HP Shows Off Power Over Ethernet Thin Client

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

HP Shows Off Power Over Ethernet Thin Client

Posted by timothy on Thursday May 10, 2012 @02:26AM from the do-not-taunt-happy-thin-client dept.

angry tapir writes "HP has unveiled an all-in-one thin client capable of being powered by an Ethernet cable. The t410 AiO supports the Type 1 Power over Ethernet (PoE) standard, which means it is capable of drawing its power from a network connection, although it can be powered by standard AC power. It uses an ARM-based processor and has an integrated 18.5-inch monitor, and it is capable of being used for virtual desktops through Windows RDP, VMware View and Citrix ICA."

202 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Back, to the Future... by rullywowr · 2012-05-10 02:33 · Score: 1

Pretty cool, but didn't we have this back in the 80's with the uber-futuristic concept of these things called Mainframes and Terminals?
"Marty, here's a $50 - go get yourself a Pepsi."
1. Re:Back, to the Future... by ByOhTek · 2012-05-10 02:34 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Have you seen a PoE terminal before? I think that was the point of this one...
  
  --
  Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
2. Re:Back, to the Future... by Pewpdaddy · 2012-05-10 02:37 · Score: 1
  
  Lets hope that the hardware is more inline with their commercial offerings. I won't even work on their consumer products much anymore.
3. Re:Back, to the Future... by rullywowr · 2012-05-10 02:38 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  Have you seen a PoE terminal before? I think that was the point of this one...
  Does it use 1.21 Gigawatts?
4. Re:Back, to the Future... by gregulator · 2012-05-10 02:39 · Score: 1
  
  I'd imagine there are not many consumers (or even pro-sumers) looking for a PoE Thin Client for there home office.
5. Re:Back, to the Future... by TWX · 2012-05-10 02:43 · Score: 1
  
  God I hope not... I don't think even my 22AWG Cat6a drops will be adequate...
  
  (yes, I did get the reference)
  
  --
  Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
6. Re:Back, to the Future... by isopropanol · 2012-05-10 02:46 · Score: 1
  
  ??? Do you think this is going to be marketed to home users? Norton Internet Security (trial edition), Yahoo toolbar, and Wildtangent Games all don't run on ARM.
7. Re:Back, to the Future... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 02:46 · Score: 0
  
  compare 400$ with raspberry py cost.
8. Re:Back, to the Future... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 02:47 · Score: 1
  
  didn't we have this back in the 80's with the uber-futuristic concept of these things called Mainframes and Terminals?
  Actually, we had this back in the 60's. It's still a really good approach for some common business scenarios. Think about call centers, point of sale systems, and warehouse operations. Slashdot readers wouldn't want to use a thin client, but we aren't the market for these things.
9. Re:Back, to the Future... by TWX · 2012-05-10 02:49 · Score: 1
  
  No, but there are plenty of us looking for a unit that doesn't have an integrated display, capable of being used as a frontend for MythTV or some other kind of video on demand home system. PoE isn't essential, but could be handy in environments where there's already a lot of other devices hogging available power where the display resides.
  
  The designers of the Raspberry Pi system are strongly considering PoE in their next incarnation. Depending on its capabilities it might do what I need, even if I have to fashion an enclosure for it.
  
  --
  Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
10. Re:Back, to the Future... by Pewpdaddy · 2012-05-10 02:54 · Score: 1
  
  No, I'm just saying HP's history in hardware is shaky at best.
11. Re:Back, to the Future... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 03:00 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  No. The entire thing with this product is that it supports PoE, not that it is a thin client.
  Saying that we had the same thing before would be like saying "Didn't we have that in the 1890's" when someone shows up with a flying car just because it's also a car.
  What is neat here is that they have reduced the power consumption to less than 13W to be able to run it on PoE.
  Removing the need to install power-cables in a class-room or similiar is pretty nice.
12. Re:Back, to the Future... by SJHillman · 2012-05-10 03:00 · Score: 1
  
  I've had some good experiences with their mid and high end servers, laserjets, thin clients and even their high-end business laptops. Their desktop/workstation PCs generally suck as much as their consumer grade equipment.
13. Re:Back, to the Future... by Denogh · 2012-05-10 03:05 · Score: 1
  
  Pretty cool, but didn't we have this back in the 80's with the uber-futuristic concept of these things called Mainframes and Terminals?
  "Marty, here's a $50 - go get yourself a Pepsi."
  Thin clients are all the rage these days. They work great with "The Cloud"
14. Re:Back, to the Future... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 03:22 · Score: 0
  
  I can think of a lot of useful things for a PoE thin client. Especially once the technology improves where there can be a render server for video on the LAN that streams the frames to clients, so every computer doesn't need to have a high end video card.
  In a business, it means a clued IT person can put clients out on desktops while keeping the terminal servers and routers locked up [1]. This way, an employee who decides to steal something might get the terminal, but they are not getting data, unless they snap photos of each screen.
  At home, it is nice to have something to browse the Web that doesn't have fans or other moving parts that make noise, especially in bedroom areas.
  [1]: With a decent VM cluster setup, RAID, and redundant cooling, once set up and in place, it wouldn't need that much maintaining, so keys to that room could be limited to just a few people.
15. Re:Back, to the Future... by noh8rz3 · 2012-05-10 03:23 · Score: 1
  
  I don't understand what the point of this is. One wire is cool. But I would probably choose a por cable and wireless Internet before I chose poe but now power cable. Common sense.
16. Re:Back, to the Future... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 03:24 · Score: 0
  
  Once again, an AC makes the most intelligent statement in a thread and what a surprise, the moderators ignore it.
  Slashdot is so dead.The userbase is broken.
17. Re:Back, to the Future... by rullywowr · 2012-05-10 03:26 · Score: 1
  
  compare 400$ with raspberry py cost.
  compare 400$ with raspberry pi cost.
  There, fixed that for you.
18. Re:Back, to the Future... by Talian · 2012-05-10 03:29 · Score: 1
  
  You can't just plug these into "any" ethernet. They require specific switches that provide that capability, so I seriously doubt this will ever be aimed at home use.
19. Re:Back, to the Future... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2012-05-10 03:36 · Score: 1
  
  You can't just plug these into "any" ethernet. They require specific switches that provide that capability, so I seriously doubt this will ever be aimed at home use.
  They don't seem to have caught on, at all(more's the pity, everybody hates wall-warts); but you can get an otherwise wholly undistinguished 8-port switch that will support 50-60 watts worth of PoE devices(some on all 8 ports, with devices below maximum draw limits, some on only 4) for under $80...
20. Re:Back, to the Future... by h4rr4r · 2012-05-10 03:43 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Not if you wanted to setup a call center with 400 desks you would not. That is what this is for.
21. Re:Back, to the Future... by Lumpy · 2012-05-10 03:51 · Score: 1
  
  If those 400 desks need a desk lamp? I'll use standard Thin clients and plug them into the outlet in that cube.
  Now if all 400 desks do not have any power ran to them, this is a viable solution.
  
  --
  Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
22. Re:Back, to the Future... by noh8rz3 · 2012-05-10 03:52 · Score: 1
  
  Wow autocorrect fail. Sent Fromm my iPad.
23. Re:Back, to the Future... by Lumpy · 2012-05-10 03:54 · Score: 1
  
  No apps run on the client, it just boots the os and then runs the apps on the server.
  I suggest looking up what thin clients do and how they operate, you surely dont think they have an ARM version of office 2014.
  
  --
  Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
24. Re:Back, to the Future... by Lumpy · 2012-05-10 03:59 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  And they eliminate 50% of your IT staff needs. no more dealing with workstations and idiot users, I can replace a failed thin client in 35 seconds and the user has no loss of data or any workflow interruption.
  a general office is dumb to buy desktop PC's anymore. Thin clients for the sales, marketing, accounting, and general office, workstations for the people that actually use computers and you are done. Spend the money in the back office.
  
  --
  Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
25. Re:Back, to the Future... by b4dc0d3r · 2012-05-10 04:07 · Score: 2
  
  Typical cube farm - think Wal-Mart filled with cubicals. Overhead lighting, nothing local. It would discourage people from the "I'll plug my phone in at work" mentality.
  Perfect for the typical call center.
26. Re:Back, to the Future... by bugs2squash · 2012-05-10 04:14 · Score: 2
  
  It would be nice to have better options for LAN over standard power wiring. I know options exist but they've never seemed that attractive for one reason or another.
  
