Thin Client effect for the future

[alliknowisnetworking]

I would like to know if Thin Clients are starting to creep back into the mainstream again. I mean they've always been here, but in the past they were supposed to be the next hot thing, then they sorta fizzled out, but now I've seen a few companies going with these thin client terminals.

Does anyone think that thins will take a significant market share in the future. Im talking in the corporate environment. I dont think thins will take the home market.

And what effect will this have on IT employment?

"Users are like Prostitutes,..They need guidance"-Myself
A+,Network+,MCP+2000

 

[stormbind]

Pardon my Forest Gump - like ignorance but, I don't get it!

My solution is PC <-- webapps --> server. To me, it's the same as having your cake & eating it.

If your terminal died, just drop another one on the desk and plug it in. No messing about with networking, setting up the user's desktop, migrating their app settings over. Turn it on, and it just worked.

If your PC dies, just drop in a Quick Restore CD and reboot.

----------
Memoria mihi benigna erit qui eam perscribam

Contact me via profile

 

[jsteph]

If your PC dies, just drop in a Quick Restore CD and reboot

If only it were that simple.
And how current is that "Quick Restore" cd? Does it have the apps that IT installed just last week? No? Ooops. How about the local data files? He has no local files--they're all on the network? Then...we're using a pc instead of a terminal...why?
--Jim

 

[stormbind]

Hi Jim

And how current is that "Quick Restore" cd? Does it have the apps that IT installed just last week? No? Ooops. How about the local data files? He has no local files--they're all on the network?

How current the Quick Restore CD is, depends on how efficient your IT manager is

Data files are on the file/web server, though I do love wearing a Corsair flash drive around my neck

Then...we're using a pc instead of a terminal...why

Here comes everyone's favourite Braveheart quote: FREEEEDOM!

But also, I don't like wasting money. Why spend money switching to terminals?

----------
Memoria mihi benigna erit qui eam perscribam

 

[jsteph]

Stormbind,
I agree about the freedom--I personnally prefer pc's, and my guess is that most employees would also.

This is why the country will never go to those 100% public mass-transit systems we hear about, like those proposed 'auto-drive' highways where each 'car' is really just a drone that is controlled by embedded wires in the road. We need our own personal vehicle--same with pc's.

But...from an IT dept. and financial standpoint, using winterms makes financial sense and eases the management headache tremendously.

Our staff is almost at the point where they're worried about their jobs because there is so little to do, now that they're not trapsing around replacing power supplies, harddrives, reinstalling apps due to the various issues that happen with pc's and all the thousands of other nagging, ankle-biting things that can go wrong when you have 1000 pc's out in the field. So now, if we have a problem with the users app 1000 miles away? Just walk down the hall to the citrix farm and check it out.

Fortunaely for our pc staff we're growing so there's always stuff coming up and they're jobs are safe, but we definitely won't need to hire new pc-support staff any time soon, and they're free to do all the little things that we all know 'should' be done, but in the real world rarely are, like fully documenting and updating the network's Visio chart, untangling the spagehtti in the router racks, etc, etc.
--Jim

 

[stormbind]

I must confess that I lack experience working with 1000s of machines

Do winterms have all the features required to run .NET applications (which might include a fair amount of client-side code)?

Do winterms allow the freedom of installing future (maybe third party) frameworks or are you tied to the vendor's agenda?

----------
Memoria mihi benigna erit qui eam perscribam

 

[jsteph]

The winterms are just dumb terminals that (in our case) automatically connect to a Windows machine at our
headquarters via Citrix. It's somewhat like a Windows Terminal Services client. Each Citrix session has it's
own memory space on the Windows machine here at the main office, so this is the 'client' on which all client apps, including .Net apps, etc would run.

Each Windows machine here will have between 15-20 Winterm/Citrix sessions. These are highly stoked boxes,
most dual P-4s with 4Gig ram with a couple of 4-cpu boxes for users with highly cpu-intensive tasks. Citrix is very experienced at divvying up the resources dynamically, so even 1 Gig would be ok to host a dozen sessions, but 4Gig will make each session fly.

