Thin Client Systems

Jump to latest Follow Reply
papadage

papadage

Ars Legatus Legionis
41,731
Subscriptor++
  • #2
    Every modern remote desktop system handles multiple monitors pretty well. My work is mostly web-based applications, email, Slack, and Office, and all those work fine in these environments. Our own applications are on VMWare and accessed with the Horizon client, and the newer ones are cloud apps with web front ends, with the ability to also connect SQL Server Management Studio or ODBC to an MS SQL Server colocated with the cloud app. All that works fine. Right now, I can access this on my company laptop, but it would be nice to also be able to have the same environment on my home desktop with its large monitors without the docking station and added wiring.
     
    E

    Ember

    Ars Centurion
    346
    Subscriptor++
  • #4
    What’s the definition of thin client nowadays?
    Are all solutions using web thin clients? I guess some webmail clients would use more CPU cycles and RAM than native client apps.
    I think remote desktops and screen sharing are. But what’s the merit if they run on rather beefy HW? I think we often use them because of company’s (security) policies.
    What about running a heavy dedicated app that distributes some jobs to compute clusters, like render farm? Is it thin?
     
    Y

    YoHo

    Ars Praefectus
    4,319
  • #5
    Agree, I don't even know what a thinclient means anymore. Even a Chromebook has pretty hefty CPU/Memory devices now adays.

    Anything outside of slack/Teams, Jira and office apps is on VMs in the corporate datacenter or my test lab, so yeah, I don't need a lot of CPU/memory for work tasks per se.

    But I'm not getting like an Atom device for home either. Even just Chrome eats up a lot of CPU/memory for stupid tasks.


    And some of the options up above don't really seem relevant to what I'd consider a thin client at all. Thin client doesn't just mean storage in the cloud or non-local or SAN/NAS.

    That's NOT any valid definition of Thin Client I've ever used. Thin Client basically means an RDP terminal with the computing being done in a DC somewhere. That VM in the DC may have "local" storage.
     
    S

    Shavano

    Ars Legatus Legionis
    59,253
    Subscriptor
  • #6
    Functionally RDP is a thin client system, regardless of whether your local computer has a lot of resources; you only are really using I/O at your location. Everything else is done on some computer somewhere else. Web browsers are similar except they can offload a lot of the computing back to the client system. Technically though most modern computers are thick clients since whether or not you're really using them, they can function independently if local applications and storage are sufficient.

    I'd say tablets are effectively thin clients, the way they're usually set up to work. They might have lots of local horsepower but people don't typically use them that way.
     
    E

    Ember

    Ars Centurion
    346
    Subscriptor++
  • #7
    Let's focus on SW only.
    What are the criteria for (or where's the threshold of) think client that you can determine some clients as thin and others as not-thin?

    Any client of client-server solution would be thinner than monolithic app solution running on local machine. But what distinguishes some of them as thin while others are to thin.

    Yes, primitive screen sharing that only passes bitmaps (and possibly some video) and mouse/keyboard events are thin. But even RDP is not as thin as many think, when all the features are supported.
    Windows RDB client on Windows is light because most of the features are actually implemented by OS or the standard library/framework like .NET. But if you want to implement full-featured RDP on Linux or other OS, it won't be as simple and you should implement lots of features or link to big libraries/frameworks.

    And Web browsers are really heavy nowadays. Modern HTML rendering is not simple and browsers should support complex script language and they all has JIT compiler now. Add up SVG support which requires full-featured 2D vector graphics.
    I guess Chrome's binary would be similar size (if not bigger) as Photoshop. (Could not compare because I don't have Photoshop).

    In a way, you and others consider client that allows remote computer providing interactive interface (mostly GUI) as thin client. But unlike decades ago when the client offered very shallow features (like screen sharing program of today), now RDP and Web browsers supports lots of complex features, to allow remote (server-side) offer rich interaction that runs fast enough. So the clients contain lots of features that's not trivial to implement, that remote side can simply use the feature instead of continuously sends bitmaps or get mouse events and respond at real time over the network.

    Maybe I can agree that screen sharing and most of the RDPs are thin. But I don't see any reason to consider any other as thin client.

    And my answer is that it's not good enough. The response is slow.
    Now as I'm working from home, I should connect to machines (including VMs in cluster) in my company to do my work as software engineer. (Can use Outlook and Web locally over VPN). But RDP does not work because all the work machine are Linux. I simply ssh from Windows Terminal (much better than Putty!!!) and WSL, unless I absolutely need to run some GUI apps.
     