  --
  Nullius in verba
27. Re:Back, to the Future... by mcgrew · 2012-05-10 04:16 · Score: 1
  
  I was thinking the same thing, "ethernet", No wifi? No bluetooth? No USB? If not (no I didn't RTFA) this thing is a complete throwback except that it doesn't use a CRT.
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
28. Re:Back, to the Future... by h4rr4r · 2012-05-10 04:18 · Score: 1
  
  They don't. Those cost money, and generate heat that costs more money to get rid of. Their is overhead lighting. You should see the cost savings by firing anyone who brings in anything that plugs into the wall.
29. Re:Back, to the Future... by Joce640k · 2012-05-10 04:23 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  What happens if you put a PoE device on each end of the cable? Free energy...?
  
  --
  No sig today...
30. Re:Back, to the Future... by hippo · 2012-05-10 04:30 · Score: 1
  
  Desk lamps! in a call centre? It's going to be hell with strip lighting. Still I'm sure they could bring their own USB powered LED light.
31. Re:Back, to the Future... by Luyseyal · 2012-05-10 04:56 · Score: 1
  
  I'll plug my phone in at work
  Oooo, or space heater.
  -l
  
  --
  Help cure AIDS, cancer, and more. Donate your unused computer time to worldcommunitygrid.org. Join Team Slashdot!
32. Re:Back, to the Future... by tom17 · 2012-05-10 05:02 · Score: 1
  
  Your reasons there are for any thin clients, not specifically for PoE thin clients. Neither of your reasons mentions, or requires, PoE...
  I agree with the parent too, this is not a *consumer* product, there is just no need for PoE thin clients at home. Unless you REALLY want to reduce desktop cable clutter...
  It's all about savings with large numbers of clients.
33. Re:Back, to the Future... by Stonent1 · 2012-05-10 05:09 · Score: 1
  
  And then they eliminate you...
34. Re:Back, to the Future... by adjuster · 2012-05-10 05:11 · Score: 1
  
  You can do the same thing with desktop PCs and well-managed operating systems (fully automated OS installations and application loads, least-privilege users, automated patch deployment, all user state data stored on servers) and come in below the cost of thin-client devices, the associated "big iron" backoffice hardware to handle them, and the inordinately expensive licensing fees associated with all the products that made a virtual desktop infrastructure (VDI) possible. In large scale installations or installations where PCs aren't well-managed VDI will be a "win", but in smaller environments you'll spend more on licensing than you'd spend on desktops and their associated support.
  
  --
  The Attitude Adjuster, I hate me, you can too.
35. Re:Back, to the Future... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 05:31 · Score: 0
  
  You clearly don't work for a large enterprise.
36. Re:Back, to the Future... by Hognoxious · 2012-05-10 05:43 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  I hear it also has less space than a Nomad.
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
37. Re:Back, to the Future... by GNious · 2012-05-10 05:50 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah, the 500 megabit powerline adaptors are too slow and unstable ... or, not really.
  The 200 megabit ones I had previously were problematic, in that I couldn't stream a 5mbit video over them, but latest standard seems pretty solid. Even decent power-management, so they switch "off" if there is no live devices connected to them
  Need to replace 1 (or 2) with units containing built-in switch (3 ethernet ports), but that has to wait until I have more "time".
38. Re:Back, to the Future... by Nexzus · 2012-05-10 08:15 · Score: 1
  
  Some of their printers were friggin' tanks. I'm thinking specifically of of the HP 4, 5 and 5n LaserJets. Those things could not be killed.
  
  --
  Karma: Can only be portioned out by the Cosmos.
39. Re:Back, to the Future... by bugs2squash · 2012-05-10 08:34 · Score: 1
  
  I was thinking in the context of a dozens or hundreds of desks spaced apart and connected only to the power outlets. I'm too lazy to look up how the 500Mbit/s AV powerline systems handle sharing the medium but I bet it does not permit scaling up to support very many thin desktop clients. Also, managing the solution is probably not straightforward in the same way as even a modest corporate switching solution could be managed.
  I would have thought that there might be a gap in the market for something more upscale to save structured wiring for, say, an older school or public building.
  wireless seems to be the only suitable, easily deployable solution for those circumstances and wireless is hardly trouble free.
  
  --
  Nullius in verba
40. Re:Back, to the Future... by Uhyve · 2012-05-10 09:28 · Score: 1
  
  How about a USB powered wireless bridge?
41. Re:Back, to the Future... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 11:46 · Score: 0
  
  Have you seen a PoE terminal before? I think that was the point of this one...
  Yes - Sun Rays have had PoE for over a year:
  https://blogs.oracle.com/virtualization/entry/oracle_sun_ray_clients_and
42. Re:Back, to the Future... by TWX · 2012-05-10 12:48 · Score: 1
  
  I could also purchase a PoE injector for the telecom rack if I only had one.
  
  --
  Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
43. Re:Back, to the Future... by skids · 2012-05-10 13:36 · Score: 1
  
  But I would probably choose a por cable and wireless Internet before I chose poe but now power cable. Common sense.
  It's common sense to put up with competing with other clients on a shared half-duplex medium when you need to plug in anyway and there's a nice switched copper port available? Huh. Common sense seems to have gotten dumber.
  
  --
  Someone had to do it.
44. Re:Back, to the Future... by cynyr · 2012-05-10 15:22 · Score: 1
  
  all of the POE switches I've seen have had super annoying tiny high speed fans... No way that will work in my apartment going WIRRRRRRRRRR all the time. My current un-managed switch is fanless and I think I'll keep it that way.
  
  --
  All of the above was encrypted with a Quad ROT-13 method. Unauthorized decryption is in violation of the DMCA.
45. Re:Back, to the Future... by cynyr · 2012-05-10 15:28 · Score: 1
  
  care to show me where the screen is on the Raspberry pi? or how about the stereo speakers? or the case? anyways, I'd bet the screen is $75-150 of the cost.
  
  --
  All of the above was encrypted with a Quad ROT-13 method. Unauthorized decryption is in violation of the DMCA.
46. Re:Back, to the Future... by fuzzywig · 2012-05-10 21:43 · Score: 1
  
  Er, yeah, there is an ARM version of Office 15 see here. (but the rest of your points stand)
47. Re:Back, to the Future... by fuzzywig · 2012-05-10 21:44 · Score: 1
  
  Or even, see here. (doh)
48. Re:Back, to the Future... by Lumpy · 2012-05-11 01:01 · Score: 1
  
  Not For $450 a workstation you cant.
  Total cost for windows workstation is $650 a seat, including CAL's and user licenses. I cant deploy a desktop for that, and I have far FAR lower maintainability costs by not having PC's.
  
  --
  Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
49. Re:Back, to the Future... by GNious · 2012-05-11 02:59 · Score: 1
  
  Am definitely see a degradation in performance when using multiple units, so if you're setting up 100 thin clients, its not going to go very well :)
  There are some "pro" units with switches built in, so you could perhaps have 1 per 4-8 devices (group of cubicles), but even then it will be pushing it.
  Nah, PowerLine is oki for small setups, not larger ones.
50. Re:Back, to the Future... by Coren22 · 2012-05-11 04:11 · Score: 1
  
  Consider the cost of the back end too. I am currently on a terminal, and as I was involved in the whole buildout of VDI, I can assure you, after VDI, VMware, Windows, Office, storage, and the blades we use for backends, it was well more expensive than a PC.
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
51. Re:Back, to the Future... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-11 06:40 · Score: 0
  
  No. No. Nowhere to use my electric stapler...
52. Re:Back, to the Future... by kbx911 · 2012-05-11 06:54 · Score: 0
  
  good call, surprised that this Oracle machine/tech didn't make news earlier
53. Re:Back, to the Future... by tedgyz · 2012-05-11 13:08 · Score: 1
  
  God I hope not... I don't think even my 22AWG Cat6a drops will be adequate...
  (yes, I did get the reference)
  So you couldn't decide whether to be Funny or Informative.
  