So we're starting with a farm of about 15 of these machines for our initial rollout of 300 winterms, and yes
there is a cost there. But amortizing a $2000 box (which is about what we can get a dual processor box-only for) over 20 citrix winterms-per-box adds only $100 to the $300 Cost of the winterms.

So, because of Citrix's way of doling out resources, depending on how many people are actively logged on and what they're doing, most users will have the feel of a very powerful dual-processor workstation with tons of ram.

For instance, if one user is running a huge query and the rest are just typing or doing normal non-intensive things, that query process will have most of the processor and memory, and the user gets lightning fast response, even though there are another dozen or so people sharing the machine. Then when the next guy runs some report, chances are most of the others are doing light-duty stuff. So unless each user is running highly intensive stuff constantly, then each user feels like he's got an extremely powerful PC at his command. And this can be configured and load-balanced as well. For instance, if we know that a certain group of users are constantly doing very intensive stuff, we can steer them when they log on to the least active machine, or even specify that they their winterm logins only go to one of a select few quad-processor machines that we have in the farm.

So even with the extra $100 per unit, the cost is still low, but the main benefit is still the fact that we walk to the room next door if there's a new app they want, or any sort of problem. Plus, all client/server apps that we have, now have the 'clients' (the citrix boxes) in the same room as the server box (in our case a big piece of IBM iron) on a gigabit fiber connection. The speed of these apps is now in the category that I would consider awesome. Previously a customer lookup might take 1/2 second to pop up on the original remote PC (not bad, anything sub-second is considered good), now the response time is truly un-detectable--the data is there before the pinky comes off the Enter key.

So we'll still have hundreds of PC's here at headquarters, for those who simply need they're own pc, or those who are at a political level that they can demand it. But for the rank-and-file who have only a very narrowly defined task or application set--the winterms are a major benefit.
--Jim

 

[stormbind]

Clearly you are very impressed!

I'm still not convinced, not because I find fault in your observations, but because terminals are exactly what IBM advocated and they were beat into submission by cheap desktops running a simple GUI.

Why should anyone believe that Citrix will fair better?

Mainstream 3D GUI desktop environments are just around the corner, and that's going to push bandwidth demands through the roof. Is Longhorn 3D or is it a 2D/3D hybrid?

----------
Memoria mihi benigna erit qui eam perscribam

 

[jrbarnett]

Why do they have to have a desktop? We have them connecting via Internet explorer and the ActiveX control. It just appears as a web page to the end users and they double click on application icons that they have rights to access.

John

 

[stormbind]

The desktop is a tool/application in it's own right. It may not always be required, but a lot of people make good use of it.

You can build a desktop in a browser window.

All Windows technologies ultimately filter into the browser components: VML and a hint DirectX are currently available, 3D and special will inevitably appear in the coming years.

You don't have to use them! You don't have to use fonts! We could, technically, have this discussion on a low-res monchome ascii interface. Why don't we?

----------
Memoria mihi benigna erit qui eam perscribam

 

[jsteph]

stormbind,
Yes, IBM failed because they didn't have gui, and that's what the market wanted (and needed in many cases). Those terminals had lightning speed on data lookups, but no flying toasters

But I'm not sure you're understanding what Citrix is. What the Winterm/Citrix user sees is a Windows login screen as any windows user does. He has a desktop, icons, start menu, Word, Excel, Internet Explorer, etc, etc.

It's identical to Windows because it is Windows. He's just remote-conrolling it. It's as if his mouse, keyboard, and monitor all have a 1000 mile cable direct to our office. The Winterm box and Citrix is just the method used to mimick these cables. The only thing going over the network wire are keyboard events, mouse events, and screen refresh data.

Again, it's similar to MS Terminal Services and, in some respects, VNC (which is a slightly different animal). But Citrix has this technology down to where it's very, very efficient, and you really would be hard pressed to tell if you're on a citrix-Windows session or a real Windows session with the pc right next to you.

