On 19/05/17 17:57, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 19/05/17 17:40, Adrian Caspersz wrote:

>> Me scratches head. How come the existing thin client machines got
>> viruses? They should have no direct route themselves to the internet!
>>
>
> Maybe that's why the replacements are not going to.
>
>> Android TV boxes are also cheap, and have fast GPUs....
>>
>
> Hardware aint the problem.
>

When I was involved, it was.

Thin client boxes from the likes of HP are ridiculously expensive for
what they are. I pulled multiple 100's out of a nationwide office
deployment, these t5145 VIA Eden 500 MHz things had 512MB of ram and a
GPU that visibly couldn't move GUI drawn structures fast enough.
Scrolling was a joke, even on good network bandwidth.

The t5565 replacements built on Intel Atom something had better
graphics, 1GB of memory. Users complemented the better responsiveness,
but the cost was eyewatering. £150 / workstation.

But in the end we got fed up, and replaced them all with Windows 7 mini
PCs. Destroyed the Citrix terminal server farm, sat the PCs all on
authentication servers and migrated most of the office apps out on to
the google cloud.

Based on my experience looking at rendering speeds in a web browser, I
don't think the RPi (graphics/network) is fast enough to do a remote
desktop service, let alone anything more fancy.

Maybe it doesn't matter for the application, if not full desktop.

...

BTW I have 40 t5145 thin clients doing nothing, thought it would make a
nice linux standalone minimal feature machine with potential for
marketing to hobbyists. This guy had a similar evangelicalism.

http://www.parkytowers.me.uk/thin/

Then someone went and launched the Raspberry Pi.....

--
Adrian C

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05