Talk:Thin client/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

User-interface device vs. Device for running a thin client application program

What's the difference between these two? To me, they both look the same. Also, I suggest using the term "thin terminal" when referring to appliances/devices. --PeterAstrand 20:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

As far I know, the difference is the user-interface device itself does not need any other software than the firmware of networkcard what loads all the software from the network. The device is more like a TV what just sends the control commands back to server. Being a very bulk hardware. The device running a thinclient software means there is a OS on the device (like a Linux kernel) and very small set of needed other software (DHCP service etc) what gets loaded as typical way but they loads the whole system from network then.Golftheman (talk) 14:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Thin clients vs. Terminals

The definition given for “thin clients” overlaps with that for terminals. There should be some explanation of the historical significance of terminals, as well as a differentiation between the two terms.—Kbolino 04:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I really can't see the difference between "thin client" and terminals. To me, it is a play around of terminology as all a thin client does is paints the screen, receives and sends data, that was done by terminal years ago.
A Thin Client and a Fat Client are both Terminals. Fat Client is a regular Complete PC with All the Advantages and Disadvanteges. A PC is not always connected to a Network. (Then it is not a Terminal Look up Client Server Computing, and Microsoft Terminal Services.
PS. I am tired of going to my Bank or Health Center to find they are not working as the Branch Lan is Down... Why? because they use Yesterdays Technology of PC's and Client Servers... Samc 10:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
On a client/server system, the end user software runs on the client which accesses resources provided by the server. With a terminal model, the end user software runs on the server which uses the keyboard and display of the terminal. At the most basic level, a terminal is an I/O device whereas a client is capable of running programs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Real Deuce (talkcontribs) 03:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. But then, the definition of Thin Client in the article is lacking this important property, and should be changed accordingly. --AVM (talk) 16:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Diskless workstations/PCs

This article is describing only thin clients which are GUI terminals. There is also a class of thin clients which do local processing (application logic in this strange terminology of this article) but do not have local permanent storage (eg. no local harddisks). Either this article or another article ought to describe this middle-class of client. Dyl 15:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Thin / Thick Client

The "middle client" discussed above is called a Diskless Node. It has processing memory and a procesing CPU, but no permanent storage device. It may have I/O ports such as serial, parallel, USB's or card adapters, and connects to a network for storage. A trivial version of this is a standard computer with the disks removed in order to disable the ability to save and carry off proprietary information.

The model of Thin Client connected to a Computing Server is the same paradigm as the old Terminal connected to a Mainframe or other shared computing center. It is fine for textual work. It becomes problematic for complex image work that passes much data across the interface, slowing down performance and causing the central server's I/O to bog down.

It is poor for computer intensive programs such as CAD, Engineering, interactive PhotoShop sessions, the running of databases (as opposed to data entry), or any other computing or I/O intensive program.

The reason that PC's became popular in a business environment is because the Terminal / Mainframe method restricted the ability to write or install applications to a chosen few. We used to call them the High Priests of the Mainframe. If you wanted to talk to the computer, you had to petition the Priest.

PC's allowed anyone to purchase, write, or install the software of their choice, enabling them to talk to the computer themselves. The use of thin-net or secured servers puts the business person back into the bad-old days. Hence, laptops.

This battle for access to the Wise One is ancient: See the differences between the Gallilean and the Judaen stories in the Bible or the Greek concept of the Oracle.

Greg Hebert

Samc Samc 12:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC) Subject needs putting into wikipedia ORDER

Greg writes about PC Advantages, Please Greg, Yeasterday I saw a Brand New Laptop from ASUS With WINDOWS XP PRO. Very Fast Gigabyte Memory Dual Core etc etc... I had an e-mail using Yahoo with a Word DOC that was important for me to read ASAP. On That ASUS I could not read it as MS-OFFICE was Not Installed! Also The Anti-virus Program and Windows needed Updating etc, etc, So Whoever buys that rather expensive Laptop with Legal Software, can not start working from Day One.

This is Very Poor Technology, Service etc... Thin Client Technology Solves ALL those Problems and more. "The Network is the Computer" is even more true Today.

PS. To Wikipedia Editors,

NC's and Thin Clients Should be Sub Catagories of a Main Category.
Thanks Samc Samc 12:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


I'm thinking of something similar, but this isn't quite it. I'm thinking more of a dismembered desktop. Wireless keyboard/mouse/tablet interface and remote wireless display with a fast, stationary CPU doing all the processing elsewhere. But not like a single server running to multiple clients. Just one server talking to one set of input and output devices. Putting the weight and brains and heat on the floor and carrying the lightweight interface around. Does such a device/concept exist? What would it be called? — Omegatron 03:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

"But not like a single server running to multiple clients. Just one server talking to one set of input and output devices."
Can you explain this further?
As far as i understood, you're simply talking about wireless thin clients.
Whadar 11:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Omega, They are simply Called Thin Clients, The Idea of this Model is and was that they are Software and Hardware Device Independent, From a Simple Black and White Cellular Phone upto Full Workstations. UNIX Linux Mac Windows Symbio or Whatever. Sam Samc 12:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


The single most compelling advantage of Thin Clients to me is the lack of noise. Today (2006), even though possible, building a silent PC/fat client is still challanging and costly. Terminals/Thin Clients OTOH typically use no moving parts (no hard disks, no fans) and hence emit no audible sounds. Guenthert

This is certainly an advantage but one among many - heat output (saves on power and A/C to keep the room cool), desktop realestate. I'm deliberately sticking to physical advantages here. Robert Brockway 05:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Why only physical advantages? I just added a bit on noise (before having read this discussion).—greenrd 19:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Is it true that the power savings are as much as is claimed? Our thin client set up is on 24 hours a day. PCs and laptops are switched off at night. This sounds like the urban myth that all stand-by settings on equipment are power-hungry.
Why is your thin client set up on 24 hours a day? There's no reason to keep the thin clients switched on overnight if they're not being used. And you need not have a separate file server and thin client server - they can be the same physical machine. I think the lesson here is that thin client set ups can easily use less power, if designed from the outset to do so.—greenrd 18:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

merge from Diskless workstation?

