Brian Madden Logo
Your independent source for application and desktop virtualization.
Marketplace

advertisement
Brian Madden's Blog

If you spend more than $15 on a thin client device then you are a fool!

Written on Jun 01 2005 11,617 views, 41 comments


by Brian Madden

<RANT>

I am appalled and disgusted by how expensive thin client devices are and how much they effort they are to manage. Unless you specifically need to watch videos on these things (which I guess applies to about 3% of the people who buy them), I think anyone who spends more than $15 on a thin client device is an absolute fool.

I have an alternate suggestion:

  1. Go to eBay and buy the cheapest used thin clients you can. (5 for $20, 3 for $13, etc.)
  2. As they come in the door, configure them to use DHCP and have them automatically connect to a published desktop called “desktop” using a DNS name server location called “citrix.”

Users turn these things on and they immediately connect to a published desktop on a Citrix Presentation Server. Upon logging on, Program Neighborhood Agent software on the server drops icons for various application on the remote desktop. ICA Passthrough (which works very well and does NOT negatively affect performance) can be used to make a double-hop connection to the applications on its own silos. (Or if you don’t have a siloed environment then simply have the thin clients run published desktops on member Citrix servers.)

That’s all there is to it. No management. No client viruses. No additional firmware management software to learn. No client-side settings that will ever need to be reconfigured. While this idea sounds crazy at first, I challenge you to find something wrong with it? Seriously... what’s wrong with this idea?

New thin client devices from the big vendors are expensive. The “manageable” ones just introduce another management application into the lives of overworked admins. This is a total sham. These new “features” the thin client vendors talk about are mainly ways to keep themselves in business. (XP Embedded? Local Media Player? 256MB of RAM? Do we really need this to run Outlook?)

Any late 1990s-era Windows-based terminal that runs Windows CE 2.12 will be fine in today’s environment. You can pay a high school kid a few dollars an hour to receive the new devices and use Google to figure out how to configure the firmware for DHCP and the default auto connection.

So seriously, what’s wrong with this? Some people have suggested:

“But you can’t manage these devices”

So what? What is there to manage? They’re freaking thin client devices. Who says we have to manage them? Do I need to update firmware? No. I just need them to run ICA. They use DHCP and locate their servers based on DNS. That will never need to change which means you don’t need to manage them. The only reason you need to manage new thin clients is because they’re bloated and break too much or weren't configured properly in the first place.

“But you can’t put the newest ICA software on them?”

So what? Why do I need ICA 8 or 9? For the past 7 years ICA has supported 24-bit color and plenty of resolution. What else do you need?

“But you can only run one session”

So what? I’m connecting to a desktop tier (which I can manage and is the level at which I want to manage my environment).

“But this is just wrong!”

No, paying $500 for a thin client device that requires management software and can get infected by worms is wrong.

“But they won’t have the same performance as new thin client devices.”

Performance for what? Word? Outlook? Guess what? They were good enough for ICA sessions in 1998 and they’re still good enough today. Even though the applications have become bigger, pixels are still pixels as far as the thin clients are concerned.

“But these things are old, used, and have no warranty.”

Yeah, there are also unlimited supplies of them and they cost $6 shipped. Buy extras.

“But my rep from <thin client vendor X> won’t invite me to the golf outing next year.”

Take the money you save on thin client hardware and the time you spend on management and buy everyone in your IT department a new set of clubs and a country club membership.

Seriously, look on eBay right now. (Dig deep. Sort by price.) If you ever spend more than $15 for a thin client device then you’re a fool.

Don’t be bamboozled!

</RANT>



Comments

Michael Burke wrote Well said...
on 06-01-2005 4:02 PM
I have never seen the draw of these. I have had many clients that when you try to suggest they spend $500 on a "thin client device", they respond by stating they can get full blown PCs for $350 from Dell.
Fabrice Cornet wrote ...
on 06-01-2005 4:25 PM
You're absolutely right, it's crazy to pay 500$ for a thin client.
As we're playing with thin clients (95% of our customers) for more than 10 years, let me just give our feedback
Why companies use thin clients ?

