Jetstar unveils thin client, BYO laptop vision

[terryc]

On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 20:24:02 +1000, Kwyjibo wrote:

"Thin clients" in the 80's were simply remote TTY devices. They were
only capable of displaying text - not a GUI.

That is what I call serial terminals and they are older.

You had better define what you mean by a thin terminal.
Most to me are just mini-computers, with very small boxes.
You might also want to define gui?

Most people might think it came after computer mice, but there have been
a pile of other devices before that which did similar jobs suck as track
balls, joysticks and digitizer tablets that interacted with a gui.

 

[Kwyjibo]

terryc wrote:

On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 20:24:02 +1000, Kwyjibo wrote:


"Thin clients" in the 80's were simply remote TTY devices. They were
only capable of displaying text - not a GUI.

That is what I call serial terminals and they are older.

You had better define what you mean by a thin terminal.

Considering the discussion started out by talking about Wyse terminals, what
do you think I meant?

Most to me are just mini-computers, with very small boxes.
You might also want to define gui?

Same as most other people mean when they refer to a GUI - A *graphical* user
interface. i.e. A user interface that is interacted with using graphic
elements - not just text.

Most people might think it came after computer mice, but there have
been a pile of other devices before that which did similar jobs suck
as track balls, joysticks and digitizer tablets that interacted with
a gui.

Who mentioned *how* you interact with it?

--
Kwyj.

 

[Kwyjibo]

keithr wrote:

Kwyjibo wrote:
keithr wrote:
The Real Andy wrote:
On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 09:05:10 +0800, Hunter <hunter01@iinet.net.au
wrote:

keithr wrote:
On 7/09/2009 6:48 PM, Don McKenzie wrote:
Here is another, "I guess it had to happen sooner or later"
story.
http://www.australianit.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26021336-15306,00.html

Throw out the existing IT department, BYO Latptop, and the
company issues a 16Gb memory stick with the company software on
board. Companies such as Jetstar, may do a free issue of the Laptop
in
the first instance, but no IT team is needed for daily support.

If the Laptop breaks down, the memory stick is transferred to
another Laptop. They are really talking about under $800
netbooks here. Slip it into your bag, and off to work we go.
Hiho!! HiHo!! Don...
Wyse? I thought that they were dead years ago, Fujitsu bought
them. Maybe someone has done a Lazarus on the name. The thin
clients look like we are heading back into the days of green
screen terminals, just with some fancy graphics built in.
Nope Wyse are still kicking, and whilst it's not up to a desktop
PC it ain't far off with current technology.

I'm currently implementing VMWare View where I work, and it's an
amazing technology. Delivers your work desktop to you where-ever
you happen to be with an internet connection, basically using a
really souped up RDP session (souped up to the point that the old
horse and cart is now more like a Lambaghini).

Storage ain't a massive issue as it has a "gold image" which is
referenced by all users, and there is just a "differential" image
kept for each of the users to keep track of any changes. The
differentials are blown away every 7 days or so, but the profile
information is kept intact and stored elsewhere, so the user
doesn't really notice the difference as long as they don't do
silly things like dumping data onto C drive outside of their
profile (company policy is to store all data on the network
anyway). Now getting back to your comments, one of the packages that
comes
bundled with View is Thinapp (previously Thinstall until VMWare
bought it and souped it up further), so the way we do things is
all SOE apps are on the Gold view image, and any other required
software we thinapp and stick on the network, where only those
authorised to use those apps can run them. They run beautifully
(even large apps) from the network as thinapp only streams the
parts of the app to you that you need as you need them, it doesn't
need to shunt the whole thing across to your machine, I'm sure
that technology would work equally well off of a USB stick or
similar. And the Wyse terminals (we're using S10's and V10L's) are
nearly
up to scratch of having a desktop PC. Wyse have done some interesting
things with compression and the streaming of video and sound to
their terminals (the only place where they fall behind a full
desktop PC), and with what we've got now we can wack a V10L on a
desk, point it to an FTP server to pick up it's config and
licensing, plug in a monitor and bang it's up and running.
Connects to the View broker, user authenticates and they get their own
personalised machine up on the screen, from where they could watch
a movie if they wanted to even though they're just sitting at a
thin client. We've ruled out replacing all desktops with these
terminals though,
as they have implications in respect to Windows licensing which we
don't encounter buying OEM PC's, and after the licensing is sorted
you're nearly paying as much as a PC anyway. Also the user
experience isn't the same as sitting at a real PC, it's nearly
there, but the performance isn't all the way there. For instance
you can't just add a codec to your master image to make everything
good for new video formats, you'll find crappy performance as Wyse
will not have catered for that codec yet, shit they've only just
got flash working, and even that is a tad flakey. Instead we'll be
buying a bunch for rapid implmentations, temporary work area set
ups, overflow usage, and hot desks and so on. But the PC's will
still be there for a while yet.