  --
  "No matter where you go, there you are." -- Buckaroo Banzai
But... by Theophany · 2012-05-10 02:38 · Score: 1

...can it play Crysis?
1. Re:But... by OliWarner · 2012-05-10 02:40 · Score: 1
  
  Probably could play it over Onlive (et al).
2. Re:But... by Coren22 · 2012-05-11 04:12 · Score: 1
  
  Not likely in a usable way. Youtube audio and video never syncs up, and it tends to get a bit chopy. I can't even imagine trying that on a full screen application.
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
How long... by Ignacio · 2012-05-10 02:39 · Score: 1

...until someone hacks one into a X terminal?
1. Re:How long... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 02:43 · Score: 0
  
  Depends how long it finds to find a nerdy basement neck beard willing to waste the time needed I suppose.
2. Re:How long... by TWX · 2012-05-10 02:44 · Score: 1
  
  I wouldn't be surprised if it can do X11 natively. I had an ancient HP Envizex i-series terminal that could, once it pulled its operating environment down off of an FTP server.
  
  --
  Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
3. Re:How long... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 02:45 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  more important, how long until someone makes a wireless version of it?
4. Re:How long... by ArsenneLupin · 2012-05-10 02:50 · Score: 1
  
  more important, how long until someone makes a wireless version of it?
  Powered over Wifi? Or maybe, using photovoltaic cells?
5. Re:How long... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 03:01 · Score: 0
  
  Soon after ISA comes together.
  Interest, Skill and Access
6. Re:How long... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2012-05-10 03:08 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  On HP's x86 thin client line, 'hacking' has historically been pretty trivial. They totally don't support doing this; but it's just a normal PC bios with a disk-on-chip as the default boot medium; but it won't blink if you ask it to PXE boot or boot from a USB device.
  
  Also of note, their non-WinCE clients have, historically, run a badly butchered version of debian(and, unless they've finally decided to fix the problem, several years later, one that has amazingly trivial exploits to get to a root shell even in 'kiosk' mode, much less in admin mode). I don't know if they've played bootloader games with their ARM models or not; but unless they've tightened the hell out of their linux firmware I strongly suspect that at least the non-kiosk mode will still have a way to sneak into the guts of the stock image. Also, since they tend to support running a browser locally(either WinCE's delightful IE build, or a slightly elderly version of Firefox, I'm assuming that X11 is already set to go, for local use, in the stock firmware.
  
  I'd give it "about as long as it takes for one to get on ebay". HP's prices for thin clients are...optimistic... given their hardware specs; but you can find them at pleasingly low prices once they get shuffled off to support-contract-expired corporate retirement land. They make decent little mini-PCs for the price.
7. Re:How long... by Adriax · 2012-05-10 03:32 · Score: 1
  
  Power beaming, like the satellite power station idea.
  Too bad it will only work if your microwave is set to high and the door is left open.
  
  --
  I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it!
8. Re:How long... by Lumpy · 2012-05-10 04:03 · Score: 1
  
  Hp thin clients all do support X on their own, or at least historically. The last few were just X86 pc's that you netbooted what you wanted, so I was netbooting a linux to do remote X sessions.
  
  --
  Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
9. Re:How long... by mcgrew · 2012-05-10 08:48 · Score: 1
  
  They have these things called "rechargable batteries" and walls all have these things called "power outlets."
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
10. Re:How long... by DarwinSurvivor · 2012-05-10 17:05 · Score: 1
  
  And by lunch time everyone's pizza pops will be pre-cooked!
Why? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 02:42 · Score: 0

Really in this day and age, why?
1. Re:Why? by tom17 · 2012-05-10 03:39 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe because in a large homogenous environment, small power savings can add up?
  I am not sure on the relative efficiencies between PoE and a small switching power supply on every desk, but I imagine if the runs are not too long to the closet, that the PoE would be more efficient.
  Not to mention, less cables for the users to get all confused & tangled with. Just plug it in & go...
2. Re:Why? by h4rr4r · 2012-05-10 04:12 · Score: 1
  
  Because you don't have to pay for cubicles with power in them? Because you can save a ton on electrical costs? This could easily save more than the cost of the endpoints if you open a new call center.
  These are real problems, that you clearly lack the experience to understand.
3. Re:Why? by Vancorps · 2012-05-10 04:29 · Score: 1
  
  Except then you only need one UPS to backup the switch. Sorry, but this problem does exist. Especially for someone like me who had to go from show to show setting up temporary offices for over 100 people. These things would cut my setup time in half as I don't have to run near as much power everywhere.
Forget web browsing by timeOday · 2012-05-10 02:42 · Score: 3, Interesting

Video replay (with sound) and flash apps have become such an integral part of the web that few people would be satisfied with a thin client running any of these protocols. The truism that Average Joes only run lightweight apps is no longer true.
1. Re:Forget web browsing by isopropanol · 2012-05-10 02:51 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  But for point of sale, front counter, and callcentre work it'll be just fine.
2. Re:Forget web browsing by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 03:10 · Score: 0
  
  Urm, are you aware that your web is client-server based and so will work just as well with this, assuming it supports the relevant standards.
3. Re:Forget web browsing by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 03:14 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  It supports VMware View (PCoIP) and Citrix ICA.
  Both of these natively support Flash/Video just fine (I'm playing a 720P Youtube Video in my VMware View session right now...)
4. Re:Forget web browsing by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 03:25 · Score: 0
  
  Which is why TCs are sold based on Simplicity, Security, Replacability, and Power Consumption. They're designed to do one thing really well, such as processing transactions at a grocery store self-checkout kiosk, or interact with a reservation web app at a hotel front desk, but not both. With a TC, you don't have to worry about someone gaining access to restricted network resources, inserting a flash drive and copying data, or downloading a worm while browsing the web. If something goes wrong with one, they can simply be swapped out with a new one without any special configuration. You just keep a master image that you write to the device's storage medium, and plug it in. You can also keep them turned on 24/7 and use less electricity than a standard CFL bulb. In fact, the vast majority don't even need a fan to cool them.
5. Re:Forget web browsing by tom17 · 2012-05-10 03:43 · Score: 2
  
  We are about to migrate to a VDI infrastructure. My team is scared, as the 'standard' terminals are the RDP-Only Wyse jobbies. But there is an option that we may get the PCoIP ones. I saw a demo and that is less scary.
  How have you found it so far? Sounds like video is OK so that's a relief...
6. Re:Forget web browsing by Lumpy · 2012-05-10 04:08 · Score: 1
  
  I do this all the time on my HP thin clients running from a linux server. you can run flash and java natively on the thin client. at least the X86 ones.
  but in a corporate environment, that is not an issue, 1000bt streams the remote session quite nicely for windows playback.
  
  --
  Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
7. Re:Forget web browsing by Vancorps · 2012-05-10 04:16 · Score: 1
  
  Don't know about your impression of modern thin clients but the XenDesktop remote supports HDX and full screen flash video playback without a problem. I even hook up USB webcams to the thin clients for video conferencing.
  Remember, this is basically just a machine that will remote desktop into a machine with much more horsepower behind it.
8. Re:Forget web browsing by gmack · 2012-05-10 04:20 · Score: 1
  
  Some of the $30 - $50 Chinese thin clients are a lot more flexible than that. Your other option is XRDP.
9. Re:Forget web browsing by timeOday · 2012-05-10 04:38 · Score: 2
  
  I am interested. Does a 15W PoE client have the juice to decrypt and decompress a fullscreen, full-resolution video display? What sort of server horsepower is necessary to transcode the youtube video from the flash compression to the client/server encoding in real time?
10. Re:Forget web browsing by tom17 · 2012-05-10 04:41 · Score: 1
  
  No, my other option is not XRDP, my options are RDP and if I am lucky, PCoIP as stated :)
  Unfortunately, we do not get any say in such matters when it is a different department doing the rollout :(
11. Re:Forget web browsing by ckaminski · 2012-05-10 06:15 · Score: 1
  
  links? curious, I have some interesting ideas for thin clients in home automation...
12. Re:Forget web browsing by Cramer · 2012-05-10 07:05 · Score: 1
  
  RDP (like everything M$) sucks badly. They couldn't even steal Citrix technology correctly. Video playback (eg.youtube) will require massive CPU processing in the VM. VMWare's remote console protocols use very little. This was the subject of conversation a few weeks ago with a friend having this exact problem -- sales people demanding video playback ability from windows terminal server sessions... it completely kills the server.
  (I tested a youtube playback via RDP (70% CPU) and vsphere client console (7%). It made no difference to my XP desktop which protocol was used. note: vcc won't transport sound and technically, vm's on esx/esxi don't support sound hardware -- to be fair, rdp wasn't sending sound either.)
13. Re:Forget web browsing by sys_mast · 2012-05-10 07:16 · Score: 1
  
  Accept most modern thin client protocols support flash redirect so it's rendered locally. You can play all the flash based web games you want, no problem.
  So while there are reasons NOT to use a thin client, flash is not one of them.
  
