Kickaha and Amorph couldn't moderate themselves out of a paper bag. Abdicate responsibility and succumb to idiocy. Two years of letting a member make personal attacks against others, then stepping aside when someone won't put up with it. Not only that but go ahead and shut down my posting priviledges but not the one making the attacks. Not even the common decency to abide by their warning (afer three days of absorbing personal attacks with no mods in sight), just shut my posting down and then say it might happen later if a certian line is crossed. Bullshit flag is flying, I won't abide by lying and coddling of liars who go off-site, create accounts differing in a single letter from my handle with the express purpose to decieve and then claim here that I did it. Everyone be warned, kim kap sol is a lying, deceitful poster.
Now I guess they should have banned me rather than just shut off posting priviledges, because kickaha and Amorph definitely aren't going to like being called to task when they thought they had it all ignored *cough* *cough* I mean under control. Just a couple o' tools.
Don't worry, as soon as my work resetting my posts is done I'll disappear forever.
Thin clients provide lower ownership costs and offer improved manageability for the enterprise. Thin clients are ideal for companies looking to improve application deployment, decrease hardware maintenance, simplify their client architecture, and reduce the strains on their IT staff.
Thin clients are for:
Firms that require a highly reliable network of computers connected to a centralized server running mission critical applications can greatly benefit from thin clients due to their highly reliable nature. Hospitals, insurance agencies, airline reservation centers, and hotels are typical businesses that fall into this category.
Companies with departments that utilize highly standardized computing tasks, like sales or service call centers, data entry departments, or technical support desks can realize substantial cost savings from thin clients. The computing power and flexibility of a PC is often unnecessary and potentially undesirable as end-users can reconfigure, loads local applications or otherwise tamper with the PCs settings.
Educational institutions are examples of a typical concern that requires more computing resources and an ever-shrinking budget. Universities and schools with under resourced IT departments must keep hundreds or thousands of computing devices up and running with the latest software despite multiple users per machine... Moreover, because all applications and storage is at the server (they have no hard-drives, floppy disks, or CD-ROMs), the latest version is always available to everyone.
Fortune 1000 firms with aggressive cost cutting agendas. IT managers are challenged daily to do more with less. Thin Clients enable most firms to realize tremendous cost savings by reducing the amount of support staff per 100 client computers from 5 to 1. Thin clients enable network administrators to deploy new system in rapid fashion because a thin client can be set up and functional in under 15 minutes. Finally, since thin clients are managed 100% remotely, network administrators can update software the server instead of deploying it over and over again at the client site.
The next time you hear a rumor about OS X on Intel, remember thin clients. Apple may not make any money selling OS X on Intel, but they will make money selling XServes that will run all the apps from a "dumb terminal" Intel box.
Apple producing an OS X on Intel that would only work as a client to Mac OS X Server is within possibilty.
But Apple will never port over Xgrid to Intel. You want Resource Sharing, buy a G5 client.
X11 is a resource hog and not a viable solution unless you have a gigabyte network. You are better off with recycling old computers with a Linux image and using a VNC based protocol to access applications on the server.
Of course, I don't see any hardware or software manufacturer making a sincere attempt at digging their own grave. Thin client Macs are not likely. Apple is better of providing the back end servers and software required for supporting all client types. On a note, the next generation cell phones would be a good bet for thin clients.
OK, granted, my line of work involves CAD, graphics and 3D (architecture) and this kind of thing isn't very well suited for processor intensive work like that. However, getting servers to work, even in a 70+ user environment, was a bear and it never really panned out. It was very easy for the admin to sit in his comfy chair and manage licenses, upgrades and software installations but the time he saved there was thrice spent getting the rest of the system ticking over even reasonably - something which he never managed at all.
When he left the office, the new admin junked the whole thing and went to NT.
I will probably concede that a more administrative enterprise solution would work via gigabit network and a rack of xServes but the advantage is IMHO not very great. Since OS X is Unix based it is very easy to manage rights and privileges and even manage workstations remotely if you set things up intelligently.
The problem with this is that the setup comes over very draconian and restrictive to the users and the admin(s) very quickly earn the distinction of being called a BOFH and never getting invited out for drinks after work - we creative types don't work well under surveillance. 8)
Comments
Now I guess they should have banned me rather than just shut off posting priviledges, because kickaha and Amorph definitely aren't going to like being called to task when they thought they had it all ignored *cough* *cough* I mean under control. Just a couple o' tools.
Don't worry, as soon as my work resetting my posts is done I'll disappear forever.
Originally posted by AirSluf
It's all Windows related...
Well that explains it! Not all thin client systems are like yours, here's one that looks like a last generation Apple product.
Think how cool Apple could design one now. With the horsepower of racks full of Xserves the lag you are experiencing would go away.
Why buy Thin Clients
Thin clients provide lower ownership costs and offer improved manageability for the enterprise. Thin clients are ideal for companies looking to improve application deployment, decrease hardware maintenance, simplify their client architecture, and reduce the strains on their IT staff.
Thin clients are for:
Firms that require a highly reliable network of computers connected to a centralized server running mission critical applications can greatly benefit from thin clients due to their highly reliable nature. Hospitals, insurance agencies, airline reservation centers, and hotels are typical businesses that fall into this category.
Companies with departments that utilize highly standardized computing tasks, like sales or service call centers, data entry departments, or technical support desks can realize substantial cost savings from thin clients. The computing power and flexibility of a PC is often unnecessary and potentially undesirable as end-users can reconfigure, loads local applications or otherwise tamper with the PCs settings.
Educational institutions are examples of a typical concern that requires more computing resources and an ever-shrinking budget. Universities and schools with under resourced IT departments must keep hundreds or thousands of computing devices up and running with the latest software despite multiple users per machine... Moreover, because all applications and storage is at the server (they have no hard-drives, floppy disks, or CD-ROMs), the latest version is always available to everyone.
Fortune 1000 firms with aggressive cost cutting agendas. IT managers are challenged daily to do more with less. Thin Clients enable most firms to realize tremendous cost savings by reducing the amount of support staff per 100 client computers from 5 to 1. Thin clients enable network administrators to deploy new system in rapid fashion because a thin client can be set up and functional in under 15 minutes. Finally, since thin clients are managed 100% remotely, network administrators can update software the server instead of deploying it over and over again at the client site.
Apple producing an OS X on Intel that would only work as a client to Mac OS X Server is within possibilty.
But Apple will never port over Xgrid to Intel. You want Resource Sharing, buy a G5 client.
Of course, I don't see any hardware or software manufacturer making a sincere attempt at digging their own grave. Thin client Macs are not likely. Apple is better of providing the back end servers and software required for supporting all client types. On a note, the next generation cell phones would be a good bet for thin clients.
Let me tell you that it seriously SUCKS.
OK, granted, my line of work involves CAD, graphics and 3D (architecture) and this kind of thing isn't very well suited for processor intensive work like that. However, getting servers to work, even in a 70+ user environment, was a bear and it never really panned out. It was very easy for the admin to sit in his comfy chair and manage licenses, upgrades and software installations but the time he saved there was thrice spent getting the rest of the system ticking over even reasonably - something which he never managed at all.
When he left the office, the new admin junked the whole thing and went to NT.
I will probably concede that a more administrative enterprise solution would work via gigabit network and a rack of xServes but the advantage is IMHO not very great. Since OS X is Unix based it is very easy to manage rights and privileges and even manage workstations remotely if you set things up intelligently.
The problem with this is that the setup comes over very draconian and restrictive to the users and the admin(s) very quickly earn the distinction of being called a BOFH and never getting invited out for drinks after work - we creative types don't work well under surveillance. 8)