OVer the last few years I have considered all sorts of
architechtures for different apps, and they all have their place.

Take for example, ebay. web client for most users. However power
sellers have the option of 3rd party smart clients. Have you tried
using a web client on daily basis for business? Think apps like
people soft.

Your accountant? As a business owner I use a web based accounting
package. However my accountant would be unable to use it
efficiently and instead uses a thick client.

However, if you own a large chain of businesses doing POS then a
web client will not cut it and a thin client is a lot more suited.

This is why I refuse to buy into the deabates on thin v web v
smart v thick client becase all have their place in modern
computing.
Thin clients are an excuse for IT departments to party like its
1985, they have hated the users being able to do their own thing,
now they are drawing it all back into the computer room again.

Crap.
Users have the same permissions on a virtual desktop as they have on
a physical PC. It's all dependent on how the OS has been configured
(user permissions, group policies etc.) and has SFA to do with how
the OS is accessed.


So the user can just slip in a CD or a DVD and load a new application
of their choosing at will?

If the end device has a CD or DVD drive (unlikely) or they have a USB drive
available - yep. Again - it all comes back to how the operating system has
been locked down by the admin. The fact that it's virtual and sitting in a
data centre is irrelevant.

The reasons for virtual desktops rising in popularity are mainly:
1. Power/cooling reduction - 1000 VMs running on 15 servers at 800W each
each cheaper to run and cool than 1000 PCs pulling 200W each)
2. Reduction in support/downtime - The end devices are stateless. If one
dies, have a spare in the cupboard that you plug in and you're up and
running again in seconds. If the virtual OS gets corrupted it can be reset
to default within seconds too. No more fucking around with finding the right
image, rebuilding, reinstalling apps etc.
3. Centralisation of data - No more issues with users keeping critical data
on local disks and having a drive failure. Keep the data on a centralised
NAS or SAN where it's nice and safe
4. Ease of patching/upgrades - As Hunter mentioned, it uses Gold Masters
which all users are linked to. Just patch or upgrade these images and the
users get the new image the next time they log on. I've personally upgraded
a 4000+ seat environment from XP to Vista overnight. Try doing that with
physical desktops.



--
Kwyj.

 

[Terry Dawson]

On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 11:26:28 +0000 (UTC), terryc
<newsninespam-spam@woa.com.au> said:

Oh well, graphical terminals have been around since the 70s. So, if
a
wyse termial is a thin terminal, then they have been around since
then.

The X protocol was around in the 80's, Wyse were one of a number of
vendors of X displays. At about the same time SUN had some sort of
postscript-based protocol and clients kicking around.

IBM had graphical display terminals around for some years in their
SNA environment.

I remember using over a 2400bps dial-up a lightweight GUI protocol
contrived I think by AT&T in the early 90's that had been around a
while before I found it.

I'm sure there were others.

A big factor in centralised vs decentralised IT architectures is
always the data volume vs network cost trade-off. Network is getting
relatively cheap again so centralisation is again being revisited.

Terry

 

[terryc]

On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 21:09:25 +1000, Kwyjibo wrote:

Who mentioned *how* you interact with it?