1. Meantime between failure of a thin client is +/- 1.000.000 hours
-> for a PC, it's +/- 100.000 hours (10 times less !)
2. No maintenance needed on thin client, no viruses,... (I mean "real thin clients", not XP embedded ones...)
3. Electrical consumption (minimum 2 times less than a PC)
4. User can't break it (no floppy, no cdrom,....)
5. thin client are less stolen than pc's as they can't run alone (some customers have up to 20 pc's stolen / month !!!!!!)

So why having a new thin client with a lot of features that cost 500 $

I would say : NO REASON as 95% of new features are not needed BUT....
I do not agree when you say you can always use on old thin client....

Having a thin client with a terminal emulator (3270 or 5250) built in can be very usefull in case of migration from a mainframe terminals to SBC
Having a LPD included is very usefull as you can connect printers on LPT port or even on USB port and the thin client will act as an LPD or be able to use TCP/IP printing (as HP jetdirect -> cost saving...)
It's much faster to print via lpd or tcp/ip printing than capturing the local printer...
New thin clients have a VIA CPU of 800 Mhz or even 1Gz and combined with latest client + local internet explorer or flash player.....multmedia experience is much better (and more and more needed...)
For me, the management part should not be considered when buying as there's a great chance that you will never have to manage them remotely....

and don't forget that thin clients must be able to support other things than just a full desktop connection
Often, you must connect ticket printers on COM ports (not all works the same way), or have a smart card reader connected,.....

BUT, a very good thin client with all these necessary features cost approx 200 $
Don't spend more on a thin client....

If you want, we could do a market review on all thin clients together as we nearly know all of them

Guest wrote I 2nd that
on 06-01-2005 4:32 PM
I been doing this for years. For basic desktop apps, this solution rules.
Kathleen wrote Agreement..
on 06-01-2005 5:45 PM
I'm still using compaq T1010's from the last decade with no issues....
Guest wrote Hmmmm
on 06-01-2005 9:48 PM
Well I could give you a few reasons why you need a managed thin client. The first idiot who walks in off the street and learns how to reset the terminal by pushing ctrl g or whatever the sequence is and you have to go out and drive 50 miles to reconfigure a unit. Don't think it won't happen a few hundred times. Where is the savings there?

If you run a large network with DHCP, you haven't a clue where the bozo who is sending nasties to the CEO is sitting. Especially if you use anonymous logons. Any network manager worth a pound of salt wouldn't let dhcp run on his network openly because he knows he is asking for every idiot to come in off the street and plug in their laptop and be on their network and bring in outside viruses.

When these old things blow up and start on fire, you can explain to your CEO why you spent $15 on a device that just burned down your building. I've seen at least 20 old wyse units do this by the way...luckily a fire extinguisher was handy.

Sometimes going the cheapest way out is not always the smartest.
Pat Bruns wrote I don't like deploying desktops
on 06-01-2005 10:54 PM
Deploying applications, yes. Deploying desktops, no.
Deploying applications, yes. Deploying desktops, no.
Deploying applications, yes. Deploying desktops, no.
Quintin Lette wrote Re: Well said...
on 06-01-2005 11:47 PM
I use Sun Rays from ebay (AU $80ish each) including a 15" LCD
you need either a Linux / Solaris server (ok another point of management) but you also get 9.0 series ICA clients (linux / 8.2 on Solaris)
I actually use Sun Java Desktop on them for everything except when I need to run windows apps)
Guest wrote I Feel The Same Way About TSCals.
on 06-02-2005 12:14 AM
I agree, Thin client devices are too expensive.

TSCALs are also too expensive.

There is only so much pie to go around, and MS gets the biggest peice first.
Guest wrote D'oh!
on 06-02-2005 1:40 AM
Dude, you need to spend sometime in healthcare... We have doctors and nurses who smooth-roam... Try doing that with an auto-connections. How do you get sent to right server when the Citrix doesn't know who you are yet? WI works great on thin-clients, but not old ones. Users expect certain keys to work with in their session and not for the device, ICA 9 fixes alot of these issues.
Brian Madden wrote Re: D'oh!
on 06-02-2005 2:31 AM
No, Smoothroam works fine with this method. The cheap thin client autoconnects to a random server. The user logs on with their real credentials to that server, and PN Agent running on that server connects the user back to their Smoothroam / workspace control sessions. I actually have two customers doing this exact thing right now.
Fabrice Cornet wrote Re: I don't like deploying desktops
on 06-02-2005 3:10 AM
Why not deploying desktops ?
Michel Roth wrote I agree, partially
on 06-02-2005 4:41 AM
Overall I agree with you Brian. I've been on a crusade the last few years to get customers to think about what they really want and find a reseller who can provide that. So in terms of Thin Clients: press a BIG button to power on, enter that ol' password and you should be done. This will do for usually 70% of your users. Then there's users that NEED to have scanners, smart card readers etc. Buy full featured one's for that (NOT meaning a trimmed down version of Windows).
This should work if your users arent to picky about performance (If jpg's start appearing in 12 segements over 2 seconds then most users start nagging).

