Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

A thin-client theory I don't believe

Last response: in CPUs
Share
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 13, 2005 5:45:08 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

But I'm posting it, anyway, because throwing Citrix in there makes it
just marginally credible. The thin-client future--the one that *is*
coming--will benefit (drum roll...) *Microsoft*, and Apple is moving to
Intel to prepare for this brave new world

http://applematters.com/index.php/section/comments/401/

I do believe that a thin client world is coming. I do believe that
Gates wants/expects to control the world of thin client computing. As
to what it has to do with Apple/Intel, I'm skeptical to say the least.

RM

More about : thin client theory

Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 13, 2005 8:43:18 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

<rbmyersusa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1118695508.107530.225280@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

> But I'm posting it, anyway, because throwing Citrix in there makes it
> just marginally credible. The thin-client future--the one that *is*
> coming--will benefit (drum roll...) *Microsoft*, and Apple is moving to
> Intel to prepare for this brave new world
>
> http://applematters.com/index.php/section/comments/401/
>
> I do believe that a thin client world is coming. I do believe that
> Gates wants/expects to control the world of thin client computing. As
> to what it has to do with Apple/Intel, I'm skeptical to say the least.

I don't think it's outright crazy to argue that the thin client world
favors heavy server machines and very light client machines. Neither of
these are markets Apple has done well in. Both of these are markets where
Microsoft has better prospects than Apple.

DS
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 14, 2005 12:13:59 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On 13 Jun 2005 13:45:08 -0700, rbmyersusa@gmail.com wrote:

>But I'm posting it, anyway, because throwing Citrix in there makes it
>just marginally credible. The thin-client future--the one that *is*
>coming--will benefit (drum roll...) *Microsoft*, and Apple is moving to
>Intel to prepare for this brave new world
>
>http://applematters.com/index.php/section/comments/401/
>
>I do believe that a thin client world is coming. I do believe that
>Gates wants/expects to control the world of thin client computing. As
>to what it has to do with Apple/Intel, I'm skeptical to say the least.

Oh my GAWD - you mean Billy's going to steal Larry's big SQL*Nuts idea?
IMO you can take people to the bus but you can't make them get on.:-)

--
Rgds, George Macdonald
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 14, 2005 12:52:43 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On 13 Jun 2005 13:45:08 -0700, rbmyersusa@gmail.com wrote:

>But I'm posting it, anyway, because throwing Citrix in there makes it
>just marginally credible. The thin-client future--the one that *is*
>coming--will benefit (drum roll...) *Microsoft*, and Apple is moving to
>Intel to prepare for this brave new world
>
>http://applematters.com/index.php/section/comments/401/
>
>I do believe that a thin client world is coming. I do believe that
>Gates wants/expects to control the world of thin client computing. As
>to what it has to do with Apple/Intel, I'm skeptical to say the least.
>
>RM

It's been tried - and it failed miserably.
I hesitate to use the "n word", but I just can't see this ever happening.
But if the threat becomes Reality, well, I forsee a mass migration to *nix...

/daytripper
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 15, 2005 12:02:07 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

rbmyersusa@gmail.com wrote:
> But I'm posting it, anyway, because throwing Citrix in there makes it
> just marginally credible. The thin-client future--the one that *is*
> coming--will benefit (drum roll...) *Microsoft*, and Apple is moving to
> Intel to prepare for this brave new world
>
> http://applematters.com/index.php/section/comments/401/

Has this brave new world formed yet, or is it still a mass of orbiting
debris? :-)

> I do believe that a thin client world is coming. I do believe that
> Gates wants/expects to control the world of thin client computing. As
> to what it has to do with Apple/Intel, I'm skeptical to say the least.

If Apple wanted in on the world of thin-client, all it needed to do was
build a Java machine or perhaps a DotNet machine. What's it gotta do
with Intel?