  --
  Those who can, do.
14. Re:Forget web browsing by sys_mast · 2012-05-10 07:17 · Score: 1
  
  And yes, I meant "except", not "accept"
  Preview should really be used to avoid.....
  
  --
  Those who can, do.
15. Re:Forget web browsing by hobarrera · 2012-05-10 07:23 · Score: 1
  
  Average Joes doesn't use Thin Clients of PoE.
16. Re:Forget web browsing by timeOday · 2012-05-10 07:32 · Score: 1
  
  But running flash locally makes the client not so thin. My kids' computer is a Sempron 3200+ that is just barely adequate for general web browsing (despite a rather newer video card). Can a 15W PoE client really do this? Especially a nice cheap one :)
17. Re:Forget web browsing by aix+tom · 2012-05-10 07:53 · Score: 2
  
  s/use/buys/
  The average Joes and Janes in our shops and work floors *use* them all the time. They have no clue what that small magic black box actually is, and how it's different from their kids stuff back home, but they use it just fine. ;-)
18. Re:Forget web browsing by gl4ss · 2012-05-10 07:58 · Score: 1
  
  people interested in that would rather really buy a 250$ netbook and a hundred bucks monitor, tape the netbook to back of the monitor and run a power cord than buy a thin client that runs over poe. it's going to be cheaper too.
  
  --
  world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
19. Re:Forget web browsing by Amouth · 2012-05-10 09:09 · Score: 1
  
  using Hyper-V for the host of the VDI's and using the RemoteFX adapter fixes a lot of the video playback problems..
  
  --
  '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
20. Re:Forget web browsing by gmack · 2012-05-10 09:13 · Score: 1
  
  Been awhile since I've looked but tschn.com will have some but you can find more on aliexpress.com if you don't mind doing a bit of hunting.
21. Re:Forget web browsing by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 09:34 · Score: 0
  
  Sure. And that's why it's worth it to get a thin client with 3d acceleration and a sound card. Users really do like the 3d desktop effects and the ability to view videos (such as a safety video). These extras help them enjoy using the thin client and the linux desktop environment you choose for them.
22. Re:Forget web browsing by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 09:48 · Score: 0
  
  We've have success deploying it, but we also eat our own dog food and use it internally all the way up to management so we know all the pitfalls. PCoIP clients are not all the same is one warning, (The Zero clients are not the best) and you may want to look at host offload cards to offload the video compression if your going to have a TON of media users. If you need someone to talk about it give us a buzz (www.synchronet.com) - John.
  A good book to read about the ways to do VDI wrong is the VDI delusion.
23. Re:Forget web browsing by Cramer · 2012-05-10 14:54 · Score: 1
  
  If you can live with Mircosoft virtualization technology, AND have state-of-the-art terminals that support RDP 7.1 (RemoteFX), then maybe. If you already have a setup -- and even if you don't, you've always been better off not using RDP. Wyse has apparently had additional software (TCX) to deal with Microsoft's shortcomings for MANY YEARS. And there have been alternatives to RDP since, well, long before RDP existed. (Citrix, for one... which pre-dates Windows Terminal Server Edition (NT).)
24. Re:Forget web browsing by Amouth · 2012-05-10 15:17 · Score: 1
  
  I do agree with your statement.. although if memory serves me right Citrix did not predate windows NT with Terminal services for a remote Windows Client multi-user single host environment.
  part of me also likes to point out to the people trying to do streaming video over normal VDI + RDP and having issues that what they have is a hammer, their problem may not be a nail. While it's great to have a solution cover as many situations as possible, you should not attempt to make do things that it wasn't designed for.
  
  --
  '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
25. Re:Forget web browsing by cynyr · 2012-05-10 15:36 · Score: 1
  
  my tegra 2 tablet and even lower power phone do just fine.
  
  --
  All of the above was encrypted with a Quad ROT-13 method. Unauthorized decryption is in violation of the DMCA.
26. Re:Forget web browsing by Cramer · 2012-05-10 16:46 · Score: 1
  
  Actually it did. Microsoft was not interested in remote desktop / terminal systems. That's why a number of companies created their own versions. There were other display-the-desktop-remotely systems (like VNC these days), but Citrix was the only one that created a multiuser environment -- and the only one that worked extremely well. (they also had a version for Solaris, which I still have. It beats the holy crap out of remote X11.) Microsoft still wasn't interested, but they were *very* interested in the money flowing into Citrix pockets that wasn't instead going in their's. (what has become a standard practice for Microsoft)
  RDP was never designed to be a graphical terminal server protocol. It's a remote administrator tool because everything in windows had to have a (local) GUI to do just about anything. That's less true today, but Microsoft and 3rd party software on Windows is still designed for a GUI admin interface. Yes, some things have a CLI, but they're cumbersome, poorly documented (if at all), and usually far too complicated vs. a few clicks in a GUI. [powershell was supposed to change all that, but even M$ doesn't use the thing.] The only real difference to a modern windows environment boils down to the GUI management consoles being able to control non-local machines. mostly... not everything has an DCE/RPC/etc. binding. (and you still need a windows machine to host all those msc's.)
27. Re:Forget web browsing by Amouth · 2012-05-10 17:16 · Score: 1
  
  Didn't realize that, thanks.. always fun to learn something
  
  --
  '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
28. Re:Forget web browsing by Cramer · 2012-05-10 18:48 · Score: 1
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citrix_WinFrame
29. Re:Forget web browsing by Coren22 · 2012-05-11 04:22 · Score: 1
  
  I find the sound out of sync when watching videos through PCoIP from VDI, but not so bad that it makes it hard to use.
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
30. Re:Forget web browsing by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-12 00:27 · Score: 0
  
  That's why they invented the 'fat client'. In LTSP land that means a thin client with enough ram/cpu to run applications locally. Both X server and client are on the same machine as you would normally see in a desktop machine.
31. Re:Forget web browsing by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-13 05:02 · Score: 0
  
  If the "Average Joes" all bring their own devices (e.g. iPod/iPhone/iPad) to work anyway why should it matter whether you can run video on the desktop thin-client?
Power over Ethernet? by InvisibleClergy · 2012-05-10 02:44 · Score: 1

I guess that it runs on Mana, if Ethernet can restore it to full power.
For serious though, this is pretty cool, although I wonder how this standard holds up when under load.
1. Re:Power over Ethernet? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 02:59 · Score: 0
  
  I have always thought about the feasibility of trickle charging devices over PoE. I could see a *fat* thin client that has a battery.
  The device constantly trickle charges, when operational it uses the battery.. like a laptop.
  As long as you can get 8-10 hours of battery life for 9-5 work, I could see the advantages of a trickle charged *fat* thin client.
  The size/weight of the battery is a moot issue, as it is thin client, *not* a laptop.
  Combined with a solar panel on the back of a monitor as an additional charging source it could be a nice way to power low powered machines.
2. Re:Power over Ethernet? by tom17 · 2012-05-10 05:12 · Score: 1
  
  I don't see the point in this idea.
  If you have a thin client and you have made it efficient enough to only need 13W, then non trickle-charged PoE is fine.
  If you have a thin client(TC) that needs more than 13W, it must be inefficient (As HP can do it in 13W) so rather than develop a trickle-charge TC, develop an efficient 13W system.
  If you have an efficient TC that needs more than 13W, then what is it trying to do that warrants the extra power need?
  What is a *fat* thin client? A thin client is merely an endpoint for a given protocol, be it RDP, PCoIP, whatever. There is nothing more it needs to do for regular office/callcentre duty.
  A fat client is a full desktop. Now, if you could get a super efficient desktop (~30W) then maybe this trickle-charge over PoE could be interesting for 9-5 office duty. This is a valid idea, but it is not a *fat* thin client, it's just a PC.
3. Re:Power over Ethernet? by skids · 2012-05-10 13:55 · Score: 1
  
  I expect if and when PoE charging hits the laptop market, this will be precisely what happens: the laptop battery will allow "high performance" mode while it can supply extra juice. When it is exhausted it will revert to power saving settings (slow down the CPU clock etc.) Under light use or when idle, the battery recharges.
  BTW, if you can get a device that's in the ~30W range you are not that far off from being able to run it entirely off the second generation PoE+ (dot11at-2009) which can supply 25.5W.
  
