Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Thin Client, Or Fat Client? That Is the Question

Posted by timothy on from the you've-got-vdi dept.

theodp writes "If virtual desktops are so great, asks Jonathan Eunice, then why isn't everyone using them? However encouraged folks are by the progress virtual desktop infrastructure (VDI) has made, and however enthused they may be about extending the wins of server virtualization over into the desktop realm, you don't see analysts and developers eating the virtual desktop dog food. And even the folks you meet from Citrix, Microsoft, Quest, VMware, and Wyse — the people selling VDI — use traditional 'fat' notebooks. So, are you using virtual desktops? Why, or why not?" I wonder how long the abbreviation VDI will stick around.

2 of 450 comments (clear)

  1. No, he's not by zn0k · · Score: 5, Informative

    > If VDI (virtual desktop infrastructure) is so great, then why aren't you using it?

    Eunice isn't saying that, he's quoting Brian Madden as saying so and then gives his opinion on why he thinks they sooner or later will.

    You can tell because of the sentence directly before the one quoted above:

    >Virtualization analyst Brian Madden asks an excellent question:

    But hey, fuck accurate summaries, right?

  2. Re:Performance by cratermoon · · Score: 5, Informative

    The licensing costs end up being the key issue in companies of any size. By the time they set up and license all their people with client machines and all the applications, a company will spend about as much as just buying PCs in bulk from Dell or whoever and site licensing the corporate-standard MS Office suite. Pile on top of that the various fiddly things about virtual desktops that just don't work like having a real desktop PC raising the support costs and it's not competitive.

    The central server with dumb terminals era ended long ago, except in niche applications. Desktops and laptops that a capable enough are just too cheap and standardized desktop support contracts from third-party support operations pretty much rule the budget considerations. For virtual and really thin clients to take off, the licensing would have to be notably cheaper and support for the edge cases like traveling remote access would have to be much better.