Yousuf Khan
June 15, 2005 2:18:32 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 20:02:07 -0400, Yousuf Khan wrote:

> rbmyersusa@gmail.com wrote:
>> But I'm posting it, anyway, because throwing Citrix in there makes it
>> just marginally credible. The thin-client future--the one that *is*
>> coming--will benefit (drum roll...) *Microsoft*, and Apple is moving to
>> Intel to prepare for this brave new world
>>
>> http://applematters.com/index.php/section/comments/401/
>
> Has this brave new world formed yet, or is it still a mass of orbiting
> debris? :-)

No, it's still hot gas. I've been hearing "thin client" for two decades.
The only ones who want it are the mainframe and software manufacturers.
USERS don't want to give their data back to the glass-house, even
though they *might* be better off in the long run (data integrity,
availability, and such mundane stuff). Trusting M$ (or apple or...) with
one's gonads seems a bit silly to me.

>> I do believe that a thin client world is coming. I do believe that
>> Gates wants/expects to control the world of thin client computing. As
>> to what it has to do with Apple/Intel, I'm skeptical to say the least.
>
> If Apple wanted in on the world of thin-client, all it needed to do was
> build a Java machine or perhaps a DotNet machine. What's it gotta do
> with Intel?

Can't do that! They want to be *THE* client. ...or something.

--
Keith
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 15, 2005 11:48:51 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

rbmyersusa@gmail.com wrote:
> But I'm posting it, anyway, because throwing Citrix in there makes it
> just marginally credible. The thin-client future--the one that *is*
> coming--will benefit (drum roll...) *Microsoft*

Am I the only optimistic person on the planet? I really *really*
fail to see how a thin-client world would necessarily benefit
Microsoft; I clarify what I'm trying to say: it is possible
that a certain course/path of the thin-client evolution could
benefit Microsoft; but I refuse to accept the principle that
thin-client dominance *implies* that Microsoft benefits.

I tend to believe exactly the opposite!

Microsoft dominance is based on the fact that they dominate and
have full control over what people do with their desktops. (and
it's a control that takes the form of a vicious circle -- every
one uses Windows because it is the thing that everyone else uses;
software makers create their software mainly for Windows because
that is what people uses -- but people uses Windows because that
is the OS that has most software that runs on it)

Microsoft's arguably worst nightmare, Linux, has had its biggest
success on the server arena, and so far has had very limited
success on the desktop. Microsoft's arguably *second worst*
nightmare is Firefox -- well, the Internet Explorer, actually;
the IE, which at some point was a key element in solidifying
their monopoly (they get everyone to use their software for
accessing the Internet, then make that software non-standard
and only/mainly compatible with their development tools and
their OS's; then they own the world, because every web developer
will be forced to use MS tools, since those are the only ones
that work well with the browser that the entire planet uses),
ironically (and thankfully!) is now being a key element in
people realizing just how unbelievably mediocre their [MS's]
software is, and how unbelievably incompetent they are, at
least when it comes to computer security (something that is
not a secret for people with computer literacy, but that seems
to be a revelation for the average Joe).

So... We have now a world where we only need a web browser and
people need servers where to develop things... A web broswer
can run on Windows, on Linux, on MACs, on PDAs (running Linux,
or Palm OS, or Windows CE, or whatever other OS's), and server
applications can easily run on Linux (and quite likely will, or
at least could, tend to run on Linux more than on Windows).

We no longer need MS Office because there is www.thinoffice.org
that provides a complete Office suite that runs on your browser.

Tell me again, why does that world benefit Microsoft??

Am I the only optimist on this planet that thinks that a world
dominated by thin-client computing *could FINALLY* spell the end
of Microsoft's monopoly?

Carlos
--
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 15, 2005 1:23:37 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 22:18:32 -0400, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:

>On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 20:02:07 -0400, Yousuf Khan wrote:
>
>> rbmyersusa@gmail.com wrote:
>>> But I'm posting it, anyway, because throwing Citrix in there makes it
>>> just marginally credible. The thin-client future--the one that *is*
>>> coming--will benefit (drum roll...) *Microsoft*, and Apple is moving to
>>> Intel to prepare for this brave new world
>>>
>>> http://applematters.com/index.php/section/comments/401/
>>
>> Has this brave new world formed yet, or is it still a mass of orbiting
>> debris? :-)
>
>No, it's still hot gas. I've been hearing "thin client" for two decades.
>The only ones who want it are the mainframe and software manufacturers.
>USERS don't want to give their data back to the glass-house, even
>though they *might* be better off in the long run (data integrity,
>availability, and such mundane stuff). Trusting M$ (or apple or...) with
>one's gonads seems a bit silly to me.
>

It's a legitimate concern, although I think there are ways to address
it. As it is data on the average hard-drive connected to the internet
could hardly be regarded as safe, either.

