Have a look at WindowsCE-based thin clients like the HP T5500. I just bought one for $100 on eBay and it probably has all I will need to run hosted MS Office without the hassle of maintaining a Windows desktop. It can surf stand-alone, independent of any Terminal Server, via my cable/DSL router. It also makes a pretty decide RDP or ICA client and VT terminal emulator.
I would not recommend this for multimedia, games, or anything high-end, but for hosted Office or AJAX-type apps it should work fine, and it looks and feels like WinXP so MS junkies will be less likely to gag at the idea.
The biggest problem with Windows is fragile/buggy desktop configs. Yank the desktop, problem solved (mostly). My Windows Server 2003 boxes at work, home, and ISP godaddy.com have never failed me in over a year of regular usage. I avoid certain aspects including MS Exchange and heavy dependence on AD.
Hey kids,
Over two decades I have supported and/or deployed UNIX, NetWare, Linux, BSD, DOS, Apple OS 6,7,8,9,X, and Windows 3.x/95/98/2K/XP/03/Vista. It is never so black and white. We may look forward to Google hosting OpenOffice, but this anti-Microsoft bashfest is very tired. Every ecosystem has examples of good (Apache, Ruby) and not-so-good (Kino). You don't like a product, forego it.
MS is as free to host as Google (also a for-profit company) and I applaud the admission (finally) that fatter clients are not the only answer. Many thanks to Google for forcing the issue with AJAX dev. Ya ya, MS is usually derivative, but Apple copied Xerox-PARC, KDE and Gnome copy both. OpenOffice seems to dupe MS Office. PHP and ASP imitate one another. Imitation is flattery, profitable imitation business. If laws are broken, prosecute. Otherwise, like it or not, and I may not, smart capitalists often win. True of every open market.
Many users may appeciate hosting via Microsoft, users who are not idiots but who are familiar only with Office and have better things to do than learn another set of tools which none of their coworkers or friends use or understand. I have tried my best to steer family members to OS X to no avail. Why fight this?
I'm surely p*ssing in the wind, but get off those high horses already and smell the coffee - or talk to average users in orgs that deploy Windows properly. Better to give them what they want (Office, etc.) in a cleaner, more controlled manner than to force them to trash what they know and are comfortable with. Office without the desktop miantenance requirements? Bring it on!
Thank you for that rational non-bashing comment. Offering another way to use their software is not an inherently bad thing. Windows problems aside (which are big), Microsoft as an apps company is pretty talented, and what they buy or copy often (not always) improves over time after a false start or two.
Some products I dislike from Microsoft due to security issues, flakiness, design issues, or too-proprietary output: Exchange, Word, Frontpage, Project
Some products I think work very well: SQL Server, Excel, Powerpoint for what it does (it should be banned on principle, but not because it fails its mission).
Other products that were very bad have been improved - e.g. Windows Server 2003. Still has some issues, but works well and easily and quite effectively hosts our helpdesk app, my website, many other services. I think Sharepoint might be a great service, and if that's the hosting vehicle I would not write this off.
I'm still looking forward to Google offer OpenOffice, etc. online, but this anything-but-Microsoft kick is getting kind of old. Every group, genre, licensing approach, motif, whatever has examples of comparatively good stuff (Apache) and comparatively bad stuff (Kino on Linux). I'm p*ssing in the wind here I know, but get off those high horses already and smell the coffee - or talk to some average users in organizations that deploy Windows properly.
Slashdot Mirror
Have a look at WindowsCE-based thin clients like the HP T5500. I just bought one for $100 on eBay and it probably has all I will need to run hosted MS Office without the hassle of maintaining a Windows desktop. It can surf stand-alone, independent of any Terminal Server, via my cable/DSL router. It also makes a pretty decide RDP or ICA client and VT terminal emulator.
I would not recommend this for multimedia, games, or anything high-end, but for hosted Office or AJAX-type apps it should work fine, and it looks and feels like WinXP so MS junkies will be less likely to gag at the idea.
The biggest problem with Windows is fragile/buggy desktop configs. Yank the desktop, problem solved (mostly). My Windows Server 2003 boxes at work, home, and ISP godaddy.com have never failed me in over a year of regular usage. I avoid certain aspects including MS Exchange and heavy dependence on AD.
Hey kids, Over two decades I have supported and/or deployed UNIX, NetWare, Linux, BSD, DOS, Apple OS 6,7,8,9,X, and Windows 3.x/95/98/2K/XP/03/Vista. It is never so black and white. We may look forward to Google hosting OpenOffice, but this anti-Microsoft bashfest is very tired. Every ecosystem has examples of good (Apache, Ruby) and not-so-good (Kino). You don't like a product, forego it. MS is as free to host as Google (also a for-profit company) and I applaud the admission (finally) that fatter clients are not the only answer. Many thanks to Google for forcing the issue with AJAX dev. Ya ya, MS is usually derivative, but Apple copied Xerox-PARC, KDE and Gnome copy both. OpenOffice seems to dupe MS Office. PHP and ASP imitate one another. Imitation is flattery, profitable imitation business. If laws are broken, prosecute. Otherwise, like it or not, and I may not, smart capitalists often win. True of every open market. Many users may appeciate hosting via Microsoft, users who are not idiots but who are familiar only with Office and have better things to do than learn another set of tools which none of their coworkers or friends use or understand. I have tried my best to steer family members to OS X to no avail. Why fight this? I'm surely p*ssing in the wind, but get off those high horses already and smell the coffee - or talk to average users in orgs that deploy Windows properly. Better to give them what they want (Office, etc.) in a cleaner, more controlled manner than to force them to trash what they know and are comfortable with. Office without the desktop miantenance requirements? Bring it on!
Thank you for that rational non-bashing comment. Offering another way to use their software is not an inherently bad thing. Windows problems aside (which are big), Microsoft as an apps company is pretty talented, and what they buy or copy often (not always) improves over time after a false start or two. Some products I dislike from Microsoft due to security issues, flakiness, design issues, or too-proprietary output: Exchange, Word, Frontpage, Project Some products I think work very well: SQL Server, Excel, Powerpoint for what it does (it should be banned on principle, but not because it fails its mission). Other products that were very bad have been improved - e.g. Windows Server 2003. Still has some issues, but works well and easily and quite effectively hosts our helpdesk app, my website, many other services. I think Sharepoint might be a great service, and if that's the hosting vehicle I would not write this off. I'm still looking forward to Google offer OpenOffice, etc. online, but this anything-but-Microsoft kick is getting kind of old. Every group, genre, licensing approach, motif, whatever has examples of comparatively good stuff (Apache) and comparatively bad stuff (Kino on Linux). I'm p*ssing in the wind here I know, but get off those high horses already and smell the coffee - or talk to some average users in organizations that deploy Windows properly.