I would agree with you on this. I hinted about some of these points in my original post, but I think you've hit the nail on the head as far as answering the original submitter's question. The "thin client" term is clearly being abused to jack up the prices.
All disagreements over terminology aside, I think our (or at least my) frustration lies in the fact that we think we should be able to find a plain diskless workstation with lower specs for much cheaper than they're currently being sold. "Thin client" is the term we use when we google because it yields the most accurate results as far as hardware to what we had in mind. (but no one disagrees about buying a cheap nettop or other variation).
I agree with you that a thin client can be defined by its function, and so any PC can act as a thin client. However, I would say that the industry definition of a thin client is a diskless workstation. Do a quick google product search (http://www.google.com/products?q=thin+client&aq=f) for "thin clients," and check this yourself. This is specifically tied to the fact that companies that use thin clients have moved all storage to a server farm in order to cut costs. Local storage does not make sense in this model, as it would increase the overhead that thin clients are intended to reduce.
It's the lightweight part and low-cost that by definition makes the system a thin-client.
That is absolutely wrong. You're probably thinking of nettops, which is another class altogether. Your confusion arises because nettops offer "less," just like a thin client does.
I don't understand your point about this. It doesn't have local storage.
From the link you posted:
Features and specifications listed by NorhTec for the Gecko Surfboard include:
* Storage -- SD/SDHC card or IDE-interfaced 2.5-inch hard disk drive
You can network boot or install some minimal thin-client OS on compact flash. It would be dead simple to hook 30 of these up to an LTSP server.
Of course. You can take any PC and make it a thin client. The point here (from the original poster) is (and I quote), "I can PXE boot a homebrew Atom-based thin client for $130, but I'd prefer to be able to buy something assembled." I also assume it's implied the poster is looking for a solution that doesn't require additional configuration. I.e. a thin client "out of the box," regardless of how easy you or me think it's easy to setup using an existing PC.
Also, why would having a keyboard disqualify it from being a thin client?
It doesn't (and, in fact, I mentioned thin client laptops, which would have both a monitor and a keyboard). What I meant was that the PC-in-a-keyboard comes with a keyboard and hard drive and is essentially a full computer for the very cheap price of $100. Buy a thin client with the same specs WITHOUT these components and pay at least 3 times more.
By the way, I actually do think the PC-in-a-keyboard is pretty cool. Eee is also making one if I recall correctly, though the initial price was higher.
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.
I fail to see why it's can't be used for "real work." Just do your compiles on a remote google-hosted developer box with 12 CPUs. I'm sure your compiles will be much faster.
As far as internet availability, let's not forget white spaces internet, which Google also has a hand in.
As I understand it, Chrome OS packages a full linux kernel and device drivers to be able to interact with your hardware. It would probably be more accurate to call it a new linux distribution. But, why argue about terminology when "linux" itself isn't even an operating system.
Slashdot Mirror
I would agree with you on this. I hinted about some of these points in my original post, but I think you've hit the nail on the head as far as answering the original submitter's question. The "thin client" term is clearly being abused to jack up the prices.
All disagreements over terminology aside, I think our (or at least my) frustration lies in the fact that we think we should be able to find a plain diskless workstation with lower specs for much cheaper than they're currently being sold. "Thin client" is the term we use when we google because it yields the most accurate results as far as hardware to what we had in mind. (but no one disagrees about buying a cheap nettop or other variation).
I agree with you that a thin client can be defined by its function, and so any PC can act as a thin client. However, I would say that the industry definition of a thin client is a diskless workstation. Do a quick google product search (http://www.google.com/products?q=thin+client&aq=f) for "thin clients," and check this yourself. This is specifically tied to the fact that companies that use thin clients have moved all storage to a server farm in order to cut costs. Local storage does not make sense in this model, as it would increase the overhead that thin clients are intended to reduce.
It's the lightweight part and low-cost that by definition makes the system a thin-client.
That is absolutely wrong. You're probably thinking of nettops, which is another class altogether. Your confusion arises because nettops offer "less," just like a thin client does.
From the link you posted:
Features and specifications listed by NorhTec for the Gecko Surfboard include:
* Storage -- SD/SDHC card or IDE-interfaced 2.5-inch hard disk drive
You can network boot or install some minimal thin-client OS on compact flash. It would be dead simple to hook 30 of these up to an LTSP server.
Of course. You can take any PC and make it a thin client. The point here (from the original poster) is (and I quote), "I can PXE boot a homebrew Atom-based thin client for $130, but I'd prefer to be able to buy something assembled." I also assume it's implied the poster is looking for a solution that doesn't require additional configuration. I.e. a thin client "out of the box," regardless of how easy you or me think it's easy to setup using an existing PC.
Also, why would having a keyboard disqualify it from being a thin client?
It doesn't (and, in fact, I mentioned thin client laptops, which would have both a monitor and a keyboard). What I meant was that the PC-in-a-keyboard comes with a keyboard and hard drive and is essentially a full computer for the very cheap price of $100. Buy a thin client with the same specs WITHOUT these components and pay at least 3 times more.
By the way, I actually do think the PC-in-a-keyboard is pretty cool. Eee is also making one if I recall correctly, though the initial price was higher.
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.
Nothing that a little crypto can't solve.
I fail to see why it's can't be used for "real work." Just do your compiles on a remote google-hosted developer box with 12 CPUs. I'm sure your compiles will be much faster. As far as internet availability, let's not forget white spaces internet, which Google also has a hand in.
As I understand it, Chrome OS packages a full linux kernel and device drivers to be able to interact with your hardware. It would probably be more accurate to call it a new linux distribution. But, why argue about terminology when "linux" itself isn't even an operating system.