>>> I do believe that a thin client world is coming. I do believe that
>>> Gates wants/expects to control the world of thin client computing. As
>>> to what it has to do with Apple/Intel, I'm skeptical to say the least.
>>
>> If Apple wanted in on the world of thin-client, all it needed to do was
>> build a Java machine or perhaps a DotNet machine. What's it gotta do
>> with Intel?
>
>Can't do that! They want to be *THE* client. ...or something.

Intel doesn't want game boxes running PowerPC to be the thin client of
choice.

RM
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 15, 2005 1:28:57 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 07:48:51 -0400, Carlos Moreno <moreno@mochima.com>
wrote:

>rbmyersusa@gmail.com wrote:
>> But I'm posting it, anyway, because throwing Citrix in there makes it
>> just marginally credible. The thin-client future--the one that *is*
>> coming--will benefit (drum roll...) *Microsoft*
>

<snip>

>
>So... We have now a world where we only need a web browser and
>people need servers where to develop things... A web broswer
>can run on Windows, on Linux, on MACs, on PDAs (running Linux,
>or Palm OS, or Windows CE, or whatever other OS's), and server
>applications can easily run on Linux (and quite likely will, or
>at least could, tend to run on Linux more than on Windows).
>
>We no longer need MS Office because there is www.thinoffice.org
>that provides a complete Office suite that runs on your browser.
>
>Tell me again, why does that world benefit Microsoft??
>
>Am I the only optimist on this planet that thinks that a world
>dominated by thin-client computing *could FINALLY* spell the end
>of Microsoft's monopoly?
>

That's a theory I've long been promoting for a long time. End of many
bad things: insecure, poorly-maintained hard drives, end of weird
platform dependencies, end of endless patches from Microsoft, end of
Microsoft dominance. The software community would become more
diverse.

The card I hadn't thought of is Citrix. Like it or not, Microsoft
becomes ever more entrenched in the business desktop, which in many
cases already is thin-client oriented, and, in many cases, uses
Citrix.

RM
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 16, 2005 2:03:45 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

"Robert Myers" <rmyers1400@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4va0b1h4a5noec9pll0h0jj59niph0u821@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 07:48:51 -0400, Carlos Moreno <moreno@mochima.com>
> wrote:
>
>>rbmyersusa@gmail.com wrote:
>>> But I'm posting it, anyway, because throwing Citrix in there makes it
>>> just marginally credible. The thin-client future--the one that *is*
>>> coming--will benefit (drum roll...) *Microsoft*
>>
>
> <snip>
>
>>
>>So... We have now a world where we only need a web browser and
>>people need servers where to develop things... A web broswer
>>can run on Windows, on Linux, on MACs, on PDAs (running Linux,
>>or Palm OS, or Windows CE, or whatever other OS's), and server
>>applications can easily run on Linux (and quite likely will, or
>>at least could, tend to run on Linux more than on Windows).
>>
>>We no longer need MS Office because there is www.thinoffice.org
>>that provides a complete Office suite that runs on your browser.
>>
>>Tell me again, why does that world benefit Microsoft??
>>
>>Am I the only optimist on this planet that thinks that a world
>>dominated by thin-client computing *could FINALLY* spell the end
>>of Microsoft's monopoly?
>>
>
> That's a theory I've long been promoting for a long time. End of many
> bad things: insecure, poorly-maintained hard drives, end of weird
> platform dependencies, end of endless patches from Microsoft, end of
> Microsoft dominance. The software community would become more
> diverse.
>
> The card I hadn't thought of is Citrix. Like it or not, Microsoft
> becomes ever more entrenched in the business desktop, which in many
> cases already is thin-client oriented, and, in many cases, uses
> Citrix.
Maybe, but last I heard per seat charges for Windows Terminal Server were
like as much as buying a PC with windows. Wonder if that's true. Dell
will sell you a pc for 299. And I bet it comes with windows. :-)
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 16, 2005 11:40:39 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 22:03:45 -0500, "Del Cecchi"
<dcecchi.nospam@att.net> wrote:

