apps. If you have a solution like Sun's Sunray, you can even log out of your Sunray half way through writing a document, move to another desk (possibly in another city) and pick up the doc where you left off.
High bandwidth apps run in the same data centre as the database server/whatever and you only get the screen updates down the wire which can be more efficient.

Re:What's missing by level_headed_midwest · 2009-12-20 02:03 · Score: 2, Interesting

I'll second that. I currently am doing a stint in a place that uses newer WYSE thin clients accessing a Citrix server, hooked up to 22" monitors for their computers. The maximum resolution the thin clients can handle is 1024x768, which is horribly limiting for those who have to use something even as mundane as a spreadsheet, let alone the complex electronic medical records system that is the real reason that the computers even exist there. EMR systems use a ton of screen real estate as they are generally full of tabs and sidebars and pack a LOT of information into each screen. Using one of those at 1024x768 is roughly analogous to viewing a typical optimized-for-1024x768-and-above website on an an average smartphone. You're looking out through a porthole and scroll and scroll and scroll just to view the entire page. I have used identical EMR systems (also running a remote instance over Citrix) at other places that have low-end PCs that can drive monitors at 1280x1024 or 1680x1050. I'd be willing to bet that the loss of productivity with people fighting with the low-resolution thin client screens is greater than the amount the place "saved" by using thin clients instead of the low-end PCs.

--
Just "gittin-r-done," day after day.

We build ours by markdavis · 2009-12-20 02:09 · Score: 4, Interesting

We use over 150 "thin clients" on our network, all Linux based and all controlled by a single (large) Linux [xdm] server. We used to use "real" thin clients (Xterminals) by Tektronix, but as their prices rose and the price of cheap, fanless, low power, small, VIA boards dropped 8-9 years ago, we decided to start making our own.

We have not regretted the decision. Now we have complete control over the hardware and software. We have the ability to run real local clients when necessary.

Right now, we are in the process of upgrading to fanless Atom 270 based motherboards from Jetway. Total cost- about $250/ea.

IMHO - they are a joke by pjr.cc · 2009-12-20 02:24 · Score: 2, Insightful

I have two thin clients from either 1990 or 1991 sitting in my roof, and generally speaking that was the last time they were actually useful.

The reality is that dropping a cheap desktop pc on peoples desk, having a data policy, and having file servers is alot cheaper than thin clients. The simple fact is that the market is mostly driven by joe blogs with his home pc and he has no use for thin clients (despite many attempts to make thin clients relevant in the home). When you talk about thin clients its always business and enterprise which instantly adds a 1000% mark up of any hardware. Joe blogs buys so many home pc's in fact that their prices are so competitive, unlike thin clients.

Want to pxe boot some atoms? your not going to beat that price, but be prepared for some pain, because licensing thin clients (even your own) is ridiculously expensive at the backend.

There has also been alot of hot air released into the IT world about "centralising data into the datacenter" which sound great until you actually do it. WAN optimisation does help, but only so much.

On top of this, thin clients are a perpetual network nuisance. They seem like a good idea until you get 50 or more clients on the same network segment continuously sending tiny little video updates and realise "holy god my network is being flogged to death". It sounds great but the truth is that sporadic write from clients to a shared file server consume much less bandwidth (people will scoff, but you'd be surprised how much different the network profile is for x number of desktops vs x number of thin clients, even with the rather thin rdp protocol).

There are places where thin clients are used however and heres why:
1) Compliance - i know one place that uses them exclusively because they just cant afford for their data to sit on desktops. I.e. the data itself has to be in some central secure location
2) POS/Kiosk type work - i.e. people at windows servicing clients
3) people who bought into the concept and now regret it... I know too many of these.

There are advantages to them, but when viewed with an eye to what people are trying to achieve they mostly become irrelevant when people realise policy (cheap) can easily dictate fixing the problems they are trying to fix with a technical solution. One great one i love hearing is how user X can login to any terminal (or even remotely) to the exact same desktop. How many of your users ACTUALLY need that? Can you seriously say that a terminal server for vpn with access to the same file shares and mail server cant give you what you need? Are your users running around random desks every day they come into the office? The truth is (assuming your on windows at work) that profiles will give your users pretty much all they need - a pre-configured outlook and the network shares they're used to seeing.

