Where Are the Cheap Thin Clients? 349
Darren Ginter writes "I find many aspects of desktop virtualization compelling, with one exception: the cost of the thin clients, which typically exceeds that of a traditional box. I understand all of the benefits of desktop virtualization (and the downsides, thanks) but I'm very hung up on spending more for less. While there are some sub-$200 products out there, they all seem to cut corners (give me non-vaporware that will drive a 22" LCD at full resolution). I can PXE boot a homebrew Atom-based thin client for $130, but I'd prefer to be able to buy something assembled. Am I missing something here?"
Nettops? (Score:5, Interesting)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nettop [wikipedia.org]
Comes assembled, quite cheap, can drive usual resolutions, often Atom/x86 compatibility...typically has few redundant things though, like HDD; but that might be useful, together with x86, in case you change your mind.
Re:It's like bicycles... (Score:5, Interesting)
The more you pay, the less you get.
Though not for the same reason. You get a complete PC for less than a thin client because complete PCs are made in insanely high volumes compared to thin clients, which are a niche item.
Er, sorry. I consider dual-socket desktops with 64GB of RAM and 8 cores attached to a 30" monitor running 3D CAD programs a "niche" item. Thin-client hardware has been around now for at least 10 years. I'm struggling to find the connection there, especially when those that truly find the value in deploying this hardware usually do so with an order for hardware in the hundreds or thousands.
They charge what they want to charge more likely because companies like WYSE know that when you buy their hardware, the functional lifespan is likely 2 to 3 times that of a traditional desktop, and it's gonna be a while before you're knocking on their door for a purchase again.
Re:Sun Ray's work well and are cheap (Score:5, Interesting)
I agree with this, too. The sunrays are excellent.
But I think the OP is still missing something here. The transition to VDI is not just about replacing one box with another doing the same old same old. It is also an opportunity to start to transition away from local storage, login, screen savers, etc. While there are many many advantages at the back end, there are also some significant gains at the front-end, too.
As an example, the sun rays have card readers that allow you to authenticate to the back-end very quickly. Using this feature you can roll out always-on desktops that let your users sit down at a desk, any desk, pop their card in and get their desktop, just as they left it, anywhere. As they get up, their card goes with them. No need for screen savers and the whole thing is very very fast. This kind of facility is a big win for our users. No more logins! No more password resets!
So perhaps consider VDI as a way to seriously improve the end-user experience of computing.
D
virtualised setup even (Score:2, Interesting)
I agree fully.
With the KVM & the new spice drives, you can virtualise even your HTPC !!
It does HD quality video over my network with no problem.
This is in the basement.
So all i need on All dekstops is a very simple thin client.
100 mbit nic
hdmi.
Thin clients, a dime a dozern (Score:1, Interesting)
My suggestion:
Step 1: Realize that almost nobody wants a laptop that has a busted screen, as it is often more expensive to replace the screen/backlight than it is to get a new laptop
Step 2: Hop on eBay and purchase fully functional laptops with busted screens, with the intent of using the ubiquitous vga-out for your LCD monitor
Step 3: If they have their hard drives pulled, boot them from SD or PXE.
Step 4: Pat yourself on the back. You saved money, you recycled, and you basically have a mini-UPS system built into each machine.
Re:What's missing (Score:3, Interesting)
I'll second that. I currently am doing a stint in a place that uses newer WYSE thin clients accessing a Citrix server, hooked up to 22" monitors for their computers. The maximum resolution the thin clients can handle is 1024x768, which is horribly limiting for those who have to use something even as mundane as a spreadsheet, let alone the complex electronic medical records system that is the real reason that the computers even exist there. EMR systems use a ton of screen real estate as they are generally full of tabs and sidebars and pack a LOT of information into each screen. Using one of those at 1024x768 is roughly analogous to viewing a typical optimized-for-1024x768-and-above website on an an average smartphone. You're looking out through a porthole and scroll and scroll and scroll just to view the entire page. I have used identical EMR systems (also running a remote instance over Citrix) at other places that have low-end PCs that can drive monitors at 1280x1024 or 1680x1050. I'd be willing to bet that the loss of productivity with people fighting with the low-resolution thin client screens is greater than the amount the place "saved" by using thin clients instead of the low-end PCs.
We build ours (Score:5, Interesting)
We use over 150 "thin clients" on our network, all Linux based and all controlled by a single (large) Linux [xdm] server. We used to use "real" thin clients (Xterminals) by Tektronix, but as their prices rose and the price of cheap, fanless, low power, small, VIA boards dropped 8-9 years ago, we decided to start making our own.
We have not regretted the decision. Now we have complete control over the hardware and software. We have the ability to run real local clients when necessary.
Right now, we are in the process of upgrading to fanless Atom 270 based motherboards from Jetway. Total cost- about $250/ea.
About your hangup... (Score:5, Interesting)
Stay away from "enterprise solutions," then — or, rather, make very careful comparisons between the cost of buying a ready-made thing and a DIY effort.
That the thin clients you've been looking at are priced for fat organizations (with, possibly, thick decision-makers).
Why they never caught on... and what might change (Score:1, Interesting)
There's little incentive for the traditional desktop makers to deliver cheap thin clients. It further erodes their already thin margins for desktops, reduces revenues, and puts a whole support industry out of work.
