Maker Pro
Maker Pro

Jetstar unveils thin client, BYO laptop vision

C

Clocky

blank said:
If so, get one. Appalling is one of the first words you should try
to learn to spell correctly. Wanker.

Clearly that was just a typo, but the question remains just as valid.
 
D

David Segall

Sylvia Else said:
So, not such a good time to be working for Jetstar's internal IT
department then.

Not a good time to be working for Jetstar in general. The article
suggests that Jetstar expect you to own your own laptop. No doubt,
Jetstar will "help" you buy one. If you have had a suitable private
school education you will understand that they expect you to have your
own computer and that they are entitled to earn a commission when you
buy it
<http://www.mlcsyd.nsw.edu.au/public/our_facilities/laptop_support.cfm>.
 
F

Frank Slootweg

Kwyjibo said:
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
 
R

Rob

Clocky said:
Not a chance, we had two Microbees and some ancient thing that read
punchcards ;-)

Ah yes the Microbee 32K wonderful and a tape drive to load programmes.
 
A

Andy

Kwyjibo said:
Frank said:
Kwyjibo said:
Frank Slootweg 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.

LOL :) Too true.

Andy.
 
T

The Real Andy

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.
 
K

keithr

The said:
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.
 
T

terryc

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.

Weird, all the IT depts I worked for hated them.
 
F

Frank Slootweg

Kwyjibo said:
Frank said:
Kwyjibo said:
Frank Slootweg 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. 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.
 
T

terryc

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.
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.
 
K

keithr

Kwyjibo said:
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?
 
T

terryc

"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.
 
T

terryc

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.
 
T

Terry Dawson

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
 
F

Frank Slootweg

Kwyjibo said:
Frank said:
Kwyjibo said:
Frank Slootweg wrote:
Frank Slootweg 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!
 
F

Frank Slootweg

Kwyjibo said:
"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!
 
J

Jasen Betts

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)
 
F

Frank Slootweg

Jasen Betts said:
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.

[...]
 
B

Bob Larter

Kwyjibo said:
Frank said:
Kwyjibo said:
Frank Slootweg wrote:
Frank Slootweg 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!
 
Top