    Ecmaster76

    Ecmaster76

    Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius
    14,668
    Subscriptor
  • #8
    YoHo said:
    Agree, I don't even know what a thinclient means anymore. Even a Chromebook has pretty hefty CPU/Memory devices now adays.

    Anything outside of slack/Teams, Jira and office apps is on VMs in the corporate datacenter or my test lab, so yeah, I don't need a lot of CPU/memory for work tasks per se.

    But I'm not getting like an Atom device for home either. Even just Chrome eats up a lot of CPU/memory for stupid tasks.


    And some of the options up above don't really seem relevant to what I'd consider a thin client at all. Thin client doesn't just mean storage in the cloud or non-local or SAN/NAS.

    That's NOT any valid definition of Thin Client I've ever used. Thin Client basically means an RDP terminal with the computing being done in a DC somewhere. That VM in the DC may have "local" storage.
    Click to expand...
    ++

    Also, at the very least, don't embark on thin clients/BYOD thinking that it will save the org money. Probably the opposite
     
    S

    Shavano

    Ars Legatus Legionis
    59,253
    Subscriptor
  • #9
    Yeah, I think it mostly makes sense when the required hardware to run your programs is really expensive and you have multiple user that need to access/control the system or you need to do it from multiple locations. Either giant data sets (corporate or government databases) or speed requirements beyond the reach of mass market desktop computers. For ordinary collaboration and remote work situations, cloud computing (that unfortunate name for keeping & sometimes sharing your files on a remote servers) works better.

    I disagree about thin client being hard on linux. Aren't windowing systems for Linux still built on X Windows? That's built from the ground up to work with thin clients. Maybe something has changed. It's been decades since I was a daily user of X11 but I can't imagine they've removed that functionality.
     
    A

    access

    Ars Tribunus Militum
    1,989
  • #10
    Shavano said:
    Yeah, I think it mostly makes sense when the required hardware to run your programs is really expensive and you have multiple user that need to access/control the system or you need to do it from multiple locations. Either giant data sets (corporate or government databases) or speed requirements beyond the reach of mass market desktop computers. For ordinary collaboration and remote work situations, cloud computing (that unfortunate name for keeping & sometimes sharing your files on a remote servers) works better.

    I disagree about thin client being hard on linux. Aren't windowing systems for Linux still built on X Windows? That's built from the ground up to work with thin clients. Maybe something has changed. It's been decades since I was a daily user of X11 but I can't imagine they've removed that functionality.
    Click to expand...

    "Linux" is moving to Wayland. X11 forwarding has been a shit show for a long time as most stuff uses very non-original-X11-extensions to get the work of a modern windowing system done. Waypipe is the replacement tech for network transparency.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: D Fluke
    E

    Ember

    Ars Centurion
    346
    Subscriptor++
  • #11
    Shavano said:
    Yeah, I think it mostly makes sense when the required hardware to run your programs is really expensive and you have multiple user that need to access/control the system or you need to do it from multiple locations. Either giant data sets (corporate or government databases) or speed requirements beyond the reach of mass market desktop computers. For ordinary collaboration and remote work situations, cloud computing (that unfortunate name for keeping & sometimes sharing your files on a remote servers) works better.
    Click to expand...

    This is classic usage of client-server solution, not thin client.
    Client-server solution (compared to SW running on a single host, that's usually a PC) are used in the following situations.
    1. The data should be shared by multiple hosts/people, making copies and modifying them on each host does not work. - The most classic use-case. The server manages DB (+plus some computation/manipulation on them if needed). Client relies on server for the management/manipulation of the data and focus on user interaction (presentation of data and UI).
    2. The computation and/or data size exceeds the capacity of typical PC that it should be processed by a big iron or cluster of computers. Again backend server (can be cluster of computers) does the hard work and client is responsible for UI.

    None of the use-case automatically makes the client thin.
    Actually most clients are thinner and lighter than servers. "Thin Client" is something that is thinner than typical PC/client.

    IIRC, Thin Client came to the world with the claims like below.
    * By delegating computations to server, you can use cheaper HW instead of typical PC (of the time) as a thin client and save money. - At the time, primitive RDP/screen sharing and the dumb Web was used.
    * (Not sure this was claimed at the time of birth, but anyway) The management/maintenance is easier because you don't have to migrate data when you have to replace the PC, nor you have to back up each PC. And as you don't install all kinds of apps to the PC it reduces the works of IT.

