Apple Thin Clients...
OK, I would like to state that this is all speculation.... Logical speculation, but speculation none-the-less.
MOSR [I know, I know... please bear with me] mentioned a feature of Panther that involves multiple simultanious GUI login [many people using a single machine but via a GUI, rather than merely SSH
This would open the door for an Apple "thin" client. My guess being that it would work well in a classroom situation as well as a lab situation [render farm, etc]. Imagine something like a Sun Ray [Sun's thin client, with "smartcard" that allows your user session to follow you where ever you go.. no "login/logout, just freeze and thaw the session] being used that was cheap, beautiful and, of course, Apple branded.
The thin client would have a bit of ram, and maybe some solid-state storage [real storage would be at the server level/SAN], as well as a video card, and perhaps firewire. In theory, it should only cost a minimum to produce, and requires another [server/host machine] for all the "heavy lifting". The price should be in the $350-$600 ballpark, depending on options [video, RAM, storage]
We are at an age now that PCs [a generic term] are "fast enough" for most things. Why would you spend $2000 for a new machine, when you could have "portable" access via n thin clients in the home/workspace.
On Network activity: Overhead for the GUI/Apps should be kept at a minimum, as the new version of NXHosting [old NeXT timbuktu type thingie] would only send out DisplayPDF data, not bitmaps [NXHosting did this with Display Post-Script]. The thin client would have enough RAM to cache the important bits.
I know this has been touched on in the past, but now the pieces seem to be coming together.
MOSR [I know, I know... please bear with me] mentioned a feature of Panther that involves multiple simultanious GUI login [many people using a single machine but via a GUI, rather than merely SSH
This would open the door for an Apple "thin" client. My guess being that it would work well in a classroom situation as well as a lab situation [render farm, etc]. Imagine something like a Sun Ray [Sun's thin client, with "smartcard" that allows your user session to follow you where ever you go.. no "login/logout, just freeze and thaw the session] being used that was cheap, beautiful and, of course, Apple branded.
The thin client would have a bit of ram, and maybe some solid-state storage [real storage would be at the server level/SAN], as well as a video card, and perhaps firewire. In theory, it should only cost a minimum to produce, and requires another [server/host machine] for all the "heavy lifting". The price should be in the $350-$600 ballpark, depending on options [video, RAM, storage]
We are at an age now that PCs [a generic term] are "fast enough" for most things. Why would you spend $2000 for a new machine, when you could have "portable" access via n thin clients in the home/workspace.
On Network activity: Overhead for the GUI/Apps should be kept at a minimum, as the new version of NXHosting [old NeXT timbuktu type thingie] would only send out DisplayPDF data, not bitmaps [NXHosting did this with Display Post-Script]. The thin client would have enough RAM to cache the important bits.
I know this has been touched on in the past, but now the pieces seem to be coming together.
Comments
I honestly think that the 2nd wave of apple is being held back until panther to a certain exent but more so that for the last 2 years they have be recovering from the moto induced stroke that has NOT killed them and with the 970 has made them STRONGER...
by Jan. they could be position to joing the enterprise market again. this time with ease of use, a microsoft mailiase on IT, proven angles of TCO and horsepower on their side.
they probably won't call it an enterprise push. which is a good thing. under promise and over deliver.
fred did say they could be at 8billion in the future?
more ipods?
nah...
Originally posted by lungaretta
can someone explain to me how radically different this is to apple remote desktop?
Not much ...
... except the machine you make to run it on:
1 - can probably get by with a cheesoid G3, since all the main crunching is happening on the server, all the local client handles now is, how to draw the screen based on the instructions it's sent, and sending interface info back to the server.
2 - since all that's going over the network connection is screen draw information back to the client, and interface instuction to the server, I'm sure Airport can handle it, data doesn't have to go back and forth until the very end,and even then, only if the end user - for some unknown reason - wants a local copy. Which begs the question - why have a local copy on your G3 tablet (or whatever) when the server is way faster?
3 - it's a far more powerful combination to have a desktop 970 crunching away, with a tablet or cheap thin client someplace interfacing with it, than to buy a 17".
Oh, and then there's that minor point of Home networking ...