The second one is data, stopping users from saving data locally where it might be lost. Well, this is were policy can save your bum. It'll cause some pain now and then (though rarely) when a user looses a bit of documentation cause it was saved on his desktop (Despite the bleedingly obvious file server sitting next to them on the network) and his drive failed but the reality is this is so very rare the cost of a thin client solution becomes rediculous in comparison.

Thats my $0.02 anyways. Thin clients i find quite interesting, but they are rarely useful at solving any real problems except in niche and very specific scenarios.

About your hangup... by Eric+S.+Smith · 2009-12-20 02:34 · Score: 4, Interesting

I'm very hung up on spending more for less.

Stay away from "enterprise solutions," then — or, rather, make very careful comparisons between the cost of buying a ready-made thing and a DIY effort.

Am I missing something here?

That the thin clients you've been looking at are priced for fat organizations (with, possibly, thick decision-makers).

--
Mind the Gap

The client is not the expensive bit by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-20 02:35 · Score: 2, Informative

Not just the cheap thin client, it is the data centre side where you really pay.
From experience, thin clients save neither money nor power cost once you have taken the hit on the data centre side server, storage and networking capacity they will take and then the huge bill for the virtualisation management software. (assuming you are using Windows type thin clients, if you use SunRay and Solaris yes you can save some serious cost but most users will WINE until you connect the SunRay to RDP off a Windows server and giver them their familiar environment back)

Re:The client is not the expensive bit by hoggoth · 2009-12-20 06:21 · Score: 2, Insightful

> users will WINE ...
> ...Windows server and giver them their familiar environment back
I see what you did there...

--
- For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat /dev/random (may take some time)

HP Thinclients by nukem996 · 2009-12-20 02:37 · Score: 3, Informative

HP has their own Debian Linux based client client OS called ThinPro. If you want to add more packages all you have to do is add the standard Debian repo's to /etc/apt/sources.list and your good to go. They're pretty flexible if you know some basic Linux. The best part is they have a much fuller Linux base then many other Linux thin clients. They support even more advanced features such as multimedia redirection(video and USB) as well as the basic XDM, ICA, RDP connections. All of them can drive almost any monitor from a standard 17" LCD to dual 30" LCDs. The cheapest model is ARM based. Its basically a Marvell OpenRD or Netplug with a video card and smaller disk space. All the others are x86 based and vary in speed and price.

Options by rwa2 · 2009-12-20 02:53 · Score: 4, Informative

They're getting there, just be patient!

I'm about the evaluate the Fit-PC2 for work, which can be had in diskless forms for under $250. http://www.fit-pc.com/

And I'm currently posting from an EeePC 901 running eeebuntu, which is actually quite a bit better and can be had for under $200. Plug in an external monitor, and rig up the built-in LCD and peripherals as a fancy KVM switching interface for your various VNC, RDP, VMware, NX, etc. backends. I'm really impressed by the Compiz desktop performance, so you can still get pretty slick transitions between various sessions on different virtual desktops.

And I'm really looking forward to the explosion of new nVidia ION netbooks and nettops, which will actually give a real nVidia 9400 GPU and dual-core Atom processors to these "thin clients", which means they can actually be used more or less like a real box in terms of running web-based interfaces and things without stuttering and pausing occasionally.

So with a dirt-cheap nettop, unfortunately you'll pay a little bit more than your target, but at least you get extra features (like a small SSD, built-in speakers, keyboard/mouse/multitouchpad, and maybe even a webcam, etc. that you could probably put to good use with a bit of creativity.

Thin clients for under $200 right now by mrslacker · 2009-12-20 03:13 · Score: 2, Informative

HP's offering: http://h10010.www1.hp.com/wwpc/us/en/sm/WF05a/12454-12454-321959-338927-3640405-4063703.html - $199
This is ARM-based mind.

From Dell:
http://www.dell.com/us/en/home/desktops/inspiron-zino-hd/pd.aspx?refid=inspiron-zino-hd&s=dhs&cs=19
$250 right now, but was about $200 during black friday

From Acer:
http://www.frys.com/product/6054148

$200, has been $180.
To be fair, all these products are very recent, and I wouldn't expect anyone to be aware of them.
There are others too, but they tend to cost more.

