why thin clients are bad

Linux is inherently more secure, lightweight and cheaper.Look at the current advances in mobile computing evolution: both Android and Maemo are fairly new operating systems which are quicky gaining momentum. Businesses now allow end-users to bring tablets, phones, laptops, and other devices into the office -- and they are supporting these devices.

Instead we end yup with a heavier Win 7 option for no good reason. However, it could apply what...Dell fessed up it is exploring options for spinning off VMware while assuring users its relationship with the virtualization ...No problem!

Furthermore, by working in conjunction with the remote protocols, thin clients are able to off-load much of the stress to a hardware-level decoder. Why a ‘thin client’ is a bad policy This Barnet UNISON Briefing examines the London Borough of Barnet’s plan to allocate just 2.5% client costs in the planned outsourcing of planning, environment health, trading standards, highways planning and cemeteries.

Mobile thin clients are impossible to secure [ Get certified as an Apple... 2. Thin clients are the dinosaurs of client computing and suffer a slow adoption rate Why won't MS do this when XP has it? if more desktop power is needed.If Windows is needed you can use XPe with our Agent.And everything is manageable and deployable with our Management Console - these aspects solve many of the problems you mentioned. Yet in recent years, thin clients have become fully functional terminals, nearly indistinguishable from a standard PC in terms of performance.

100% agree thin clients lock you into hardware.

We do not sell soft- or hardware. Those who don’t probably have a very static IT environment.In comparison to conventional fat clients, the rate of changes and updates on thin clients is considerably lower. No mgmt solution for any of them (75 users). This is not the real world though, especially when dealing with the Enterprise. You can look at security in a few ways. But add some Mac's and you have a problem too.Unfortunately Linux is not that uniform. We came to the same conslusions a couple of years ago... lock down a PC, use it as a "thin" client and access the centralized apps that way. Removing the support overhead (and management software licence costs) for 80% or more of your desktops has a big impact - on IT's ability to respond fast to the business, and on cost.BYOL - I'm with you on this - nice concept but it brings support issues that you wouldn't want to have.2) XP+ to support the cool features?

This changed back in September. Raleigh, NC 27609 It's nice to see that we still share the same TC views just like when we used to share the same coffee machine ;-)Almost two years ago I wrote an article for Brian that talks about the exact same "thin client problem" (it's here: There are just two things that I would like to add as context:1) Part of the problem is due to the fact that Windows XPe based TCs are the best choice yet require relatively more management.

The protocols tricks they pulled at VM World were a joke. In industries such as healthcare, where adherence to privacy regulations is of paramount importance, thin clients can give medical personnel access to patient records without concerns about confidential information being downloaded.Thin clients also use less energy than standard desktops and notebooks. And thin clients, boasting streamlined hardware and handling fewer processes, consume a fraction of the power used by standard PCs. The PC management issue is definitely taken care of, deployment, image management, patching and security are all set. Long story short, thin clients have been very successful.

Sure people could go to Linux, but the ICA client is not as good on Linux. Leverage the local Hardware for what it's worth and you can still complement it with a XenApp solution.And I'll ditto that as well. I'm sure a few other vendors have done similarly.If your protocol vendor doesn't provide equivalent support for alternative solutions like Linux, it's most likely your fault. Do I need to resubmit them?David, I am just a "user" of this blog, I do not control or moderate comments. As you might suspect after reading the not-so-subtle title, there is something fundamentally wrong with thin clients.Let me be specific here: I am NOT talking about good old trusty SBC (Terminal Server/XenApp) or the hot and sexy VDI as a concept. The greatest drawback of thin clients compared to PCs is the lack of power.

I think it is good for the discussion, there are now to many people agreeing in here :-).A good article in that you've highlighted a lot of the issues, but I have to disagree with a lot of your comments and your recommended approach. Hardware becomes a non issue. Chromebooks. Debunked! Contrary to popular belief, the thin client market is growing. Take a look at the VECD website for details.I enjoyed reading the post and like others have commented, this topic comes up a lot with my customers and it always ends up being a mixed deployment. But they're not just mobile OSes, they're really closing the gap between mobility and a full-fledged desktop experience - at least that where it's heading. We'll send you an email containing your password. And, companies need to also factor backend infrastructure and remote desktop licensing costs into the equation to determine whether thin clients are the right fit for their needs.Get free tips, news and advice on how to make technology work harder for your business.Do you have a comment or question about this article or other small business topics in general? !Great article! I have read this article several times and each time I try to look at each flaw from a different perspective.One key statement that jumped out at me recently was this:"Surely, traditional thin clients can be a very successful when the requirements are low"Successful when the requirements are low… Last year I performed some work for a client who had a mixture of Wyse, Neoware & HP thin clients and of course the traditional PCs. In designing anything computer related, a single point of failure is always a bad thing.