![]() ![]() It’s MS’s pricing, not technical or user-needs reasons, that keeps us in the current architecture. The big obstacle to adoption, IMHO, has been that so many businesses rely on MS Office, and the price structure of Office makes it prohibitive to run on a thin-client setup. The whole idea is that you do run office suites and junk on thin clients. I don’t thin you understand what thin clients are. They have much more to fill their business needs. Sorry but businesses need more than just a web browser and email client to do business. It’s bad to have one single critical point of failure but in the “modern” fat-client/server architecture, a user’s ability to do his job can be shut down by failure on either the client or server side. Moreover, they are prone to software-based glitches if not properly locked down, hardware glitches even if they are, and on top of that they need to be constantly re-imaged. Thus fat clients are not especially good at powering programs. Without a network, those computers on everyone’s desks basically become big hunks of trash. Remember the mainframe days? Now look at computers, everyone has one on their desk locally to power the programs.Īre you employed, sir? I don’t know about your place of business, but at every place I’ve worked, “the server is down” means everyone gets a day off. It makes more sense to have a couple of redundant ones for failover. Thin clients are not useful and it makes no sense to have one central server.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |