“In those early days, even as we swapped the serial cables for network ones, shrunk the cases, and doubled the performance, it didnâ€™t take long before thin clients were banished to niche use cases, becoming the territory of call centers, nursesâ€™ stations and manufacturing plantsâ€”often to those workersâ€™ disappointment.
Until recently, this was the status quo. The experience gap compared to PCs made it tough for thin clients to reach any deep level of market adoption, despite their power saving, cost and security benefits.
But here in 2018, that experience gap has all but closed, just as the rise of the mobile workforce has made security substantially more difficult for IT teams. Suddenly, thin clients seem like a pretty great idea.”
See Closing the PC/TC experience gap for goodThin clients always seemed like a great idea for me. As Moore’s Law worked to ramp up power in the servers, the lowly thin client just had to show the pix and send the clicks. It was a match made in heaven. Upgrade one system and bless them all. It didn’t work very well for heavy multimedia but for everything else it was the right recipe to minimize costs and maximize performance. I used them in schools to great advantage. 8 year old PCs made great thin clients and we could buy a few newer servers to run the place. I felt like Superman…
Well, thin clients have progressed a lot. Folks are loading them up with computing power and graphics out the wazoo. Networks have moved on from 100 mbits/s to 1000 and stuff just happens faster. RAM is cheap and plentiful for servers as is computing power and storage. Most of us are doing a lot on the web anyway. There’s not much difference between a web-application running on a server somewhere or a desktop application running on a server in the building. Thin clients just won’t die as much as haters wish.