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was to keep separate articlesTrevj (talk) 05:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I propose merging in Diskless workstation since this article is more mature. The two devices are almost the same and the differences are subtle, with the ambiguous difference being how much processing is done on the terminal itself. We should give each a section and give rigid definitions that clarify what it needs to qualify as a simple "thin client" and what it needs to qualify as a "diskless workstation." Thoughts? Brownsteve 22:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

There is a little difference between this two systems. It is enough and better to add a link between thin client and diskless workstation. Thin-client is mostly a computer which could operate seperately, that means mostly with harddisk. Acces is remotely by a graphical terminal. Accessing with VNC is very similar to this. Diskless workstation can be connected to an emulation environment (VMWARE) and not to a thin client. Thin client is an IT architecture and diskless workstation is a feature of the workstation. Please, do not mix! Dieter 11:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, i agree. There's a difference, so a mix would be a bad thing to do. Whadar 14:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree -- I think that the articles should be merged. Dumb terminal, Thin Client, and Diskless Workstation are all variations on a theme, the only differences being in exactly how much of the presentation layer is processed on the workstation. --Surturz 01:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Disagree -- Diskless workstations can be full-fledged computers, simply depending on a file server for storage. "Thin clients" tend to implement a much more-limited API, for example, just a windowing system with no real computes located locally. -- Atlant 01:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Disagree as per Atlant. While Brownsteve is correct that the differences can be subtle they are none-the-less fundamental to the functioning of the unit which is a major reason I am against a merge. Also, given the length of the articles I think it would be unwieldy to do a merge. Robert Brockway 18:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

merge from dumb terminal?

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was to keep separate articles. Trevj (talk) 05:07, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I propose that dumb terminal be merged with this article. Dumb terminal, Thin Client, and Diskless Workstation are all variations on a theme, the only differences being in exactly how much of the presentation layer is processed on the workstation. Whilst Thin-Client advocates would be offended at the comparison, the cycle of centralisation and decentralisation occurs in all aspects of computing (and life in general, in fact) and it is an improvement to Wikipedia to have the historical context for the development of Thin Clients. Discuss the differences between the dumb terminals of the 70s with the Thin Clients of the 00's by all means, but they should all appear in the same article. --Surturz 01:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Disagree -- Dumb terminals are far, far dumber than thin clients; they're completely different generations of beasts. -- Atlant 01:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
But are they the same beast?? --Surturz 23:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
No, not the same beasts at all. Dumb terminals could be built entirely out of random, small-scale logic and a couple of kilobytes of RAM or shift registers or, for convenience, an 8085-class processor with a little RAM and ROM. "Thin Clients" are built with far more capable hardware including bit-mapped graphics, x86- or SPARC-class processors, lots of RAM, windowing software of some kind, etc.
Atlant 01:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I Agree With Atlant, Thin Clients are not Dumb at all They by Defintion always have a CPU and Memory to run the Application and usually a Web Browser, IBM used to talk about Network Computer Architecture and Oracle and SUN used to say "The Network is the Computer". From SUN they were usually JAVA Stations, As JAVA Works on most Hardware. Samuel Cohen Thin Client Expert Samc 13:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Disagree While Dumb terminals are conceptually analogous to thin clients they are distinct items. They are used in different ways. A merge would be a mistake. Robert Brockway 18:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Please don't merge the "data terminal" article into "thin client". It is useful to be able to link to it from other articles that refer specifically to historical data terminals and do not mean to refer at all to the more current notion of "thin client". I have no problem with the current "dumb terminal" article merging into "data terminal", since they are referring to essentially the same thing. — DAGwyn 22:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • It seems there's a strong concensus against every merge except dumb terminal into data terminal. I'm going to go ahead with that merge, but I'll keep the other merge requests up for now. If more people vote against merges, perhaps someone should remove the request. -- Nanobri 16:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Thick client -> hybrid client?

Thick client is an ambiguous term - some people consider it same as fat client and some as hybrid. I suggest we refer to hybrid clients instead of thick client and also link to the hybrid client article. Look at client (computing) for the definitions and differences

Whadar 14:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree, Samc 12:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC) Yes These Related Catagories should be put in Order on Wikipedia, Thanks Sam Samc Look at this interesting article from Linux Devices Website That includes definition of Thin Clent with examples and Photographs etc...

Sam Samc 09:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Missing information

This article doesn't address the use of the term 'thin client' to refer to software that executes on a normal workstation but which only performs presentation related operations, deferring all actual data processing to a server. E.g., an interactive web site that doesn't use javascript. JulesH 19:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)