>
>"Robert Myers" <rmyers1400@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:4va0b1h4a5noec9pll0h0jj59niph0u821@4ax.com...

>>
>> That's a theory I've long been promoting for a long time. End of many
>> bad things: insecure, poorly-maintained hard drives, end of weird
>> platform dependencies, end of endless patches from Microsoft, end of
>> Microsoft dominance. The software community would become more
>> diverse.
>>
>> The card I hadn't thought of is Citrix. Like it or not, Microsoft
>> becomes ever more entrenched in the business desktop, which in many
>> cases already is thin-client oriented, and, in many cases, uses
>> Citrix.

>Maybe, but last I heard per seat charges for Windows Terminal Server were
>like as much as buying a PC with windows. Wonder if that's true. Dell
>will sell you a pc for 299. And I bet it comes with windows. :-)
>

But doesn't the fact that Microsoft can charge so much (at least as a
list price) tell you something? Maybe how the cost of the
installation isn't all that important.

RM
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 16, 2005 11:48:40 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 22:32:44 -0400, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:

>On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 09:23:37 -0400, Robert Myers wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 22:18:32 -0400, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>No, it's still hot gas. I've been hearing "thin client" for two decades.
>>>The only ones who want it are the mainframe and software manufacturers.
>>>USERS don't want to give their data back to the glass-house, even
>>>though they *might* be better off in the long run (data integrity,
>>>availability, and such mundane stuff). Trusting M$ (or apple or...) with
>>>one's gonads seems a bit silly to me.
>>>
>>
>> It's a legitimate concern, although I think there are ways to address
>> it. As it is data on the average hard-drive connected to the internet
>> could hardly be regarded as safe, either.
>
>I'm not talking about "safe", rather "what will they charge me to access
>*MY* data tomorrow". I don't like other's owning my information.
>
>Think; MS-Word proprietary format on steroids.
>

It's also a safety issue. If you're relying on one off-site vendor
for your information, you could lose access to it for any number of
reasons: the vendor could charge or charge more for access, the vendor
could go out of business, or the vendor could lose it. There are any
number of ways to address that problem, and I don't think any of them
is beyond your imagination.

RM
June 18, 2005 2:28:31 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 07:48:40 -0400, Robert Myers wrote:

> On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 22:32:44 -0400, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 09:23:37 -0400, Robert Myers wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 22:18:32 -0400, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>No, it's still hot gas. I've been hearing "thin client" for two decades.
>>>>The only ones who want it are the mainframe and software manufacturers.
>>>>USERS don't want to give their data back to the glass-house, even
>>>>though they *might* be better off in the long run (data integrity,
>>>>availability, and such mundane stuff). Trusting M$ (or apple or...) with
>>>>one's gonads seems a bit silly to me.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It's a legitimate concern, although I think there are ways to address
>>> it. As it is data on the average hard-drive connected to the internet
>>> could hardly be regarded as safe, either.
>>
>>I'm not talking about "safe", rather "what will they charge me to access
>>*MY* data tomorrow". I don't like other's owning my information.
>>
>>Think; MS-Word proprietary format on steroids.
>>
>
> It's also a safety issue. If you're relying on one off-site vendor
> for your information, you could lose access to it for any number of
> reasons: the vendor could charge or charge more for access, the vendor
> could go out of business, or the vendor could lose it. There are any
> number of ways to address that problem, and I don't think any of them
> is beyond your imagination.

Gee, I didn't think you thought there was much of a chance that M$ was
going under. ;-) BTW, users can lose data too.

--
Keith
>
> RM
!