We had three DS3 (T3) lines which were apportioned to our various plants, ie, we would typically dole out 256K to most plants, the busy ones got a full T1, some got multiple T1's. But now, we will be able to get rid of one of those T3's because the bandwitdh needs are greatly reduced. Just another mark in the Plus column.
--Jim

 

[stormbind]

Oh, I do understand what it is: I'm trying to gauge it's life expectency.

IBM terminals lost favour because they weren't scalable: They lacked sufficient processing power to meet next-generation software expectations.

Windows software will change again, and be far more bloated/functional (depending on your bias) than current WinXP MC systems.

Soon, Citrix will have to cope with next-generation software expectations which may be more about presentation than functionality.

IMHO, the risk is that intergrated Citrix client/server solutions inherently have more potential bottlenecks. If the 1) server, 2) client, or 3) physical connections fall short of requirements they are going to be offering something that presents itself as being long in the tooth.

IMHO, other risks are: will upgrading the server software force you to upgrade all of the clients (hardware)? Does it remove the possibility of following a slower upgrade path? What are the effects on staff moral if they don't get the latest GUI?

Stand-alone PC systems offer more flexibility.

You have pointed out that Citrix reduces staffing costs, and I accept that as part of the equation, but I am concerned that history may repeat itself.

----------
Memoria mihi benigna erit qui eam perscribam

 

[robbieguy2003]

I work for an ISP in london and one of the things we do is colocation (you put a server with us and use our bandwidth). 2 years ago the only real things we seen coming in were webservers. Now, we seem to be seeing lots of Citrix servers coming in.

From where i can see, IT staff are seeing that users (although they like little flashy things and a bit more control) will prefer any system that just works and if it does break can magically be swapped and get all there data instantly.


I wish someone would just call me Sir, without adding 'Your making a scene'.

Rob

 

[jsteph]

stormbind,
I agree that there may be marketing or simple human issues that are unforseen that could make this a less viable option. And definitely the winterm model is not for every user's desktop. But remember--our rollout was for 300 machines that do 1 thing and 1 thing only--Order Entry. I'm not advocating that this is a viable option for the accounting department or sales or maybe even most users. But in our organization, of roughly 1000 pc's, I'd guess that over half are candidates for winterm/citrix. The majority of the remaining PC's are here in the main office, so the prime advantage of winterms--remote support--is somewhat moot for nearly half of our pc's, so they'll likely not be converted.

IBM terminals lost favour because they weren't scalable: They lacked sufficient processing power to meet next-generation software expectations.

I'm not sure I understand this point--the terminals, for all intents and purposes had no processing power and weren't meant to. The apps themselves were typically on mainframes, mini's, or AS/400's, which were very scalable.

Yes, the terminal front-end client apps (the familiar green- or amber-screen apps) lost to both the flash and actual increased functionality of a gui. Neither of these is really an issue with a winterm/Citrix setup, at least not that I can see. Again--this setup is essentially identical to a PC, but instead of having your keyboard, mouse, and monitor cord go to the box under your desk, they go thousands of miles away. When a new OS comes out--yes Citrix will have to deal with whatever idiosyncracies may come with that, but the fundamental layout stays the same. It's a pc in every way, shape, and form, with every bit of functionality--with the exception being limited control/access of attached devices--printers, scanners, any usb device, etc.

Soon, Citrix will have to cope with next-generation software expectations which may be more about presentation than functionality.
IMHO, the risk is that intergrated Citrix client/server solutions inherently have more potential bottlenecks. If the 1) server, 2) client, or 3) physical connections fall short of requirements they are going to be offering something that presents itself as being long in the tooth.

I think the issue here is bandwidth if I'm understanding your premise. If the terminals need a higher refresh rate to get a more immediate feel, this is already configurable, and my opinion is that in the future bandwidth will be more plentiful.