  --
  Someone had to do it.
Plenty of great uses for this by jimmyswimmy · 2012-05-10 02:44 · Score: 2

Receptionists, POS terminals, all kinds of good uses. This is the way I set up my computers at home - good desktop, cheap laptop with RDP. I could use one. Unfortunately no idea of the price. At $200 these will sell like crazy. At $400, may as well just get a big netbook. Knowing HP, they'll sell at $450.

--

Just my $0.55 (US inflation, 1774-2008, for $0.02)
1. Re:Plenty of great uses for this by Zero__Kelvin · 2012-05-10 02:51 · Score: 1
  
  I knew you were a receptionist!
  
  --
  Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
2. Re:Plenty of great uses for this by bytestorm · 2012-05-10 02:56 · Score: 1
  
  According to this article HP wants 430 USD for it. Good guess.
3. Re:Plenty of great uses for this by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 03:07 · Score: 0
  
  There are many cases where running a low-voltage data drop is much more cost effective than running high voltage lines, I think there are many customers who would think $450 is very cost effective. The first use-case that comes to mind is patient rooms in hospitals.
4. Re:Plenty of great uses for this by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2012-05-10 03:16 · Score: 1
  
  The no-screen ARM thin client HP already sells is ~$200(HP t5335z list price, I assume that the rep would cut you a deal if you buy a bunch).
  
  Based on monitor prices, I'm assuming at least another $100 for the version with a monitor. Quite possibly $400 for a monitor that keeps within PoE energy use limits and reduces cables and loose bits to wander off....
5. Re:Plenty of great uses for this by MarkGriz · 2012-05-10 05:12 · Score: 1
  
  Knowing HP, they'll sell at $450.
  Just wait a few months til they drop to $99
  
  --
  Beauty is in the eye of the beerholder.
6. Re:Plenty of great uses for this by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 06:06 · Score: 0
  
  Receptionists, POS terminals, all kinds of good uses. This is the way I set up my computers at home - good desktop, cheap laptop with RDP. I could use one. Unfortunately no idea of the price. At $200 these will sell like crazy. At $400, may as well just get a big netbook. Knowing HP, they'll sell at $450.
  True, but you also save on power and dealing with all the waste heat.
  For a few desktops its not a big deal, but when you have a bank office tower full of terminals, it can add up. They also don't have to be upgraded every 'x' years, so the overhead of setting up new images and such for new hardware also goes away.
  If you can get units with built-in VPN, then you can get rid of laptops (and data loss risk) by simply giving people one of these for home, and your data-at-rest stays in the server room.
7. Re:Plenty of great uses for this by Coren22 · 2012-05-11 04:29 · Score: 1
  
  No screen, but this will do what you need generally:
  http://www.cedarpc.com/cgi-bin/commerce.cgi?preadd=action&key=22038
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Yawn by Bazman · 2012-05-10 02:44 · Score: 5, Funny

Wake me up when it can do power over wireless ethernet.
1. Re:Yawn by f8l_0e · 2012-05-10 03:16 · Score: 1
  
  The Tesla is strong in this one.
2. Re:Yawn by TheRealMindChild · 2012-05-10 03:29 · Score: 2
  
  http://www.thinkgeek.com/stuff/41/wec.shtml
  
  --
  
  "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
3. Re:Yawn by Fri13 · 2012-05-10 06:00 · Score: 1
  
  I don't would you anymore wake under that radiation!
The Takeaway by Zero__Kelvin · 2012-05-10 02:47 · Score: 3, Insightful

The takeaway from the article:

... which drops to 10/100 when using PoE, thereby making it only marginally useful for very thin applications.

--
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
1. Re:The Takeaway by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 02:53 · Score: 0
  
  I also wonder how much power the 4 USB ports can deliver. Presumably the keyboard and mouse occupy 2 ports. What would happen if you attached a USB-powered hard drive?
2. Re:The Takeaway by LoudMusic · 2012-05-10 02:57 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  If it's a thin client doing RDP or such the speed to the thin client is negligible. I use RDP clients over 2mbit internet connections nearly everyday and it works fine - even with the increased latency. Keep in mind all the file access and disk I/O is taking place on the RDP server, not the thin client. The only data going to and from the thin client is information about how to render the video output. You could even use Photoshop effectively through this.
  
  --
  No sig for you. YOU GET NO SIG!
3. Re:The Takeaway by ChunderDownunder · 2012-05-10 02:58 · Score: 1
  
  How so?
  Gigabit ethernet is overkill for a thin client running business software like a spreadsheet or a word processor, no? These are business machines, and not designed for employees to slack off and watch 720p video streams.
4. Re:The Takeaway by davidbrit2 · 2012-05-10 03:04 · Score: 1
  
  I would be very impressed if you can regularly saturate a 100 mbit port with just an RDP connection.
5. Re:The Takeaway by Joehonkie · 2012-05-10 03:10 · Score: 1
  
  This clients need considerably less that 100 mbits at the client end of the connection. I have deployed a ton of them and the bandwidth used is usually around 10-20mb or 25-50 mb if you are doing extensive multimedia support (like upstream audio). The backend connections between the switches will obviously need to be more, but they won't e PoE connections, either.
6. Re:The Takeaway by geekmux · 2012-05-10 03:17 · Score: 2
  
  The takeaway from the article: ... which drops to 10/100 when using PoE, thereby making it only marginally useful for very thin applications.
  Marginally useful at 100MB? Uh, since this is a terminal primarily designed to run thin applications (RDP, Citrix) which were developed and can be optimized to run over dial-up, I'm failing to see your point here. Even negotiating at 10MB I doubt you would see an impact in an RDP session.
7. Re:The Takeaway by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2012-05-10 03:20 · Score: 1
  
  The really high-end thin client setups might be affected(never mind the ones that demand point-to-point dedicated fiber and are basically remote KVMs with USB support); but I've never seen an RDP, ICA, or X11 thin client environment that assumed GBe all the way to the terminal...
  
  Pure latency considerations will make it detectable that you aren't sitting at the computer; but thin client protocols are designed to be usable even over boring residential internet connections, 10/100 is comparative luxury.
8. Re:The Takeaway by afidel · 2012-05-10 03:30 · Score: 1
  
  I did RDP over dialup, though you did need to drop the color depth down to 256 to keep things reasonable and that was Windows 2000 RDP, RDP 6.1 is probably more efficient since I'm sure they've integrated more stuff from ICA by now =)
  
  --
  There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
9. Re:The Takeaway by Vancorps · 2012-05-10 04:25 · Score: 1
  
  We do Autocad with similar equipment and 100meg is more than plenty for those 3d drawings. Gigabit is overkill for anything outside the server room and the Macs that can't go virtual in the office. How I wish they would go off and die.
10. Re:The Takeaway by ltwally · 2012-05-10 04:38 · Score: 1
  
  The takeaway from the article: ... which drops to 10/100 when using PoE, thereby making it only marginally useful for very thin applications.
  You are incorrect, sir. 100mbit is rather more speed than is necessary for almost any thin client use. RDP, for instance, transmits basic window metrics (ie. "draw a window at x1,y1,x2,y2", etc etc), so is highly bandwidth efficient. In fact, with no fancy GUI effects, RDP can run quite comfortably on 10mbit, or even less. I know this for a fact because I work remotely using RDP quite often.
  Is 100mbit enough to run a RDP session displaying 1080p60 video? No. But, then, that isn't what RDP is for, and this things display only runs at 1366x768.
  