Yeah, the options blow wide open ...
imagine one FAT machine...a nice looking 970 machine in the shape of an airport basestation..a big one....and it acts like one too!
and thin displays with a keyboard...later organic ultraflat foil displays...
heh...wow
actually u could do that with an xserve and panther(?) soon
huh?
what is the disadvantege over hardwired things?
54mbit would be 6.75megabytes a second...is there something which makes it impossible?
is this the superbowl ad 2004?
back to the roots?
i mean...user home?
err? ya
Originally posted by lungaretta
can someone explain to me how radically different this is to apple remote desktop?
Apple Remote desktop takes over the computer it controls.
This would not (presumably).
In other words -- if someone uses your machine with Apple Remote Desktop, you can't. If someone uses it via this multiple-simultaneous logins, you could also be sitting at the computer using it.
Originally posted by lungaretta
can someone explain to me how radically different this is to apple remote desktop?
ooops, shoulda mentioned, multiple simulataneous sessions ... as far as I know (and I'm not a guru of ARD), ARD uses whatever login session is currently active on the machine ... the difference with this is it would probably allow (if done well) multiple users, access to the same machine, at the same time. One guy could be logged in at the machine, and two other people would be elsewhere, using a thin client, to do various other things on the same box, using different accounts.
As for exactly how practical this is, I guess it depends on what they're doing ...
doesn't WindowsXP already do something like this?
Originally posted by AirSluf
Thin Clients, the "cold fusion" of the computing business.
You don't ever get something for nothing, and you pay dearly in the bandwidth department--as in there isn't enough for general use computing. Thin clients currently work great in a restricted niche, but have failed miserably when scaling up to widespread general use.
For the classroom and similar applications, is the bandwidth issue really a factor given gigabit ethernet? It may have been a factor in the days of 10MB/s networking.
Originally posted by OverToasty
doesn't WindowsXP already do something like this?
It does something exactly like this.
Originally posted by McCrab
For the classroom and similar applications, is the bandwidth issue really a factor given gigabit ethernet? It may have been a factor in the days of 10MB/s networking.
Well, considering you aren't flinging bitmaps accross the network, it's not so bad. The NeXT machines back in the day did it with good old 10bT and the windowing environment felt like it was local. If you can, find an old copy of Rhapsody... Apple didn't rip out NXHosting until OS X went Aqua.
Originally posted by AirSluf
Someday networks will catch up significantly and then the concept may be successfully recycled in general compution, but not for awhile.
I am employed by a firm that uses thin clients running on unix workstations for people to access general computing applications including MS Office, Outlook and browsers. We have about 90 users being served by 5 quad processor win2k servers over 100 Mbps ethernet lines and the system works very well. It does get a lot of use - most users stay logged on via the client all day to access the general apps, often heavily, while running unix side apps concurrently. The only time the system slows down too much is at lunch when everyone jumps online to surf!
If Apple introduces this functionality it would be a big bonus in a variety of situation from home use to corporate use.
MM
For a kick-off think of all the apps you interact with over the internet. Your bank, your hotmail account, AppleInsider and any other forum. These will all work well on a client no matter how thin. If coded properly you can access them with a mobile phone at incredibly low data rates.
The big push in enterprise apps is to use the internet and web services instead of shitty macros in word documents to manage and centralise internal systems. Want to update your address in HR's files, log in to an intranet site, login and voila, you're done. And if a new version of that software comes out? Upgrade and reboot the machine and no one will notice. Move the entire office to Linux, Mac OS X or palm pilots? Doesn't make a difference.
Then think of the benefits of constantly being part of the network. No matter how fat your client, storing your files on a central server just makes more sense. In most well run corporations, if a secretary's machine goes on the blink, she can sit down at almost any other machine, log in and carry on. Her machine may be 'fat' but its useful because it's a 'client'. All her files are stored remotely and backed up every day. That last fact alone is enough to compensate for a 2 second delay when opening a Word doc.
In more mobile settings, you 'hot desk' and no machine is yours for more than a day, system like Sun's can be keyed to a security card, swipe it and your in. Again fat/thin client, not fat/thin client.
In school/university lab setting the same applies. Kids/undergrads will eventually mess your machines up. Smart lab admins re-image the computers every night with an automated process, so that every morning they start fresh. The fat client is again being exploited for it's client nature rather than its fatness.