IMHO, other risks are: will upgrading the server software force you to upgrade all of the clients (hardware)? Does it remove the possibility of following a slower upgrade path? What are the effects on staff moral if they don't get the latest GUI?

This is a possible item for concern, but I can't see where the issue would be. The winterms are dumb as mud--in a good way--that is, they make a physical connection to send and recieve data. We could walk next door and upgrade one of the citrix boxes from win2k to XP and as soon as it boots up those 20 users now have XP and all the new flash that comes with it. They want the latest upgrade to MapPoint? We throw in the CD here and 2 minutes later they've all got it.

The winterms see essentially 3 kinds of data--key & mouse events, and screenshots. There is no OS-specific logic, nothing but raw data. I'm not sure on the lowest levels the server-side specifics about the format of this data, but unless the entire TCPIP spec changes (and these machines support the upcoming tcpip version) I can't see what the upgrade issues would be, at least for our situation.

I guess for me the bottom line is that feel of 'ownership' Winterms are like renting. It's not really 'your' PC, and that is definitely an issue that the users may have phsycologically, but most of our order-entry people truly don't like or care about pc's, they just want something that works day in and day out.
--Jim

 

[stormbind]

I had not realised that you were deploying them exclusively for data-input. It does change the situation somewhat

I'm not sure I understand this point--the terminals, for all intents and purposes had no processing power and weren't meant to. The apps themselves were typically on mainframes, mini's, or AS/400's, which were very scalable.

When I say Processing Power, I am not referring exclusively to the CPU. The GPU, northbridge, and southbidge, are all equally important.

Those old IBM terminals could not render a great deal to a VDU. It did not matter how great the mainframe software was, because the terminals simply lacked the ability to display multiple sets of data in a form that users demanded.

We could walk next door and upgrade one of the citrix boxes from win2k to XP and as soon as it boots up those 20 users now have XP and all the new flash that comes cwith it.

The WinXP GUI made loads of computers obsolete. Is the server or terminal responsible for rendering to the VDU?

What if the user is partially sighted? Does the terminal support a bigger VDU? I would imagine this isn't a problem, but it might be.

Are you going to end up with some Winterms and PCs operating side-by-side, with the PC substituting for the things Winterms aren't able to do?

I am only interested in identifying the scope of Winterms.

What about speech recognition? Some industries are using this, or other new and more efficient technologies, to replace traditional typed data-inputting. Does the Winterm allow the adoption of new techniques?

----------
Memoria mihi benigna erit qui eam perscribam

 

[dilettante]

You probably won't be upgrading the server to XP, but Windows 2003 Server. But that's more or less the server edition of XP anyway - to stretch a point.

The Citrix technology today is a set of enhancements to Windows Terminal Services. At its heart this is "remote control" or "remote desktop" software, much as third parties have offered for a long time (pcAnywhere, etc.). Even Microsoft NetMeeting offers a form of remote desktop sharing that even works on Windows 95.

The difference is that instead of just remoting the console session, Terminal Services/Citrix offers multiple Windows sessions on a server to a number of simultaneous clients.

You can certainly remote the audio output, and I assume the audio input as well. My guess is that for now speech recognition over Terminal Services is impractical or at least shakey but I have no experience with it.

Most Terminal Services/Citrix thin clients accept almost any VGA-style monitor, so there is no reason a person with low vision couldn't use a large monitor and a high-contrast color scheme as needed.

The display rendering is done at the server, and the memory image of the display gets chopped, compressed, spit across the wire, and cached at the client which does "smart" reassembly of the image components. This saves a lot of bandwidth over shoving raw or simply-compressed bitmaps of the whole screen to the client.

The best way to get a feel for what the technology looks like to the user is to get two XP Pro machines and use Remote Desktop Sharing between them. For pre-XP desktop machines just install NetMeeting 3 (which is part of Both Win2K and WinXP but can be downloaded for Win9x machines) and try running NetMeeting Remote Desktop Sharing from one machine to the other.