  --
  
  /dev/random
11. Re:The Takeaway by wiedzmin · 2012-05-10 05:37 · Score: 1
  
  and this things display only runs at 1366x768.
  And you hit the nail on the head with that one - 80% of users in our call center use dual monitors, some with as high as 2560x1600. But it will work fine for some POS stations or reception desks, I'm sure.
  
  --
  Bow before me, for I am root.
12. Re:The Takeaway by LoudMusic · 2012-05-10 06:49 · Score: 2
  
  Absolutely. Some of the RDP connections I make are over 256kbit VSAT connections with greater than five seconds of latency at times. Drop the resolution and color depth and it's usable. But I what I'm saying is that from my experience 2mbit and reasonable latency of 100ms RDP can *seem* like using a 'local OS'. Maybe just a bit sluggish PC ;) But in turn, some aspects can be far superior. Like disk I/O, for example, if you are running an RDP session on a 32 core system with SAN access and want to compress a 3GB folder into a ZIP file, it'll happen a bit quicker than if you were trying to do the same thing on even a fantastic local PC. And 100 users could all be working on that RDP server at the same time. At which point it starts to become really financially beneficial to use this arrangement.
  Honestly the only gripe I see with their specs is the relatively low resolution display. My primary display is 23" 1920x1080 and it bugs the shit out of me. Spreadsheets need more pixels. Configuration windows also need more room.
  
  --
  No sig for you. YOU GET NO SIG!
13. Re:The Takeaway by hobarrera · 2012-05-10 07:26 · Score: 1
  
  I also wonder how much power the 4 USB ports can deliver. Presumably the keyboard and mouse occupy 2 ports. What would happen if you attached a USB-powered hard drive?
  Nothing.
  Seriously, nothing would happen. The disk would probably lay there, and won't even have enough power to turn on, pretty much the same thing that happens when you plug on into a really really old 1.0 USB port.
14. Re:The Takeaway by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 07:48 · Score: 0
  
  Resolution 1366x768... I think not.
  If it was 1920x1080, then it could be handy.
15. Re:The Takeaway by hackertourist · 2012-05-10 08:29 · Score: 1
  
  My experience with RDP is that the mouse cursor is always a couple of pixels off, making it difficult to hit small targets. For example, I find it nearly impossible to resize columns by dragging in Windows 7 Explorer. So Photoshop via RDP? No thanks.
16. Re:The Takeaway by Zero__Kelvin · 2012-05-10 12:59 · Score: 1
  
  "since this is a terminal primarily designed to run thin applications (RDP, Citrix) "
  Right. That is what I said. What part of marginally useful don't you understand? If it was Gigabit, with PXE then it would be relatively useful. Anybody who employs thin clients for RDP and Citrix is wasting money. The cost of paying someone for their time spent waiting far outweighs the cost of the hardware. And yes, I know about TCO claims. The fact is that this approach is outmoded and outdated, and with good reason. Net bandwidth is still far more expensive than hardware. HP offers this because it still has customers that don't know any better, and so it is profitable for them. Don't mistake that for the idea that it is a valid approach.
  
  --
  Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
17. Re:The Takeaway by Zero__Kelvin · 2012-05-10 13:02 · Score: 1
  
  So you first call me wrong, then go on to prove my point. It is marginally useful. I didn't say it is useless, which is clearly how you decided to interpret it. I said: ... making it only marginally useful for very thin applications. You simply called me wrong, and then repeated what I said in greater detail. Kudos.
  
  --
  Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
18. Re:The Takeaway by cynyr · 2012-05-10 15:47 · Score: 1
  
  and excel needs to understand that i have two monitors and want to be able to use both and copy fscking things between them(excels on different screens), or link the workbooks.... /rant.
  
  --
  All of the above was encrypted with a Quad ROT-13 method. Unauthorized decryption is in violation of the DMCA.
19. Re:The Takeaway by Dahan · 2012-05-10 19:04 · Score: 1
  
  You obviously don't know what "marginally" means. Here, I'll paste a definition for you: "close to the lower limit of qualification, acceptability, or function : barely exceeding the minimum requirements "
  So you said that a 100Mbps RDP connection is close to the lower limit of acceptability or function, and that ltwally repeated what you said. However, that is not the case--ltwally said that a 100Mbps RDP connection "is rather more speed than is necessary" for function. That's pretty much the opposite of being at the lower limits of functionality.
20. Re:The Takeaway by fuzzywig · 2012-05-10 21:34 · Score: 1
  
  Ah, so by marginally useful you mean offering more than enough power for a standard office worker.
  You don't like thin clients, we get it, but contrary to what you thing they are useful, and used, in many places.
21. Re:The Takeaway by Zero__Kelvin · 2012-05-10 21:47 · Score: 1
  
  No. You definitely don't get it. Hint: You take an order of magnitude hit in network performance if you power this with PoE. Something that was useful for much fatter thin clients now becomes only useful as a very thin client when you power it via PoE. That is the point in the context of the wonderful PoE capabilities of this box. Don't use PoE unless you don't want to take advantage of its full capabilities, because when you use PoE it becomes much less useful. If you don't like the word marginally, pretend it isn't there and think: much less. The point remains.
  
  --
  Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
22. Re:The Takeaway by drsmithy · 2012-05-10 22:33 · Score: 1
  
  No. You definitely don't get it. Hint: You take an order of magnitude hit in network performance if you power this with PoE. Something that was useful for much fatter thin clients now becomes only useful as a very thin client when you power it via PoE. That is the point in the context of the wonderful PoE capabilities of this box. Don't use PoE unless you don't want to take advantage of its full capabilities, because when you use PoE it becomes much less useful. If you don't like the word marginally, pretend it isn't there and think: much less. The point remains.
  In most corporate environments POE is going to be far more useful functionality than another 900Mb of network bandwidth, since even a 10Mb connection would probably be quite adequate.
23. Re:The Takeaway by Zero__Kelvin · 2012-05-10 22:38 · Score: 1
  
  ... and that relates to what I said how?
  
  --
  Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
24. Re:The Takeaway by drsmithy · 2012-05-10 22:46 · Score: 2
  
  You appear to be arguing that enabling POE renders the networking connection "marginally useful", or "less useful" because of a speed drop from 1Gb to 100Mb.
  In the typical corporate environment, 100Mb is more than adequate even for a regular managed desktop PC, let alone a thin client. For nearly all thin client use cases, even 10Mb is quite adequate.
  Or, to put it another way, your assertion is wrong. In a typical corporate environment, a 100Mb network with POE is almost certainly going to be *more useful* than a 1Gb network without POE.
25. Re:The Takeaway by Coren22 · 2012-05-11 04:36 · Score: 1
  
  I run dual 24" monitors and don't push over 100Mb, I can't conceive of this guy's complaint.
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
26. Re:The Takeaway by Zero__Kelvin · 2012-05-11 05:57 · Score: 1
  
  First, show me where I said anything about a typical corporate environment.
  
  " You appear to be arguing that enabling POE renders the networking connection "marginally useful", or "less useful" because of a speed drop from 1Gb to 100Mb."
  Yeah. I'm funny like that. I think an order of magnitude increase in bandwidth has the capability to be more useful, and conversely an order of magnitude less could be considered "less useful." If 100Mb wasn't "less useful" there wouldn't be a 1 Gigabit standard.
  
  I'll try to put it in a way you can understand. With Gigabit it has potential to do real computing ... e.g. boot Linux with PXE and access a data store in a NAS, for example. With PoE in use, it is only useful to people in a typical (mismanaged / clueless IT) corporate environment.
  
  I don't care what it was designed for, nor did I claim that their design decisions were unsound. The whole point, which you are working so hard to not get (perhaps because you are too busy putting words in my mouth) is that anyone who had an idea of using this in some very cool applications with visions of high performance networking at their disposal and powering it with PoE is SOL. Obviously HP put Gigabit capability in there for a reason (you did know that companies count every penny and add up the cost of the BOM, right?) Some of us "get" what that reason is, but for those people - not you - they might want to know that if they use the PoE feature they will be limited to using it in a scope similar to the only one you seem to be able to grasp.
  
  HTH
  
  --
  Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
27. Re:The Takeaway by drsmithy · 2012-05-11 15:05 · Score: 2
  
  First, show me where I said anything about a typical corporate environment.
  That would be the part where you're making a sweeping, generalised judgement call. It seems reasonable to assume one of the most common scenarios would be encompassed.
  