Oh well, graphical terminals have been around since the 70s. So, if a
wyse termial is a thin terminal, then they have been around since then.

 

[Frank Slootweg]

Kwyjibo <kwyjibo@ozdebate.remove.com> wrote:

Frank Slootweg wrote:
Kwyjibo <kwyjibo@ozdebate.remove.com> wrote:
Frank Slootweg wrote:
Kwyjibo <kwyjibo@ozdebate.remove.com> wrote:
Frank Slootweg wrote:
keithr <keithr@nowhere.com.au> wrote:
[...]
Wyse? I thought that they were dead years ago, Fujitsu bought
them. Maybe someone has done a Lazarus on the name. The thin
clients look like we are heading back into the days of green
screen terminals, just with some fancy graphics built in.

Yes, 'thin clients' are SO 19*80*'s! :-(

You clearly haven't seen any of the recent ones (<5 years old)
then.

Yes I have, 'we' [1] also *made/make* them, as I said, since the
1980's.

[...]

The notion of having a memory stick with all the software on it
is a bit suss though, the performance wouldn't exactly be
startling.

The software does not have to *run* from the memory stick (only
'install'). Also *data* can be cached and synced.

It can run from the stick as well.

Yes, of course it can, I was just addressing the - possible -
performance issue.

[1] HP

Oh. My condolences. That explains your poor experience.

My experience is quite postive, thank you, because it's not limited
to the "<5 years old" me-too era you're referring to.

I said "Yes, 'thin clients' are SO 19*80*'s! :-(" because that's
exactly what they are.

Bullshit.
That's as stupid as claiming that PC's haven't changed since the 80's.

Nothing wrong with using thin clients, but all
these people re-inventing the wheel and then pretending or even
claiming something 'new' is quite pathetic, IMHO.

Name one thin client that provided a remote GUI capability back in the 80's,
stupid.

Sigh! When I want to hear things "bullshit", "stupid" and getting
*called* "stupid", just 'taking' to Mr. Speed is more than enough. I
don't need another source of abuse, thank you very much.

And yes, there is such a thin client and you already know the brand,
so happy Googling!

 

[Frank Slootweg]

Kwyjibo <kwyjibo@ozdebate.remove.com> wrote:

terryc wrote:
On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 13:29:53 +1000, Kwyjibo wrote:

That's as stupid as claiming that PC's haven't changed since the
80's.

Well, they still have the same components, just different styles
really.

Nothing wrong with using thin clients, but all these people
re-inventing the wheel and then pretending or even claiming
something 'new' is quite pathetic, IMHO.

Name one thin client that provided a remote GUI capability back in
the 80's, stupid.

All of them. It was just a matter of a longer monitor cable.
Ohterwise, it is just the application they run.

"Thin clients" in the 80's were simply remote TTY devices. They were only
capable of displaying text - not a GUI.

Damn! All this time I was using a (graphical) windowing system and a
mouse/trackball and *now* you tell me that I was only imagining things!
I'm crushed!

 

[Jasen Betts]

On 2009-09-10, Kwyjibo <kwyjibo@ozdebate.remove.com> wrote:

Frank Slootweg wrote:

Nothing wrong with using thin clients, but all
these people re-inventing the wheel and then pretending or even
claiming something 'new' is quite pathetic, IMHO.

Name one thin client that provided a remote GUI capability back in the 80's,
stupid.

Anything that ran "X window system".

It wasn't until feb 1990 that I actually got my hands on a thin client though.
(It was a re-purposed sun3) the display was huge (21"?) and had some insane
number of pixels 1.5M? black and white. (mono 1bpp)

 

[Frank Slootweg]

Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> wrote:

On 2009-09-10, Kwyjibo <kwyjibo@ozdebate.remove.com> wrote:
Frank Slootweg wrote:

Nothing wrong with using thin clients, but all
these people re-inventing the wheel and then pretending or even
claiming something 'new' is quite pathetic, IMHO.