    Anyway none of your claims are about Thin Client, they're about client-server model (which includes most of the cloud computing).
     
    D

    [Dimetrodon]

    Smack-Fu Master, in training
    5
  • #12
    While I hardly require terabytes of RAM or multiple high performance CPUs for my computers to meet my needs, I am not in favor of a "thin client" system. I still want something that is comparable to a standard laptop so I can run multiple applications on it. Hardly an alienware, but not something that needs to be hooked up to a server to do every little thing.
     
    S

    Shavano

    Ars Legatus Legionis
    59,253
    Subscriptor
  • #13
    Lots of interesting thoughts.

    I'm wondering if doing a Google search and Google apps constitute "thin client" as it was originally envisioned. There's orders of magnitude computing power difference between most PC's (and phones and tablets) that are running searches as compared to the monster database and machinery that actually do the search. Although they'd have been thought of as major powerhouses in say, 1990, most of our computers are nothing compared to the server farms that host your Google search, or your Azure data for that matter.
     
    U

    U-99

    Guest
  • #15
    I currently use a virtual machine for work and overall enjoy the experience. No more schlepping a heavy corporate laptop on the subway, I can pull up my desktop from any presentation room, etc. When I travel, I can work from my personal tablet or laptop, eliminating my former frustration of schlepping two devices. It allows me to pull up business on my home machine setup with my preferred peripherals; no shuffling or KVM. While there is a noticeable hit to responsiveness, I've adapted and overall prefer the flexibility.

    That said, I also had a terrible pandemic thin client experience at a former client whose virtual machines inexplicably could slow to a crawl when on site (but never at home).
     
    skazz

    skazz

    Ars Praefectus
    5,033
    Subscriptor++
  • #16
    There are some weird definitions of thin clients here. Most of you are actually talking about server-based computing.

    Definitions:
    • Server-based computing is the datacenter and software side which is usually required to actually use a thin client system, but server-based computing can be used from any device with the appropriate client (be it a dedicated citrix client or just a web browser). However the thread is asking about thin clients not SBC.
    • Thin client systems are generally shitty lowest end devices which are basically a network stack, GPU, screen, keyboard and mouse. They have no local OS other than "just enough" to act as an SBC client. These things are useful in certain highly locked down cost efficiency scenarios to complement server-based computing.


    So let's think about 2 typical use cases for thin clients:
    1. To provide locked down computing devices in public or shared spaces, with no local content. Rip and replace, low cost and low value.
    2. To save costs on company end users in a locked down SBC environment. I.e. instead of work laptops.


    For me (1) remains a very valid use case of thin clients. However, any company which foists (2) on actual employees is inflicting cruel and unusual punishment. Thankfully Covid happened and almost all companies realized that they have to put secure computing practices into place despite allowing work from home - this must have dramatically reduced the ability of those companies foisting (2) on their employees to stick to that policy, since I highly doubt they could effectively get their employees to take thin clients and monitors home with them.


    So let's consign (2) to the garbage bin. (1) is a suitable use case for thin clients. (2) should be just SBC into whatever client device the end user has on hand to use, be it BYOD or a company laptop.
     
    U

    U-99

    Guest
  • #17
    I don't understand why (2) is offensive to you.

    My work desk has a tiny Dell thin client, which is perfectly adequate for logging into my virtual machine. I don't want a work laptop that I have to schlep on the subway, given that I have a 34" screen, a full keyboard, and a full mouse waiting for me. Are you suggesting that I should instead want a company laptop or have to drag my own in each workday?
     
    U

    U-99

    Guest
  • #19
    xcrunner529 said:
    What I found funny is most of the “thin” clients out there weren’t much cheaper than full blown PCs. So, why?
    Click to expand...
    Two guesses:
    1) Truly fungible computing where any workstation can be swapped out for any other with no mus, fuss, or imaging.
    2) Fewer parts to break/manage/fix.

    To flip it around, why deploy more complex and feature-rich full-blown machines if you can get away with thin clients?
     
    skazz

    skazz

    Ars Praefectus
    5,033
    Subscriptor++
  • #21
    U-99 said:
    I don't understand why (2) is offensive to you.