  Yeah. I'm funny like that. I think an order of magnitude increase in bandwidth has the capability to be more useful, and conversely an order of magnitude less could be considered "less useful." If 100Mb wasn't "less useful" there wouldn't be a 1 Gigabit standard.
  
  However, this difference does not happen in isolation. You are trading off bandwidth against POE.
  Ultimately, the question becomes: is 1Gb more useful or is POE more useful ? My answer is that in most common corporate environments, POE will be considered more useful because 1Gb is largely unnecessary.
  
  I'll try to put it in a way you can understand. With Gigabit it has potential to do real computing ... e.g. boot Linux with PXE and access a data store in a NAS, for example.
  100Mb is quite adequate for this.
  
  I don't care what it was designed for, nor did I claim that their design decisions were unsound. The whole point, which you are working so hard to not get (perhaps because you are too busy putting words in my mouth) is that anyone who had an idea of using this in some very cool applications with visions of high performance networking at their disposal and powering it with PoE is SOL.
  
  Your original comment in this thread was: "... which drops to 10/100 when using PoE, thereby making it only marginally useful for very thin applications."
  Which is patently false. 100Mb is not only very useful for just about anything anyone would want to do with a thin client, it's also quite adequate even for normal, managed desktop PCs booting from local disk and accessing data off the network. It's even adequate for thick clients booting over the network, as evidenced by all the places that not only did it before they could get gigabit, but continued to do it for years afterwards.
  Fundamentally, the marginal utility of 1Gb over 100Mb for most end-user computing scenarios is very small. I know of several companies that have, within the last five years, replaced their entire office networks (multiple floors in multiple buildings, thousands of endpoints) and chosen to stay at 100Mb for ~95% of endpoints because no benefit (to justify the additional cost) was perceived in going to 1Gb.
  
  Obviously HP put Gigabit capability in there for a reason (you did know that companies count every penny and add up the cost of the BOM, right?)
  1Gb adds SFA to the cost of the end user device. It adds _shitloads_ to the cost of the networking infrastructure to support thousands of those devices.
28. Re:The Takeaway by Zero__Kelvin · 2012-05-11 22:45 · Score: 1
  
  You are just to thick to get it. I am not talking about "normal use". I am talking about the future. I'm talking about the possibilities for a new technology. You just keep prattling on about typical this, and typical that. I am far too busy to explain to you that many of us here on Slashdot could give jack shit about typical. Before the proles flooded slashdot (invited by you, perhaps) this site was about the future. It still is for some of us.
  
  --
  Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
29. Re:The Takeaway by geekmux · 2012-05-14 21:44 · Score: 1
  
  "since this is a terminal primarily designed to run thin applications (RDP, Citrix) "
  Right. That is what I said. What part of marginally useful don't you understand? If it was Gigabit, with PXE then it would be relatively useful. Anybody who employs thin clients for RDP and Citrix is wasting money. The cost of paying someone for their time spent waiting far outweighs the cost of the hardware. And yes, I know about TCO claims. The fact is that this approach is outmoded and outdated, and with good reason. Net bandwidth is still far more expensive than hardware. HP offers this because it still has customers that don't know any better, and so it is profitable for them. Don't mistake that for the idea that it is a valid approach.
  I have experienced first-hand trying to deploy thin-client terminals, but it's failure had NOTHING to do with the limited hardware. It had to do with spoiled users who wanted their local CD drives to play music and dealing with "demands" like that.
  Most computers today have gigabytes of RAM and multiple cores, yet the average user is only "marginally useful" on them. I challenge you to prove that the average user today NEEDS even 15% of the hardware capacity they use on a daily basis. It is because of this fact that a thin-client computing model may in fact work again. Besides, it's already happening today and people don't even know it. What do you think people are already doing all day long on cell phones and tablets, or using the online world through a browser on a laptop? That's not exactly "thick" computing.
Late to the game by Kohenkatz · 2012-05-10 02:50 · Score: 1, Informative

HP (and the OP) seem to think that they have something revolutionary here. Actually, this has been around for over five years already: http://www.chippc.com/thin-clients/jack-pc/
1. Re:Late to the game by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 02:56 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  ... except the JackPC doesn't power the monitor. HP's new thin client does.
  What this means is that a thin client can be connected and powered using a single cable. Why bother with a thin client that is PoE if you still had to power a monitor?
  I say "Bravo" to HP for the achievement.
How well does it run LTSP? by SgtChaireBourne · 2012-05-10 02:52 · Score: 1

How well does it run LTSP? If it does that well, then there are good markets for it in schools.

--
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
1. Re:How well does it run LTSP? by ChunderDownunder · 2012-05-10 03:15 · Score: 1
  
  If it boots via PXE, or the equivalent, it might be fairly easy to support (for someone in the know). Provided, of course, hardware drivers exist but TI is usually fairly encouraging of free software, e.g. beagleboard.
2. Re:How well does it run LTSP? by Vancorps · 2012-05-10 04:27 · Score: 1
  
  HPs current thin clients work well with LTSP so I have no reason to think these won't.
You just need a high enough voltage by bigtrike · 2012-05-10 02:56 · Score: 1

How thick is the insulation on your 22AWG wires?
I've never sat at a desk with e-net and no outlet. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 02:58 · Score: 0

This product just seems silly. I've never sat at a desk in my life that has a network port and no power source nearby.
I guess this would be useful in new cube build outs but even then I've never seen one without a plug strip.
There could also be some power savings across many terminals over a dc plug.. but that seems minimal.
Lower cost of maintenance by bigtrike · 2012-05-10 02:58 · Score: 1

They might have a lower overall cost. Although since they're purely a thin client and not just web terminals, you might still need a bunch of far more expensive server hardware to support them.
Didn't we do this before? by DeeEff · 2012-05-10 03:02 · Score: 1

Mind you back them we called them Ethernet killers, and boy was the light show good.
Why? by heezer7 · 2012-05-10 03:13 · Score: 0

If it has to be plugged into a ethernet jack, who cares if it also has a power cable. Solving a problem that does not exist.
Wireless? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 03:15 · Score: 0

Does it support wifi connection?
Awesome! by twmcneil · 2012-05-10 03:25 · Score: 2

This will be really great for all those places where there is an ethernet cable but no electrical power available. Just think of the possibilities!

Uh, no. I can't think of any either.

--
"The ferrets, they're every where I tell you!"
1. Re:Awesome! by costas · 2012-05-10 04:29 · Score: 1
  
  PoE means a single UPS to keep all the thin clients alive during power outages. Think call centers in countries with spotty power grids...
2. Re:Awesome! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 05:35 · Score: 0
  
  If you're doing a call center, or cube hell for layout engineers, you're running PoE for the phones.
  Do the thin clients as PoE and you don't have to run wall current to each cube.
  As an added bonus, the folks in cube ehll can't use your electricity to poewr their laptops and radios.
3. Re:Awesome! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 08:46 · Score: 0
  
  This will be really great for all those places where there is an ethernet cable but no electrical power available. Just think of the possibilities!
  Uh, no. I can't think of any either.
  Actually, if you have an open floorplan office building, and you want to quickly populate with cubicles and people, the low-voltage Ethernet wiring may not cost very much. Getting a bunch of electricians in to wire the cubicles and the permits etc. slows down deployment. Yes, I know that there are nice little plug-in options for the baseboards, but if the local city requires an electrician to do it, that can become $10k pretty fast.
  Also these will be great for areas where you don't want a lot of power cords everywhere, like trade shows.
4. Re:Awesome! by steelfood · 2012-05-10 10:19 · Score: 1
  
  Or, for that matter, if you have dirty power coming out of your main line, you'd only really need a power cleaner in one location for one group of machines.
  
