Thin Clients

[aix0]

Hi

This is something I've never had the opportunity to delve into, so I don't really know a great deal about thin client computing. Does anyone use thin clients as apposed to desktops? Are there savings to be made here?

I don't really know what questions I need to ask on this subject to be honest. We have about 250 PCs, which are long overdue an upgrade, and I like the idea of minimal spec units as a replacement. Can anyone give me any info that may be of interest?

Sorry for been so vague, I'm just interested in this as an alternative to conventional desktops.

Thanks

Martin

 

[J1nxy]

You can't take thin clients in isolation, you have to look at the end to end application delivery platform. A thin client gets its apps from a Terminal server(s) of some type, which need to be able to cope with the loads and the applications which your installing. Your network needs to be able to deal with the loads and the latency required to run thin client. Your apps needs to be able to run in a thin environment.

This goes on and on and usually pure thin doesn't make sense or work, you end up with a hybrid solution.

 

[mdjmcnally]

You might save on the desktops, but do you have the app servers to run the Thin Clients apps on the Server instead. What you save on the desktop you may find yourself spending on upgrading your server farm to support Thin Client.

Also there is the potential licensing of the software that you use for the Servers.

Are you looking at Citrix XenDesktop, VMWare VDI, Microsoft Terminal Services etc These are also going to have a cost associated with them.

The last place I worked at used a LinuxliveCD to boot old machines and connect to a Citrix Server. There isn't necessarily a need to replace the machines with Thin Client, but can Thin Client the existing machines. This can save money that can be spent on upgrading the Server Farm to support Thin Client.

Most of the times I see people talking about Thin Client now, it is more about admin and centralizing the resources in Blade Servers at the DataCentre etc, rather then cost savings as such. Although certainly the potentially lower admin costs can save money.

It is also far easier to roll out a replacement thin client as the box essentially doesn't have to have as much work done before placing on a desk if one fails. This will certainly reduce support costs again and reduce downtime. Also if the box fails, all the important stuff is still on the server, so not lost.

They also have the advantage of that you set them to rebuild after a person logs off to your own image so that if someone makes changes they are more easily fixed.

Certainly for organizations with conventional desktops they are attractive alternatives.

It also has the advantage that mobile workers get there same desktop published out to them when out on the road, along with the same resources so can be a potential savings there.

Main things to think of are

1.) Why am I going thin client
Is it to save money
Reduce Desktop Support Costs
Enforce Data Centralization etc
2.) What will it cost to migrate to thin client, software hardware
Software for the App Publishing
Upgrade of Server Farm
3.) What will be savings that can be made, how long to recoup capital outlay

 

[J1nxy]

I'd also point out thou with the correct tool set most of the advantages which are associated with a thin client desktop device can be achieved using a conventional desktop device as well.

 

[Sp00n]

We use WYSE term's linked in to citrix at a couple of clients, one being a solicitors and the other being a care home, they work absolutely fine and accomodate both scenarios very well.

Both sites originally had pc's everywhere and applications were dished up through citrix so we decided to move over to thin clients.

 

[aix0]

I think it's the ease of administrator and centralised storage that make thin clients so attractive. It's definitely something I'd consider. Most of our users only use 1 or 2 applications anyway, they don't really utilise a desktop machine to it's fullest potential, so in that respect, thin clienting makes sense.

I'm I being naive? It just seems so much easier to manage than conventional desktops.

 

[Sone]

thin clients are much easier to manage and have longer lifespan (on our factory some of our wyse units were made in 1997!). Terminals services has come a long way since NT4 TSE and will suit most scenarios. Citrix is good but not really essential like it used to be unless you have loads of servers. (Ws2003 R2 is about equal in features to Metaframe XP)

I would recommend separates as the terminal lasts longer than the monitor.

EDIT, citrix does have a lot more features but by WS2003 R2 MS has got the main things sorted imho.