I would add the following thin-client objections (or, reasons for fat-clients) to the original list based on a client's recent comparison between SunRay, Dell (with their PC-over-IP technology) and Cubix LaserCube-SX (fat-client technology(LaserBlade), remote graphics processing) in which I participated:
1. Thin-clients cannot spin 3D objects of any complexity at anywhere near the equivalent frame rate of a PC configured with a decent, discrete graphics controller designed for 3D graphics.
2. Fat-clients do not blue-screen when attempting to spin 3D CAD drawings. (Sun Rays do)
3. Fat-clients do not get laughed at by Sr. CAD/MCAD engineers when asked if they hold-up well when hosting large 3D CAD files. (Sun and Dell were both ridiculed internally)
When looking at professional 3D graphics markets (CAD/MCAD, DCC, NLE, Visualization, Design Engineering, medical imaging), thin client has alot of engineering to do in order to catch up to PC-level graphics performance. The Teradici-based solutions can run 3D-based graphics in standard office applications much better than thin client has in the past, but are still limited by the media (copper) and transport (IP packets) they utilize. Latency becomes a major issue as distances between host and remote client increases, and/or the required resolution and/or required frame rate increases.
Furthermore, Hollywood is not on the thin-client bandwagon, and won't be for some time, due to the required compression schemes of each different technology alone, not too mention the other negatives mentioned in the original posting. Compression = image softness and visual artifacts. Technologies which do not compress I/O signals, graphics or otherwise, may get the nod from VFX and other post-production markets for this fact alone (make note of Cubix LaserCube-SX above). In the CAD/MCAD world, compression artifacts negatively affect users of software products designed to enhance or support collaboration across remote sites. Would you be willing to bet your life on medical imaging technology which is based on thin-client or PC-over-IP technology? Me neither.
Don't get me wrong - thin client technology, KVM-over-IP, and PC-over-IP all have valuable uses, just not with most 3D graphics-intensive applications, professional markets in particular. Stick to what you do best, and if the day comes when thin-client can match up performance, feature, & price-wise with mid-range or high-end standalone PCs, then it's a dark day for desktop PC manufacturers.
And, I would also add to David's list that fat-clients do not have any CAL, OS, and seat licensing maintenance issues, unlike thin-clients.
"I am just looking in to creating a list of the most common objections regarding Thin Clients?"
Objections? That's an interesting question. Personally, I think Thin clients are the best way to leverage Citrix. Otherwise what are you doing? Centralized application delivery saddled with the cost of desktop support buys you an environment that garners the advantages of neither.
I don't believe in a "one shoe fits all" mentality. Depending on the business needs, you can leverage the power of Terminal Services/Citrix by cutting desktop support costs (by deploying Thin Clients). However, there are going to be users in the environment that clearly need the power of a desktop PC.
Having said that, Administrators are often saddled with implementing the (flawed) IT roadmaps of those in the position of making these decisions. There is no doubt that the centralized computing model can save costs in the large corporate environment. However, considerable skill and experience are needed to pull it off and maintain a user experience similar to deskop PC's.
Now, with the predominance of Java and .NET front-ends (and the need to put MS-Office on every desktop), we are finding that density levels at the server side are falling (while maintaining said experience). The Thin-client industry has responded with Windows CE, and now XP embedded - which is starting to encroach on the COO and ROI that Linux, Windows CE, and proprietary OS's (Blazer and others) brought to the table (on the Thin Clients).
While LAN technologies have gone to Gb to the desktop, conventional WAN technologies still lag behind in many ways. While Cable, DSL, and WiFi technologies easily exceed the bandwidth of the typical T1, they are not geared for the corporate topology (with reference to the remote office, rather than the road warrior) .
As long as RAM and disk remains relatively cheap, there is no incentive for programmers to write lean applications. This will remain a problem for Citrix and VMWare administrators until application software and peripheral manufacturers write good code for the IA64 platform.
I am a firm advocate of the thin client marriage to Terminal Service/Citrix solution, but there are limitations.
Samuel A. RodriguezSr. Systems Administrator
My recent experience is to stay away from Windows XPe or anything that looks like Windows on the thinclient. The customer may expect you to install programs on it and make it work like a PC. Thinclients should do one thing. Boot to a Citrix client and allow you to connect to Citrix servers or apps. The less Windows looking front end, the better in my opinion. It's not a pc and shouldn't even give the hint it may be.
I agree with that sentiment.
The biggest reason I started looking (and testing) XPe was peripheral support. The "supported peripheral" matrix for many of the Linux or CE based thin-clients is pretty thin. These days, you're being asked to support document and barcode scanners, local printers, card readers, and soon - biometrics readers in your Citrix environment. The second reason was Server to Client Re-direction. Which in the case of IE, can really help offload substantial Context Switches/Sec, and mitigate a percentage of the Paging/Sec that will surely be happening to your servers if you run a fully featured desktop environment. Building-out is another method, but...
It doesn't help when the vendors tell the decision makers that they can get 100 users on each host machine - meanwhile, back at the farm, you're getting 30-40!
- maybe because the vendor wasn't told he needs to provide a desktop environment in each session with Telnet, full blown MS-Office Pro to include Outlook (of course) and Powerpoint (so users can view training materials on Sharepoint), Internet Explorer (including media player plug-ins like Flash & Shockwave), and a handfull of other applications, not to mention connections to several printers and department shares... Sound familiar?
I agree with both of you. Although I don't provide support services for either thin-client or PCs, I am asked by clients to provide detailed analysis of the various desktop technologies. I also use both technologies every day, and it's very clear to me where each fits. I literally could not do my job without use of both thin-client and full PC funct