Cover Story (sidebar) / April 1997

10 Myths About Thin Clients

Tom R. Halfhill

1. They're dumb terminals.

Anyone who says this either doesn't know what he or she is talking about or hopes you don't. True, some thin clients are smart graphics terminals, but all NCs are computers.

2. They're stripped-down PCs.

That's like saying a PC is a stripped-down minicomputer. Actually, some NCs are faster than PCs because they can use any CPU or OS.

3. They'll replace PCs.

Thin clients can replace PCs for some purposes, but they'll never replace them for all purposes.

4. They're only for home users.

NC vendors have always identified three markets: business, home, and education.

5. They're only for surfing the Web.

That would come as a surprise to the many vendors of business software for thin clients.

6. They use TVs as display devices.

While some low-end NCs for consumers might only use a TV, all thin clients for the corporate market work with standard video monitors at standard resolutions.

7. They cost $500.

NCs for the consumer market typically cost $500 (or less), but business systems usually cost between $750 and $1200. They save companies money by reducing administrative costs more than acquisition costs.

8. No hard drives.

Hard drives are optional. When present, a hard drive caches programs and data; persistent copies reside on a server. This eliminates the biggest source of problems with PCs: persistent local storage, which entails software installation, software conflicts, viruses, corrupted files, obsolete software, and so forth.

9. They take 15 minutes to boot up.

NCs based on Oracle's reference design store the OS and key applications in ROM, so they start instantly. Others take no longer to boot than a PC. (Have you booted Windows 95 lately?)

10. They're not mobile.

There's no reason why a mobile NC can't cache files and software on a hard drive while untethered to a network. There's also no reason why people can't keep using mobile PCs, even if they have NCs back at the office.

Copyright 1994-1998 BYTE

Return to Tom's BYTE index page