Citrix adds many things to Terminal Services, including compression and protocols optimized for lower-speed connections, advanced administration tools, clustering and failover, desktop lockdown tools, etc. I don't keep up with it much myself anymore, the last Citrix technology I worked with was NT 3.51 to NT 4.0 stuff.

 

[jsteph]

stormbind,
...basically what dilettante said, and for the question

Are you going to end up with some Winterms and PCs operating side-by-side, with the PC substituting for the things Winterms aren't able to do?

It's possible for some or all locations, there may be a single pc left to do certain things, such as read floppys, cds, or memory sticks if that need arises. In fact, for the locations in which we're rolling out the winterms, we're still paralleling since part of this rollout includes a brand new software application (that's my part, as a developer).

As far as the points about sound, ect., yes, Citrix supports remote sound, but I'm not sure what device hookups the winterms have, I've never considered that since it was not part of the scope of the application to use sound--I'm fairly sure there's a rudimentary 'pc speaker' type of device on the winterms that'll suffice for beeps, etc, but I'm not sure about a mic, or even usb. I'll go into our test/training lab this morning and check it out and ask our pc techs more info on that.
--Jim

 

[chiph]

The display rendering is done at the server, and the memory image of the display gets chopped, compressed, spit across the wire, and cached at the client which does "smart" reassembly of the image components. This saves a lot of bandwidth over shoving raw or simply-compressed bitmaps of the whole screen to the client.

To see the difference in action, run Windows Remote Desktop vs. VNC software. The VNC has very little "smarts" about what changed on the screen, and will often send the entire screen as an update to the client -- very slow. By comparison, since RDC is able to see the rectangles that get invalidated by the OS, it only has to send those few blocks instead of the entire screen.

Net effect: RDC is much snappier, and uses less bandwidth.

Chip H.


____________________________________________________________________
If you want to get the best response to a question, please read FAQ222-2244 first

 

[stormbind]

I was thinking the same. XWindows/VNC solutions are very slow but really quite tumb - the client supports no widgets and rendering is dictated by the server.

Microsoft RDC is faster because it does support widgets. Instead of sending a pre-rendered bitmap, it sends messages which the client interprets and renders.

The side effect of RDC is that it requires the client to have more software & processing power. So new GUI effects/features need newer hardware.

Citrix sound as though they have the best of both worlds.

Obviously these things fall outside my scope, but the only way I can imagine creating a system that has the best of both worlds is by tiling the display.

So, the server pre-renders bitmaps but only sends only those portions of the bitmap that have changed. The client uses coordinates to plot the bitmap-snippet in the appropriate place on the screen. No matter how complicated the bitmap may be to render, the client never needs to be upgraded and it's faster than sending a whole bitmap.

However, nobody has said that is how Citrix tackled the problem - it is just how I would aproach it (if I did low-level programming).

----------
Memoria mihi benigna erit qui eam perscribam

 

[Castor66]

Thin client hardware, like WYSE terminals etc, have there place but I would not be in favour of deploying them. I much prefer to continue to utilise the desktops that are currently in operation but to migrate the applications back off of the desktops to be publishes through Citrix or to deploy a full Windows session through MS Terminal Services.

In a previous environment I did have normal PC's deployed out to all the clients which ran Linux. The linux they ran was extremely tightly built with nothing running on it that I didn't want running. As soon as the system booted it autologged on and immediately ran a remote desktop session to our terminal server. The users didn't really notice and those that did notice didn't care. As a PC drifted towards obsolesence then I imaged it off and zapped this Linux implementation on. The user came in th next day and after about 15-30 minutes of customizing their environment to suit them they were away. No more administrative headaches for me!!!

Thin Technology is the future - I'm not sure about thin client terminsal though. This bit of technology looks interesting though:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/05/03/ultra_thin_digital_divide/

 

[dilettante]

See:

Remote Desktop Protocol

Remote Desktop Protocol (RDP) Features and Performance