Where Are the Cheap Thin Clients?

Darren Ginter writes "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. I understand all of the benefits of desktop virtualization (and the downsides, thanks) but I'm very hung up on spending more for less. While there are some sub-$200 products out there, they all seem to cut corners (give me non-vaporware that will drive a 22" LCD at full resolution). I can PXE boot a homebrew Atom-based thin client for $130, but I'd prefer to be able to buy something assembled. Am I missing something here?"

Comments

Yes

[Anonymous Coward]

Am I missing something here?

A cheap thin client?

*ducks*

Re:Yes

[Anonymous Coward]

In my experience ALL clients are cheap.

Re:Sun Ray's work well and are cheap

[up4fun]

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

CapEx vs OpEx

[Krokant]

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 ;)

Re:It's like bicycles...

[vegiVamp]

> 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.

Re:I'm Confused

[larien]

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.