So the point is client is the important part of the phrase, thin and fat are relative terms that have almost no meaning. After all, what is intel's biggest problem right now? No-one nees a faster (i.e. fatter) computer.
Thin client computing is kind of like XML, you hear all this bitchin' about the problems with the tech but you look around and it's everywhere and only getting stronger.
They used a PCMCIA flash storage card to hold the config and had a couple of memory slots.
They came in a thin black case with just USB, PS2, power, Ethernet and an on button on the front.
Well I prised one open one day for a look and to my suprise they ran with PowerPC G3 chips inside...so the base tech is really already there...
Originally posted by AirSluf
Thin client hardware was originally designed as essentially the telephone of network connected equipment, big-time cheap and only basic I/O functionality, the rest was handled centrally. If you have thin-only hardware clients you are completely hosed if you need to run something in a fat client mode, or ANYTHING that isn't handled explicitly by the server. That's just too restrictive except for purpose built niche systems.
Agreed. There is one REALLY BIG advantage to thin clients however, and that is security. No need to patch 400 Windows clients when a hole is discovered weekly, no critical data is stored locally, no silly ad software to piss off administrators, etc, etc, etc... Oh an no viri, greatly reduced anti-virus licensing costs, greatly reduced everything-software-related costs, reduced staff costs, etc...
I agree that they are general purpose systems, but in a great number of environments, including my workplace, that is all that is needed for a majority of users. Notice, however, that Apple excels at higher ended graphic, 3D and video applications - something a thin client just could not do very well. Market share! Back in Education seriously! General purpose computing for enterprises that are sick and tired of paying, patching, securing and repairing Windows networks.
Originally posted by Rhumgod
I agree that they are general purpose systems, but in a great number of environments, including my workplace, that is all that is needed for a majority of users. Notice, however, that Apple excels at higher ended graphic, 3D and video applications - something a thin client just could not do very well. Market share! Back in Education seriously! General purpose computing for enterprises that are sick and tired of paying, patching, securing and repairing Windows networks.
My thoughts are quite the opposite. It stands to reason that a thin client would be *great* in A/V processing. Why do you want your desktop churning away at some transition, when you can have the body of the work sent to the mainframe... er .. um XServe cluster? Companies in film and video hit the "go" button and send a very large number of machines rendering every frame.
The multi-GUI login is essentially similar to the X11 capability that has been around for approximatly *forever*. Because Quartz uses Display PDF, Apple's version doesn't need to fling bitmaps over the network, only the math to describe the screen.
If band width is such and issue then how come the first thin clients were VT100's etc all running via 9600 or even lower. E-Mail was called Allin1 and Notes was a type of Internet (albeit no graphics).
Servers running Gigabit and clients running 100Mb should have little network performance issues.
The biggest limitation for thin clients is when it comes to a remote site.
I can't wait or Apple to announce it.
All that we need is Star Office on X or whatever is MS Word/Excel compatible and a decent alternative to Exchange.
Dobby.
Originally posted by dobby
In Pre-Press (or whats left of it) there is loads of use for thin clients. Most people use it in one form or the other ie OPI. Every stores their data on a network server, Netboot is already available, the only thing left would be to load the apps from a server. Probably a problem with Quark/ Adobe licensing though.
I can't wait or Apple to announce it.
All that we need is Star Office on X or whatever is MS Word/Excel compatible and a decent alternative to Exchange.
Dobby.
OPI is a great example, as is any Client/Server app [aren't most these days??] While talking about Quark, DMS and QPS come to mind. Both are "floating seat" licensing schemes. I can't see how it would be difficult to add this to the "vanilla" version of XPress.
Originally posted by visigothe
The multi-GUI login is essentially similar to the X11 capability that has been around for approximatly *forever*.
And which is quite primitive relative to Apple's display layer. (This is actually an advantage, as far as streaming GUIs to as many clients as possible...).
Because Quartz uses Display PDF, Apple's version doesn't need to fling bitmaps over the network, only the math to describe the screen.
Quartz might be capable of flinging a pure-vector GUI around, but Aqua is heavily dependent on TIFFs.