  --
  "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
5. Re:Awesome! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 11:23 · Score: 0
  
  And all the lights go out? No, you need a generator. And of that does you any good when there is a typhoon and your workes can't get to the call center, or when your network provider goes down.
OH!! NO!! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 03:26 · Score: 0

Sunrays again, no!!!
Solution in Need of a Problem by JonnyO · 2012-05-10 03:27 · Score: 1

I'm not sure what the benefit of this is? The benefits for making a stand-alone device such as a telephone PoE-capable are obvious. But if a device is not stand-alone and requires other powered devices to function, then what are you really accomplishing? A thin client requires a display to be usable, and a display requires a local power source. If HP really wants to solve a problem for thin client users (I have hundreds of the little buggars) then they'll drop the price. There's zero reason these things should cost as much as they do. I'm curious to see how well a Raspberry Pi can function as one.
1. Re:Solution in Need of a Problem by tom17 · 2012-05-10 03:51 · Score: 1
  
  This has a display built in.
2. Re:Solution in Need of a Problem by JonnyO · 2012-05-10 08:10 · Score: 1
  
  Ouch... color me embarrassed for failing to RTFS.
What about the peripherals? by watermark · 2012-05-10 03:29 · Score: 0

How is this useful when we need power for the peripherals anyway? Monitor?
1. Re:What about the peripherals? by watermark · 2012-05-10 03:31 · Score: 1
  
  I need a delete button
2. Re:What about the peripherals? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 04:51 · Score: 0
  
  We know.
Power isn't so rare by hey · 2012-05-10 03:43 · Score: 1

Most offices, POS, warehouses, etc are already going to have power outlets already. You know... to run other stuff.
1. Re:Power isn't so rare by Coren22 · 2012-05-11 04:46 · Score: 1
  
  Conferences? Cube Hell? Cashier?
  There are points for it, and when you compare the cost of cat6 to the cost of an electrician on top of cat6, it starts to make sense.
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
one plant did and then half of the power grid went by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 03:44 · Score: 0

one plant did and then half of the power grid went down trying to reboot them all at the same time. Thanks India IT phone desk.
Raspberry Pi by larppaxyz · 2012-05-10 03:57 · Score: 0

I didn't read article, summary or even comments, but i would like to know how well Raspberry Pi would work as thin client?
1. Re:Raspberry Pi by BertieBaggio · 2012-05-10 04:35 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  I didn't read your question, but bananas.
  
  --
  If all you have is a grenade, pretty soon every problem looks like a foxhole -- MightyYar
2. Re:Raspberry Pi by larppaxyz · 2012-05-10 17:43 · Score: 1
  
  I didn't read your reply, but that was just the information i needed.
Re:Why ? by Vancorps · 2012-05-10 04:14 · Score: 1

Not too mention that the POE switch in the closet has a battery backup and probably a generator meaning that during a power outage you can stay working!
Needs to be PoWiFi by EmagGeek · 2012-05-10 04:22 · Score: 1

Just sayin :p
Re:Why ? by tom17 · 2012-05-10 04:43 · Score: 1

Our desks actually have 2 sockets on the UPS, so that point is moot here :)
Can you power an 18.5-inch monitor w/ POE? by cve · 2012-05-10 05:12 · Score: 1

Is it possible to power an 18.5" monitor (and a thin client) with POE, even if it's LED backlit? I guess it wouldn't make sense to require a separate power supply for the monitor since it's integrated.
1. Re:Can you power an 18.5-inch monitor w/ POE? by Kadagan+AU · 2012-05-10 06:04 · Score: 1
  
  Is it possible to power an 18.5" monitor (and a thin client) with POE, even if it's LED backlit?
  That's what the article is about.. HP has just developed this.
  
  --
  This space for rent, inquire within.
2. Re:Can you power an 18.5-inch monitor w/ POE? by peawormsworth · 2012-05-11 11:03 · Score: 1
  
  Is it possible to power an 18.5" monitor (and a thin client) with POE, even if it's LED backlit?
  That's what the article is about.. HP has just developed this.
  The article linked above does not specifically say whether the monitor is powered over ethernet, or just the computer. So the question cve posed is valid. The article mentioning that the monitor is included in the 13 Watts is here: http://www.pcworld.idg.com.au/article/424196/new_hp_thin_client_cuts_power_cord and this is probably the article the post should link too. As the specifics about the monitor being POE is probably the most important development here.
PoE Standard is 15 watts by fast+turtle · 2012-05-10 05:27 · Score: 1

According to HP this draws 13.5 watts when using PoE and yes, that includes the damn display.
Now if they'd offer similar setups with Linux support, I'd finally be able to get my NetBoot setup working correctly in the office. Much nicer to simply use a thin client that can be easily replaced in moments when they die while ensuring all of the damn data the employees actually need access to are on the servers and properly backed up.

--
Mod me up/Mod me down: I wont frown as I've no crown
Battery life by tepples · 2012-05-10 09:57 · Score: 1

But how often and for how long does a battery-powered device have to be taken out of use so that it can be recharged?
1. Re:Battery life by mcgrew · 2012-05-11 01:07 · Score: 1
  
  You can still use it while it's plugged in.
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
2. Re:Battery life by tepples · 2012-05-11 01:26 · Score: 1
  
  But if there's no AC power outlet at your desk, which I thought was the whole point of power over Ethernet thin clients, then you can't use it at your desk while it's plugged in.
3. Re:Battery life by mcgrew · 2012-05-11 03:58 · Score: 1
  
  You have an ethernet cable and no power outlet? There really are buildings like that?
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
Compare to AVC-playing phones by tepples · 2012-05-10 11:31 · Score: 1

Does a 15W PoE client have the juice to decrypt and decompress a fullscreen, full-resolution video display?
How much juice does an AVC-playing phone use with the brightness turned all the way down?

What sort of server horsepower is necessary
There's a reason Intel is putting IGPs on its CPUs: to assist in video encoding and decoding. Remote desktop becomes not unlike OnLive.
I'd rather have an EoP Thin Client by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-10 15:26 · Score: 0

I'd rather have an EoP Thin Client
Imagine if you RTFA and had a clue by Zero__Kelvin · 2012-05-10 21:21 · Score: 1

"You obviously don't know what "marginally" means. "
I wrote the post, and actually read the article and understand the context. You don't even know where "here" is, so don't be snide. It doesn't go well with clueless. I never said that a 100Mbps RDP connection is close to the lower limit of acceptability or function, nor did I imply it. I never even mentioned RDP. I implied that all it is good for is RDP connections. HP is marketing this to ... support XenDesktop, Windows RDP, VMware View, Citrix ICA 12 and Teradici PCoIP.. The takeaway is that if you use PoE, then you will not want to use it for "fatter" thin client applications. From the Wikipedia on thin clients:

"However, in web development in particular, client applications are becoming fatter. This is due to the adoption of heavily client-side technologies like Ajax and Flash, which are themselves strongly driven by the highly interactive nature of Web 2.0 applications."
The point is that you get a Gigabit interface if you plug it into the wall, but you take an order of magnitude hit in performance if you use PoE, which - as you may recall - was the subject of the Slashdot writeup.

I truly wish you the best in your search for cluefullness! ... HANL

--
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
1. Re:Imagine if you RTFA and had a clue by Coren22 · 2012-05-11 04:40 · Score: 1
  
  Um, all this thing can do it RDP type connections, I would say more that gigabit is useless, while 100Mbit is quite enough for EVERYTHING a terminal needs to do.
  I run dual 24" monitors over PCoIP to a Windows 7 VDI box (right now!) and can watch full motion video without pushing even 100Mbit.
  This thing is more than enough to run whatever you want to, you are looking at it from the wrong perspective.
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Phone charger? Fired. Space heater? Fired. by tepples · 2012-05-11 04:54 · Score: 1

You have an ethernet cable and no power outlet?
I don't know if they exist, but if they don't, h4rr4r would build them.
1. Re:Phone charger? Fired. Space heater? Fired. by mcgrew · 2012-05-11 06:17 · Score: 1
  
  LOL, I wouldn't trust anyone who wrote "Their is overhead lighting" to build an outhouse.
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
Always Something to Wait For by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-11 08:12 · Score: 0

I'll wait for the WiFi version.
1. Re:Always Something to Wait For by peawormsworth · 2012-05-11 11:05 · Score: 1
  
  I'll wait for the WiFi version.
  Ok, but u may be waiting a while. Tesla is dead and GE doesnt want to help u.
Citrix HDX System on a Chip SOC client by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-13 13:06 · Score: 0

That's good stuff. At Synergy, Chinese company Centerm announced a US$99 HDX SOC client - amazing
http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20120511006127/en/Centerm-Information-Releases-High-Performance-Low-Cost-GM810-Series