Re:They're being eclipsed by cheap traditional PC' by rdebath · 2009-12-20 03:13 · Score: 2, Insightful

That's exactly his point, he wants that PC without the hard disk, CDROM or OS.

What do you think that should cost? Maybe $150 ? Why aren't there any tickboxs to do it ?

Why is there a separate genre of thin client PC's that cost so much more?

Who is being conned here?

Re:I'm Confused by obarthelemy · 2009-12-20 03:26 · Score: 2, Insightful

Most of that can be achieved with a well-designed "fat client" network:
- standard PCs, swap if broken
- no local data storage via user policies/right
- patching: frankly, i don't care, 1000 identical desktops can be automated
- power/noise: i'll grant you that one, hsouldn't be much of an issue though
- portability: can be done on fat clients too
- bandwidth: i'll grant you that one too

On the flip side, fat clients give you more responsive UI, less network load/dependency, less peak-time cpu cycles starvation...

--
The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.

Wyse for $219 by chemi392 · 2009-12-20 05:22 · Score: 2, Interesting

From CDW: http://www.cdw.com/shop/products/default.aspx?edc=1199380&enkwrd=ALLPROD:(902114-01L)
Wyse S50 for $218.99

Supports RDP and Citrix ICA

There are significant savings to be made. by Colin+Smith · 2009-12-20 06:53 · Score: 4, Interesting

I think the savings in deployment and long term maintenance of these terminal units are just an illusion.

1: Unix/Linux systems[10] use copy on write. You load an application or library once and use it for the many users who are running the same application. The application runs significantly faster because the CPU cache and even more significantly, disk I/O cache hit rates are far higher than on a desktop system which is running half a dozen unrelated apps. This means you don't need 1000 servers to handle the load of 1000 desktops, or even 100. Your system utilisation goes from ~3% to ~90%.

Desktops. No maintenance. No 3 year upgrade cycle. The money can be spent adding business value instead.

Your desktop support problems switch from a linearly increasing management headache to the logarithmically increasing infrastructure management headache which you already have anyway.

2: You need a service desk anyway. You don't however need a desktop support guy for every floor, or local mail and file servers with the additional storage and management cost that implies. With a centralised infrastructure, distributed filesystems like AFS actually make sense, and can reduce or eliminate data duplication and duplication of business processes.

3: In what way is a remote desktop one size fits all? 95% of business users barely need more than email. Those who do need more can be provided workstations/whatever if the advantage is obvious enough.

4: You run a redundant distributed compute cluster. See Condor, GridEngine etc. The nodes are independent. Killing one, or even some of them just means others get used. You lose the network or network services? Exactly how useful is a standalone PC anyway?

although terminals are able to a certain degree to deliver these, it is often awkward and demands more than a cheap disk-less unit.

The cheap diskless units are bog standard PCs without disks. If you can stream it to a PC, you can stream it to a PC running as an X-term. ESD just isn't that difficult to set up

[10] Windows terminal servers are another matter.

--
Deleted

That's what I was wondering by zogger · 2009-12-20 07:34 · Score: 2, Insightful

I didn't think a thin client was anything other than a diskless PC connected to a server. Seems like if someone needed a lot of them cheap, they could look for pallet loads of recent vintage/good enough specs off lease whatever computers from some corporation, where they remove the hard drives for destruction, and just use those. I bet you could get a bunch for fifty bucks apiece that way if you shopped around.

With that said, some company that already had full workstations could just remove the drives themselves, then add some servers, etc to achieve this thin client goal.

I guess I am just not understanding why less hardware has to cost more money, or is hard to find. Heck, my local rural town whitebox shop sells entire *bundles* of refurbed old business desktops plus crappy old monitors if you can live with a 15 inch one and keyboards, etc for 99 bucks, add 20 bucks for a 17 inch monitor. Pull hard drive, insert ethernet cable, add a server in the closet some place with some switches, etc. Just not seeing the problem here outside of the actual case might need to be tiny or something. If the guy found a deal for pallet loads with the hard drives and optical drives included, they could yank those and ebay them, then put the money towards more RAM maybe or setting up the servers, etc.

There's always barebones deals, too, for "brand new".

Re:other costs by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-20 08:53 · Score: 2, Insightful

...says the person who uses fail as a noun. :)

Slashdot Mirror

Where Are the Cheap Thin Clients?

67 of 349 comments (clear)