Thin CLient

[sLiDeR]

Whats peops opinions on this??

What do you use & why wouldnt I wanna use it??

[acrobson]

We have been rolling out a lot of thin client terminals made and called 'Chip PC's'. Personally for basic word processing and internet browsing/research there great. Kids cannot nick stuff out of them, such as HDD and Ramm like they did with our PC's and they can be hidden under desks or behind panels.

There no good for any graphics work, which are memory/CPU intense, this is where the desktop comes into its own, and also if you want a CD drive etc. Apart from that. There fine in my book. They can also be centrally managed and updates sent out across the whole estate. We even have them compatible with Server 2003 in AD.

Hope this gives you an idea.

[sLiDeR]

Cheers matey.

[jcollings]

We use thinstation on old PC's. We often replace the CRT with a flat screen and new mouse to give the room a spruce up and we use Windows 2003 terminal server. We have a cheapo server that supports around 60 clients. We tend to use it in rooms that are pretty much using Office + the Internet.

I love it but do feel we will use a mixed economy of fat and thin for the forseeable.

[CyberNerd]

Rough hardware cost calculations based on some of the kit we use.
thinclient cost approx £200 each and last 5 yrs (actually we have some 9yrs old, but say 5yrs for arguments sake).
Fat client cost approx £400 each and last 4yrs (or less, given some of MS's recent problems with vista h/w compatibility - some say 3yrs. whatever)
so for 500 clients, the hardware costs are approx £30k per year more with a fat clients.

Then add in the extra support costs - hint: I only need to install/fix software on 8 TC servers. Nothing much to go wrong with the thin clients except power/cable issues. Much cheaper to support with much better management tools. Don't have a problem with graphics editing here- just movie editing !.

I still can't decide if semi-fat clients are really worth the extra hassle/cost.