There are a handful of companies making low-end computing devices based on highly integrated chipsets with some processing power. Freescale has some that aren't bad, and TI's OMAP 3530 series (see http://beagleboard.org/ [beagleboard.org]) is a good candidate. The definition of thin client will need to change, too - it'll become a diskless device that can run a virtual desktop off a server *or* a centrally managed browser using web-based apps (where rendering, playback is local.)
Virtualization not the be all, end all... (Score:1, Interesting)
For sake of this argument, let's assume that in your shop your users are running applications that benefit substantially from local CPU power. In that case, it makes a lot of sense to give the user a real CPU, not a shared, virtual one. You could use a stripped down PC as the "thin client." The cost of these devices are at the commodity level, and you can be assured that your getting what your paying for.
Now, keep in mind, you can still leverage some the benefits offered by virtualization by using some of the abstraction/encapsulation techniques that are de-rigueur in virtual environments. The first step is to remove local storage from a standard PC and require that all of your remote clients will use PXE boot and network storage only (iSCSI or similar). Now, you will get the benefits of using network storage, without sacrificing CPU power. Specifically, this solution encapsulates the user's OS and application licenses in a single place. It provides increased reliability by giving every workstation RAID protected storage.
This design which uses "virtual" disks only gives some benefits from a TCO perspective. For example, you can assign software to individual users, not local hardware. Users may use any available or job-appropriate workstation, and gain access to their licensed software, etc.
I admit I haven't tested this extensively under Windows, and may be more picky about activation/licensing issues when moving to different local hardware. Linux would have absolutely no trouble with this mode of operation.
Wyse for $219 (Score:2, Interesting)
Wyse S50 for $218.99
Supports RDP and Citrix ICA
There are significant savings to be made. (Score:5, Interesting)
I think the savings in deployment and long term maintenance of these terminal units are just an illusion.
1: Unix/Linux systems[10] use copy on write. You load an application or library once and use it for the many users who are running the same application. The application runs significantly faster because the CPU cache and even more significantly, disk I/O cache hit rates are far higher than on a desktop system which is running half a dozen unrelated apps. This means you don't need 1000 servers to handle the load of 1000 desktops, or even 100. Your system utilisation goes from ~3% to ~90%.
Desktops. No maintenance. No 3 year upgrade cycle. The money can be spent adding business value instead.
Your desktop support problems switch from a linearly increasing management headache to the logarithmically increasing infrastructure management headache which you already have anyway.
2: You need a service desk anyway. You don't however need a desktop support guy for every floor, or local mail and file servers with the additional storage and management cost that implies. With a centralised infrastructure, distributed filesystems like AFS actually make sense, and can reduce or eliminate data duplication and duplication of business processes.
3: In what way is a remote desktop one size fits all? 95% of business users barely need more than email. Those who do need more can be provided workstations/whatever if the advantage is obvious enough.
4: You run a redundant distributed compute cluster. See Condor, GridEngine etc. The nodes are independent. Killing one, or even some of them just means others get used. You lose the network or network services? Exactly how useful is a standalone PC anyway?
although terminals are able to a certain degree to deliver these, it is often awkward and demands more than a cheap disk-less unit.
The cheap diskless units are bog standard PCs without disks. If you can stream it to a PC, you can stream it to a PC running as an X-term. ESD just isn't that difficult to set up
[10] Windows terminal servers are another matter.
Re:It's like bicycles... (Score:2, Interesting)
No.. I think some players in the industry just want to create confusion, and make you think a thin-client is a specially-packaged "diskless workstation" for their own benefit.
First of all, the term thin-client came way before there were any products named thinclient.
It's true that many packaged thinclient products today will be diskless, or will utilize compact flash for local storage (Just like that PC in a keyboard product, by the way, with the SD/SDHC card option), and include curious features like smartcard readers.
Anyways: companies that sell products for implementing thin-clients want to convince you that their product is somehow different (or better) than using an old ordinary PC, so they can differentiate their product in the marketplace.
IOW: They want you to believe their product is different (even in ways that it is not). In the case of thin clients: they want you to believe their product has a lower TCO; they would have you think it will (A) last longer, not be likely to fail, (B) use less electricity, (C) be more secure, than using generic thin-client hardware.
They will try to convince you that using no local disks or using CF instead, somehow makes the product better, or make it last longer, while costing less to maintain, than anything using something capable of being a PC. Even though these claims have not really been shown to be true.
Otherwise you would just use uber-cheap PC hardware, instead of paying the extra premium for a brand-name "packaged thin client".
Unplug the power cable to the HDD if you want, slap an internal USB stick, or PXE boot mod, and call it a day.
In other words, the motive of companies that speicalize in thin-clients is inherently self-serving, they want to warp the industry's perception of what a thin client is.
The truth is... when you aren't talking about solutions packaged by major vendors:
Not all thin clients have to be diskless.
Not all thin clients have to be off-the-shelf products "designed originally to be thin clients"
All ultra light-weight PCs are good candidates, especially units that don't need fans for cooling or mechanical storage (e.g. systems that use SD/SDHC, CF, or SSDs, are great candidates for quiet low-power thinclients).
Sometimes a local HDD may be used to boot a thin client, or you may use PXE boot or a simple $5 USB thumb drive to startup the thin-client (despite any existence of local disk).
In some cases it could be simply read-only storage to load a ramdisk from. In other cases, there could be local caching of various things.
HDDs don't drop dead that often -- if you execute power management well, and use HDDs only to boot the thin-clients, they will be spun down most of the time, anyways, extremely low mechanical wear, and you can expect 10+ years on average, easily.