Name one thin client that provided a remote GUI capability back in
the 80's, stupid.

Anything that ran "X window system".

Also note that the X Window System was not the only, and AFAIK/IIRC,
not the first window system, at least not the first commercially
available window system.

[...]

 

[Bob Larter]

Kwyjibo wrote:

Frank Slootweg wrote:
Kwyjibo <kwyjibo@ozdebate.remove.com> wrote:
Frank Slootweg wrote:
Kwyjibo <kwyjibo@ozdebate.remove.com> wrote:
Frank Slootweg wrote:
keithr <keithr@nowhere.com.au> wrote:
[...]
Wyse? I thought that they were dead years ago, Fujitsu bought
them. Maybe someone has done a Lazarus on the name. The thin
clients look like we are heading back into the days of green
screen terminals, just with some fancy graphics built in.
Yes, 'thin clients' are SO 19*80*'s! :-(
You clearly haven't seen any of the recent ones (<5 years old)
then.
Yes I have, 'we' [1] also *made/make* them, as I said, since the
1980's.

[...]

The notion of having a memory stick with all the software on it
is a bit suss though, the performance wouldn't exactly be
startling.
The software does not have to *run* from the memory stick (only
'install'). Also *data* can be cached and synced.
It can run from the stick as well.
Yes, of course it can, I was just addressing the - possible -
performance issue.

[1] HP
Oh. My condolences. That explains your poor experience.
My experience is quite postive, thank you, because it's not limited
to the "<5 years old" me-too era you're referring to.

I said "Yes, 'thin clients' are SO 19*80*'s! :-(" because that's
exactly what they are.

Bullshit.
That's as stupid as claiming that PC's haven't changed since the 80's.

Nothing wrong with using thin clients, but all
these people re-inventing the wheel and then pretending or even
claiming something 'new' is quite pathetic, IMHO.

Name one thin client that provided a remote GUI capability back in the 80's,
stupid.

X Windows.

HTH!

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Bob Larter]

Kwyjibo wrote:

terryc wrote:
On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 13:29:53 +1000, Kwyjibo wrote:


That's as stupid as claiming that PC's haven't changed since the
80's.
Well, they still have the same components, just different styles
really.
Nothing wrong with using thin clients, but all these people
re-inventing the wheel and then pretending or even claiming
something 'new' is quite pathetic, IMHO.
Name one thin client that provided a remote GUI capability back in
the 80's, stupid.
All of them. It was just a matter of a longer monitor cable.
Ohterwise, it is just the application they run.

"Thin clients" in the 80's were simply remote TTY devices. They were only
capable of displaying text - not a GUI.

Not so. There were several GUI capable thin clients for Unix for example.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Kwyjibo]

Jasen Betts wrote:

On 2009-09-10, Kwyjibo <kwyjibo@ozdebate.remove.com> wrote:
Frank Slootweg wrote:

Nothing wrong with using thin clients, but all
these people re-inventing the wheel and then pretending or even
claiming something 'new' is quite pathetic, IMHO.

Name one thin client that provided a remote GUI capability back in
the 80's, stupid.

Anything that ran "X window system".

Anything? We're talking about 'thin' clients here, not workstations.

While there might have been a miniscule number of them in places like MIT or
DEC labs in the VERY late 80s, X-Terminals certainly weren't even close to
common until the 90s.

It wasn't until feb 1990 that I actually got my hands on a thin
client though. (It was a re-purposed sun3)

A Sun3 could NEVER be called 'thin' unless you ran over it with a steam
roller.


--
Kwyj.

 

[Kwyjibo]

Bob Larter wrote:

Kwyjibo wrote:
Frank Slootweg wrote:
Kwyjibo <kwyjibo@ozdebate.remove.com> wrote:
Frank Slootweg wrote:
Kwyjibo <kwyjibo@ozdebate.remove.com> wrote:
Frank Slootweg wrote:
keithr <keithr@nowhere.com.au> wrote:
[...]
Wyse? I thought that they were dead years ago, Fujitsu bought
them. Maybe someone has done a Lazarus on the name. The thin
clients look like we are heading back into the days of green
screen terminals, just with some fancy graphics built in.
Yes, 'thin clients' are SO 19*80*'s! :-(
You clearly haven't seen any of the recent ones (<5 years old)
then.
Yes I have, 'we' [1] also *made/make* them, as I said, since the
1980's.

