Fatter isn’t fitter
I recently talked about how blade servers are the next step in the growing trend toward server consolidation. There’s another trend afoot that extends consolidation out to the desktop: thin-client computing.
Thin clients–stripped-down hardware devices that lack local storage and load their operating systems and applications from a server–work for organizations that want absolute control over their client environments and enhanced security and manageability. They’re also a good choice for environments that don’t demand much variety in software, such as order entry or point-of-sale terminals. Now they may be poised to make a move into a wider circle of office applications.
In thin-client shops, all the software maintenance occurs on the server side. That makes a thin-client environment especially easy to recover in the event of a catastrophe–assuming, of course, that you store your backup media offsite. No vital documents are stored unprotected on the thin-client devices.
Leading players in the space include Wyse Winterm, TeleVideo TeleClient, IBM NetVista, Maxspeed MaxStation, NCD NC-900, and ThinSTAR (which Neoware Systems just acquired from NCD). The clients work with server-side software, typically Windows 2000 Terminal Services or Citrix Metaframe XP in Windows-centric networks.
Despite a higher price tag to get into the game, thin-client computing should lower your total cost of ownership over time. In fact, Gartner Group estimates that over five years a thin client will cost $12,700 less in support and maintenance than an unmanaged PC. Though fat clients appear to be a more fiscally responsible choice at first glance, thin clients will save you more money in the long run. For example, compare IBM’s NetVista N2200, which retails for $579 without a monitor or hard drive and with a 233MHz National Semiconductor Geode GXLV processor, to Dell’s SmartStep 150D, with a 1.2GHz Celeron processor, 128MB of RAM, 20GB hard drive, and 17-inch monitor, for $609. Then bear in mind you need extra server-side software to make the thin client work, to the tune of $100 to $300 (give or take) per user.
But consider what you gain by giving up the hard drive and local applications. Thin clients demand less in the way of maintenance. Once you set up the hardware, you should never have to touch it again; there’s no hard drive, fan, or other moving part that can fail. Client software management issues go away–though nowadays you can minimize client software headaches even on standard PCs by locking down desktop configurations using central policy management software and employing automated software distribution for updates. Security is also improved–the devices don’t include diskette drives or other writable removable media.
Of course, there are obvious drawbacks to thin clients. For one thing, thin clients demand more powerful servers, or a greater number of them, and tend to generate more network traffic. Thin-client computing is clearly not advisable for users running a lot of processor-intensive applications on their clients. However, it’s perfectly feasible to buy those users a few Pentium 4s and give thin clients to the rest of the organization. The same server that hosts the thin clients can manage the fat ones as well.
But I think we’re on the cusp of a change. Until recently, neither thin-client hardware nor server-side software were mature or powerful enough to handle the range of applications running in many organizations. That’s changing. In addition, many organizations now use switched Fast Ethernet, diminishing the network traffic congestion problems thin clients used to cause. If thin client vendors can meet customers halfway by lowering their prices to the level of the major computer vendors’ low-end machines, they may make up the lost revenue in greater unit volume.
For one, Sun’s thin-client push seems determined to knock the PC off its perch. Sun is working to make its Sun Ray thin clients work over busy networks or slower connections, such as DSL which could be used for remote client access. To make that possible, Sun is testing software that compresses data according to its type to reduce bandwidth requirements. However, the technology requires more processing power in the thin client for decompressing the data.
If you haven’t at least tried Windows Terminal Services or Metaframe, you should consider doing so before your next scheduled replacement of a large portion of your current clients. If you’ve been running thin clients, I’d like to hear your thoughts on the pros and cons.
Articles | Administrator | 
Sunday, April 14, 2002 12:00 pm
Subscribe