    My work desk has a tiny Dell thin client, which is perfectly adequate for logging into my virtual machine. I don't want a work laptop that I have to schlep on the subway, given that I have a 34" screen, a full keyboard, and a full mouse waiting for me. Are you suggesting that I should instead want a company laptop or have to drag my own in each workday?
    Click to expand...

    I guess my assumption was wrong: I was assuming that any company which provides thin clients also provides a very locked down and restricted SBC implementation which just isn't pleasant to work with.

    If you can access your own dedicated virtual machine and don't have to worry about unnecessarily annoying restrictions then I agree it's not too bad. But I'm rather surprised you would actually still have a dedicated work desk in these post-Covid times. So many companies are turning offices into meeting places rather than work places.
     
    U

    U-99

    Guest
  • #22
    skazz said:
    U-99 said:
    I don't understand why (2) is offensive to you.

    My work desk has a tiny Dell thin client, which is perfectly adequate for logging into my virtual machine. I don't want a work laptop that I have to schlep on the subway, given that I have a 34" screen, a full keyboard, and a full mouse waiting for me. Are you suggesting that I should instead want a company laptop or have to drag my own in each workday?
    Click to expand...

    I guess my assumption was wrong: I was assuming that any company which provides thin clients also provides a very locked down and restricted SBC implementation which just isn't pleasant to work with.

    If you can access your own dedicated virtual machine and don't have to worry about unnecessarily annoying restrictions then I agree it's not too bad. But I'm rather surprised you would actually still have a dedicated work desk in these post-Covid times. So many companies are turning offices into meeting places rather than work places.
    Click to expand...
    Financial services isn't tech and isn't pretending to be tech; most banks here are 3-5 days in the office, now. But hoteling is sort of orthogonal to using thin clients vs. laptops.
     
    Y

    YoHo

    Ars Praefectus
    4,319
  • #23
    xcrunner529 said:
    What I found funny is most of the “thin” clients out there weren’t much cheaper than full blown PCs. So, why?
    Click to expand...


    Are you comparing like for like here? Thin Clients are usually in the enterprise computing line where the thick clients are generally more expensive. But a thin client vs a consumer model might be comparable on price.

    Though at this point, I've not seen a real thin client in some time. The ultra tiny desktops are pretty powerful.
     
    X

    xcrunner529

    Account Banned
    5,601
  • #24
    YoHo said:
    xcrunner529 said:
    What I found funny is most of the “thin” clients out there weren’t much cheaper than full blown PCs. So, why?
    Click to expand...


    Are you comparing like for like here? Thin Clients are usually in the enterprise computing line where the thick clients are generally more expensive. But a thin client vs a consumer model might be comparable on price.

    Though at this point, I've not seen a real thin client in some time. The ultra tiny desktops are pretty powerful.
    Click to expand...

    https://www.dell.com/en-us/shop/scc/sc/ ... in-clients

    A couple hundred bucks (if that) difference.
     
    X

    xcrunner529

    Account Banned
    5,601
  • #26
    Horatio said:
    I kinda work with a thin client (though my thin client is an M1 Max MBP) - I do most of my work on VMs that I connect to via VSCode remoting, but it's nice having a reasonably fast machine for VSCode client, web, video conferencing, etc. as well as the occasional iOS build (since that can't be done remotely :( )
    Click to expand...

    Right. I feel most of my computing is on remote systems these days or jump hosts due to security. the client OS doesn't matter much.
     
    Y

    YoHo

    Ars Praefectus
    4,319
  • #27
    xcrunner529 said:
    YoHo said:
    xcrunner529 said:
    What I found funny is most of the “thin” clients out there weren’t much cheaper than full blown PCs. So, why?
    Click to expand...


    Are you comparing like for like here? Thin Clients are usually in the enterprise computing line where the thick clients are generally more expensive. But a thin client vs a consumer model might be comparable on price.

    Though at this point, I've not seen a real thin client in some time. The ultra tiny desktops are pretty powerful.
    Click to expand...

    https://www.dell.com/en-us/shop/scc/sc/ ... in-clients

    A couple hundred bucks (if that) difference.
    Click to expand...


    I don't know Dell's product line anymore so I don't know which sku to compare to. ON the HP side, the MSRP for their EliteDesk 800 G6 is $1159.00 That is a SFF full fat Enterprise class PC. Their Enterprise Thin Clients are about the same as Dell ~$600. So NO, comparing business class with business class. There is a pretty significant difference.

    You cannot compare to consumer/Small Business product. It's an entirely different level of build.
     