Someone already mentioned that it's almost cheapers to buy a fully-featured PC from Dell than it is to buy a new Thin Client with Win XP Embedded w/ SP2. What's wrong with that picture huh? ;-)

Lastly, SBC in the end is all about saving money (TCO or whatever you like). If you want to do it right, then do it like it's ment to be done. Deploy applications server based and buy DUMB terminals. Don't do both, you'll be spending twice the money!
Brian Madden wrote Re: I agree, partially
on 06-02-2005 5:26 AM
Really great points! I totally agree.

1. I think the Eiger / Monch stuff from MS will really give people a great option vs. traditional thin clients.

2. I really agree on the "if you're using SBC, then use SBC!" Don't spend the money on both ends.
Guest wrote I think some people are missing the point
on 06-02-2005 5:37 AM
It amazes me how silly this whole debate is. Surely if a user requires local applications then they need a PC. If not, then they can use a Thin Client. There is absolutley no point giving a user who only requires basic bog standard applications a "Fat" Thin Client - give them the cheapest bit of tin and spend the cash on the back end. If they need local processing, get them a PC with an ICA client on it and be done with it. Anyone who wants to argue that a terminal with a local OS that runs other apps is not effectivly a PC anyway needs to wake up and think about the whole point of a Thin Client anyway in my opinion.
Brian Madden wrote Re: I think some people are missing the point
on 06-02-2005 6:19 AM
I think this is the point I was trying to make actually. I like the "cheapest piece of tin" approach, and that's what I'm advocating. (Or maybe you were agreeing with the article and responding to some of the other comments?)
Guest wrote Re: Re: I think some people are missing the point
on 06-02-2005 6:21 AM
I was of course responding to the comments Brian, and agree with what you are advocating entirely.
Aaron Simms wrote Re: Hmmmm
on 06-02-2005 10:47 AM
"The first idiot who walks in off the street and learns how to reset the terminal by pushing ctrl g or whatever the sequence is and you have to go out and drive 50 miles to reconfigure a unit" If you are buying used you can afford to have spares onsite and ready to go or you can walk the user through the configuration over the phone.


"Any network manager worth a pound of salt wouldn't let DHCP run on his network openly because he knows he is asking for every idiot to come in off the street and plug in their laptop and be on their network and bring in outside viruses." WTF!

We have over 3,000 workstations on our network and we shouldn't run DHCP? There are other ways to prevent unknowns from attaching to your network.

I like Brian's idea and we are going to test it out. Brian thanks for getting "fired up" and causing this lively discussion.
Guest wrote Festive Season
on 06-02-2005 10:58 AM
How many cards will Brian get this year from the thin client manafacturers?

0
1
2
3
4
5>

You vote :)
Guest wrote Re: Re: D'oh!
on 06-02-2005 11:31 AM
And session reliability?

As far as smooth-roaming and PNAgent... So how did you fix the issue with PNAgent trying to smooth-roam the previous desktop?
Guest wrote Re: I think some people are missing the point
on 06-02-2005 11:35 AM
So, I should go justify a FAT client because the department needs Media Player for one application that users will use once a year.
Guest wrote Re: Re: I agree, partially
on 06-02-2005 11:40 AM
So it's all or nothing? Not every thing runs well under SBC, but the majority of the things can. So should I scrap SBC across the enterprise for that one poorly written app (sorry softgrid is not the answer here) that will eventually be replaced?
Guest wrote Re: Re: D'oh!
on 06-02-2005 11:42 AM
What about session-reliability? Mobile users that use carts and dr. that use tablets/thin laptops?