[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
On 10/07/06, Simon Waters <simon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Kevin Tunison wrote: > > > > Older than that, minus the GUI bit. I worked in a company that > > utilized a UNIX server with WYSE (dumb) terminals. These badboys were > > Apple II E style, yet cost hundreds of pounds to replace the > > old-school hardware. It takes a lot of noise for people to realize > > thin computing doesn't have to cost that much anymore. > > Although it is worth bearing in mind that thin computing solutions are > rarely a huge money saver on hardware (except where like Tom you deploy > on old PCs as the thin client). > > Where I've seen such things deployed, it is rare the thin client is > hugely cheaper than a thicker client. The saving is usually to be had in > system administration effort, reliability etc. In that it is easy to > upgrade the server side, install software, provide proper backup and > replacement for every settings, and every byte of user data. I've worked somewhere with decent thin clients that were still cheaper than standard pcs, the other advantage was the noise and heat/power reduction. They were pretty much silent, booted fairly quickly and had tiny foot prints - basically they were just about big enough to work nicely as a monitor riser. A. -- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/linux_adm/list-faq.html