    X

    xcrunner529

    Account Banned
    5,601
  • #28
    YoHo said:
    xcrunner529 said:
    YoHo said:
    xcrunner529 said:
    What I found funny is most of the “thin” clients out there weren’t much cheaper than full blown PCs. So, why?
    Click to expand...


    Are you comparing like for like here? Thin Clients are usually in the enterprise computing line where the thick clients are generally more expensive. But a thin client vs a consumer model might be comparable on price.

    Though at this point, I've not seen a real thin client in some time. The ultra tiny desktops are pretty powerful.
    Click to expand...


    https://www.dell.com/en-us/shop/scc/sc/ ... in-clients

    A couple hundred bucks (if that) difference.
    Click to expand...


    I don't know Dell's product line anymore so I don't know which sku to compare to. ON the HP side, the MSRP for their EliteDesk 800 G6 is $1159.00 That is a SFF full fat Enterprise class PC. Their Enterprise Thin Clients are about the same as Dell ~$600. So NO, comparing business class with business class. There is a pretty significant difference.

    You cannot compare to consumer/Small Business product. It's an entirely different level of build.
    Click to expand...

    I’m not. You are welcome to actually view the link I posted and go to the desktops. I was comparing business desktops. The kind we at a large institution bought and used. Also, you can’t pick the up model laptop with the cheapest thin client.
     
    S

    Shavano

    Ars Legatus Legionis
    59,253
    Subscriptor
  • #32
    YoHo said:
    I don't know Chrome is such a resource hog. One wonders just how much power google's server farms waste given they can't even code a browser to not be wasteful.
    (note that Safari, Firefox, Edge aren't exactly stingy...just better)
    Click to expand...

    I can imagine them taking a different view of kWh they're paying for compared to kWh they're not paying for.
     
    D

    [Dimetrodon]

    Smack-Fu Master, in training
    5
  • #34
    xcrunner529 said:
    What I found funny is most of the “thin” clients out there weren’t much cheaper than full blown PCs. So, why?
    Click to expand...

    I honestly wonder if they're something from an earlier era, when computing power was more expensive than it is now. It would make sense to have the bare minimum computing power for something like a kiosk in the 90s and early 2000s, but now you're better off with a low end laptop and hooking that into a monitor. Ie. a full fledged computer what while at the low end, still isn't very "thin."
     
    • Like
    Reactions: whm2074
    G

    greatlakeexpat

    Ars Centurion
    357
  • #35
    I remember using a Sun Ray 1 a few times in college.

    Back then, I could see why they existed. Computers were still expensive, laptops were rare, wifi wasn't a major thing at all, and it was straight forward to just log with our smart card-enabled student ID. IIRC, we could do an RDP session if needed.

    They seem like a quant time capsule idea now.
     
    rek

    rek

    Ars Praetorian
    471
    Subscriptor
  • #36
    Jesus no, fuck no. Thin client technology can die in a fire. Remote management, fine, but I'd stab myself to death with a blunt spoon before using a thin client system 9-5.

    Just the question is triggering PTSD from using Citrix WinFrame/Metaframe on an X-Terminal for occasional Windows needs while at University in the late 90s. It didn't really work properly then, and as Moore's Law has marched on, it has no reason to exist now.

    If client system management is an issue, that's a symptom of that problem not being taken seriously (either by IT, or the OS/platform developers not providing adequate tools) - it's not an excuse to paper over the crack with thin client nonsense. Office desktop computers have been around for 40 YEARS now, there's no reason for enterprise wide management to not be a solved problem.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: whm2074 and Paul Hill
    Megalodon

    Megalodon

    Ars Legatus Legionis
    34,201
    Subscriptor++
  • #38
    rek said:
    Just the question is triggering PTSD from using Citrix WinFrame/Metaframe on an X-Terminal for occasional Windows needs while at University in the late 90s. It didn't really work properly then, and as Moore's Law has marched on, it has no reason to exist now.
    Click to expand...

    Idk, these things tend to be cyclical. Game streaming services have quite a good value proposition these days. Doing the math I don't think I could maintain a comparable gaming PC for any length of time for what the service costs, and it lets me chuck a cheapo Atom box anywhere I want. Living room, treadmill, whatever.

    My understanding is there's a lot of people doing CAD and similar with a similar approach for similar reasons.
     
    You must log in or register to reply here.
    Jump to latest Follow Reply
    Jump to latest Follow Reply