[...]

The notion of having a memory stick with all the software on it
is a bit suss though, the performance wouldn't exactly be
startling.
The software does not have to *run* from the memory stick (only
'install'). Also *data* can be cached and synced.
It can run from the stick as well.
Yes, of course it can, I was just addressing the - possible -
performance issue.

[1] HP
Oh. My condolences. That explains your poor experience.
My experience is quite postive, thank you, because it's not limited
to the "<5 years old" me-too era you're referring to.

I said "Yes, 'thin clients' are SO 19*80*'s! :-(" because that's
exactly what they are.

Bullshit.
That's as stupid as claiming that PC's haven't changed since the
80's.
Nothing wrong with using thin clients, but all
these people re-inventing the wheel and then pretending or even
claiming something 'new' is quite pathetic, IMHO.

Name one thin client that provided a remote GUI capability back in
the 80's, stupid.

X Windows.

X Windows isn't a thin client. An X Terminal is but they weren't generally
available until the 90s.

HTH!

You didn't.

--
Kwyj.

 

[Frank Slootweg]

Kwyjibo <kwyjibo@ozdebate.remove.com> wrote:

Jasen Betts wrote:
On 2009-09-10, Kwyjibo <kwyjibo@ozdebate.remove.com> wrote:
Frank Slootweg wrote:

Nothing wrong with using thin clients, but all
these people re-inventing the wheel and then pretending or even
claiming something 'new' is quite pathetic, IMHO.

Name one thin client that provided a remote GUI capability back in
the 80's, stupid.

Anything that ran "X window system".

Anything? We're talking about 'thin' clients here, not workstations.

"Anything" is indeed an overstatement, but there is no reason to
*exclude* 'workstations' as possible thin clients, i.e. not all
workstations are/can_be thin clients, but some are/can_be. We're getting
warmer!

While there might have been a miniscule number of them in places like MIT or
DEC labs in the VERY late 80s, X-Terminals certainly weren't even close to
common until the 90s.

Agreed.

It wasn't until feb 1990 that I actually got my hands on a thin
client though. (It was a re-purposed sun3)

A Sun3 could NEVER be called 'thin' unless you ran over it with a steam
roller.

We were talking about *computers*, so what has Sun got to do with
anything!?

Trivia question: Which company created the first Sun OS?

 

[keithr]

Kwyjibo wrote:

Jasen Betts wrote:
On 2009-09-10, Kwyjibo <kwyjibo@ozdebate.remove.com> wrote:
Frank Slootweg wrote:

Nothing wrong with using thin clients, but all
these people re-inventing the wheel and then pretending or even
claiming something 'new' is quite pathetic, IMHO.
Name one thin client that provided a remote GUI capability back in
the 80's, stupid.
Anything that ran "X window system".

Anything? We're talking about 'thin' clients here, not workstations.

While there might have been a miniscule number of them in places like MIT or
DEC labs in the VERY late 80s, X-Terminals certainly weren't even close to
common until the 90s.

The ANU had a bunch of them in the mid 1980s

It wasn't until feb 1990 that I actually got my hands on a thin
client though. (It was a re-purposed sun3)

A Sun3 could NEVER be called 'thin' unless you ran over it with a steam
roller.

Physically definitely not, logically they were thin.

 

[terryc]

On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 01:26:13 +1000, Kwyjibo wrote:

X Windows isn't a thin client. An X Terminal is but they weren't
generally available until the 90s.

The word "generally" is not a qualifier I believe was initially used.
Some of us used "X terminals" in the 70's.

 

[Kwyjibo]

keithr wrote:

Kwyjibo wrote:
Jasen Betts wrote:
On 2009-09-10, Kwyjibo <kwyjibo@ozdebate.remove.com> wrote:
Frank Slootweg wrote:

Nothing wrong with using thin clients, but all
these people re-inventing the wheel and then pretending or even
claiming something 'new' is quite pathetic, IMHO.
Name one thin client that provided a remote GUI capability back in
the 80's, stupid.
Anything that ran "X window system".

Anything? We're talking about 'thin' clients here, not workstations.

While there might have been a miniscule number of them in places
like MIT or DEC labs in the VERY late 80s, X-Terminals certainly
weren't even close to common until the 90s.

The ANU had a bunch of them in the mid 1980s

It wasn't until feb 1990 that I actually got my hands on a thin
client though. (It was a re-purposed sun3)

A Sun3 could NEVER be called 'thin' unless you ran over it with a
steam roller.

Physically definitely not, logically they were thin.

And this discussion was about physically thin clients - Hence the discussion
starting off with Wyse terminals.

--
Kwyj.

 

[Kwyjibo]

Frank Slootweg wrote:

Kwyjibo <kwyjibo@ozdebate.remove.com> wrote:
Jasen Betts wrote:
On 2009-09-10, Kwyjibo <kwyjibo@ozdebate.remove.com> wrote:
Frank Slootweg wrote:

Nothing wrong with using thin clients, but all
these people re-inventing the wheel and then pretending or even
claiming something 'new' is quite pathetic, IMHO.

Name one thin client that provided a remote GUI capability back in
the 80's, stupid.

Anything that ran "X window system".

Anything? We're talking about 'thin' clients here, not workstations.

"Anything" is indeed an overstatement, but there is no reason to
*exclude* 'workstations' as possible thin clients, i.e. not all
workstations are/can_be thin clients, but some are/can_be. We're
getting warmer!

See the earlier references to Wyse - We are talking about single purpose,
physically thin clients.
Workstations don't even come close.

While there might have been a miniscule number of them in places
like MIT or DEC labs in the VERY late 80s, X-Terminals certainly
weren't even close to common until the 90s.

Agreed.

It wasn't until feb 1990 that I actually got my hands on a thin
client though. (It was a re-purposed sun3)

A Sun3 could NEVER be called 'thin' unless you ran over it with a
steam roller.

We were talking about *computers*, so what has Sun got to do with
anything!?

Trivia question: Which company created the first Sun OS?

Dunno. If it wasn't Sun it probably would have been AT&T.


--
Kwyj.

 

[Kwyjibo]

terryc wrote:

On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 01:26:13 +1000, Kwyjibo wrote:


X Windows isn't a thin client. An X Terminal is but they weren't
generally available until the 90s.

The word "generally" is not a qualifier I believe was initially used.
Some of us used "X terminals" in the 70's.

LOL.
So you powered them on and waited (at least) 4 years for something to
connect to?


--
Kwyj.

 

[Jasen Betts]

On 2009-09-16, Kwyjibo <kwyjibo@ozdebate.remove.com> wrote:

Jasen Betts wrote:
On 2009-09-10, Kwyjibo <kwyjibo@ozdebate.remove.com> wrote:
Frank Slootweg wrote:

Nothing wrong with using thin clients, but all
these people re-inventing the wheel and then pretending or even
claiming something 'new' is quite pathetic, IMHO.

Name one thin client that provided a remote GUI capability back in
the 80's, stupid.

Anything that ran "X window system".

Anything? We're talking about 'thin' clients here, not workstations.

While there might have been a miniscule number of them in places like MIT or
DEC labs in the VERY late 80s, X-Terminals certainly weren't even close to
common until the 90s.


It wasn't until feb 1990 that I actually got my hands on a thin
client though. (It was a re-purposed sun3)

A Sun3 could NEVER be called 'thin' unless you ran over it with a steam
roller.

at 1U these sun3's were thinner than most desktop machines.

but the term thin client was popularised two years after my first
encounter with theses diskless X machines.