Thinstation by Donald A Cupp Jr
-
@Dashrender said in Thinstation by Donald A Cupp Jr:
@travisdh1 said in Thinstation by Donald A Cupp Jr:
My big curiosity, do they have a release for ARM/Raspberri Pi? I'll look myself, but latter.
My bigger curiosity - how does Flash/HTML 5 sites work on it?
My experience over 5 different thin client appliances was that they were all horrible. HTML 5 wasn't a thing yet, Flash pages would literally flash a white screen between each page or click of the mouse on a Flash based website.
I know this software can run on full blown old PCs, and my own tests of something like this showed that full blown PCs, not thin clients (IBM PC 300's with 1 GB or less RAM) never had the flashing problem when displaying Flash websites.
You are looking in the wrong place. The thinclient isn't what controls that. That's your server and protocol. This shows what it is sent.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Thinstation by Donald A Cupp Jr:
@Dashrender said in Thinstation by Donald A Cupp Jr:
@travisdh1 said in Thinstation by Donald A Cupp Jr:
My big curiosity, do they have a release for ARM/Raspberri Pi? I'll look myself, but latter.
My bigger curiosity - how does Flash/HTML 5 sites work on it?
My experience over 5 different thin client appliances was that they were all horrible. HTML 5 wasn't a thing yet, Flash pages would literally flash a white screen between each page or click of the mouse on a Flash based website.
I know this software can run on full blown old PCs, and my own tests of something like this showed that full blown PCs, not thin clients (IBM PC 300's with 1 GB or less RAM) never had the flashing problem when displaying Flash websites.
You are looking in the wrong place. The thinclient isn't what controls that. That's your server and protocol. This shows what it is sent.
Well I don't own any thin clients any longer, haven't had to deal with it in a long time. I just remember it was a problem on ThinClients and never a problem on thick clients.
-
@Dashrender said in Thinstation by Donald A Cupp Jr:
@scottalanmiller said in Thinstation by Donald A Cupp Jr:
@Dashrender said in Thinstation by Donald A Cupp Jr:
@travisdh1 said in Thinstation by Donald A Cupp Jr:
My big curiosity, do they have a release for ARM/Raspberri Pi? I'll look myself, but latter.
My bigger curiosity - how does Flash/HTML 5 sites work on it?
My experience over 5 different thin client appliances was that they were all horrible. HTML 5 wasn't a thing yet, Flash pages would literally flash a white screen between each page or click of the mouse on a Flash based website.
I know this software can run on full blown old PCs, and my own tests of something like this showed that full blown PCs, not thin clients (IBM PC 300's with 1 GB or less RAM) never had the flashing problem when displaying Flash websites.
You are looking in the wrong place. The thinclient isn't what controls that. That's your server and protocol. This shows what it is sent.
Well I don't own any thin clients any longer, haven't had to deal with it in a long time. I just remember it was a problem on ThinClients and never a problem on thick clients.
What do you mean by the terms thick and thin clients here? Do you mean that the thick client was acting as a thin client and that the horsepower made a difference? Or are you saying that it was actually a thick client and unrelated to the problem?
-
@scottalanmiller said in Thinstation by Donald A Cupp Jr:
What do you mean by the terms thick and thin clients here? Do you mean that the thick client was acting as a thin client and that the horsepower made a difference?
Yes I am.
An old IBM PC 300 with XP Pro 512 Meg RAM didn't have the issues caused by Flash (i.e. the flashing screen) but the traditional ThinClients did.
Terminal servers were connected to via RDP.
-
@Dashrender said in Thinstation by Donald A Cupp Jr:
@scottalanmiller said in Thinstation by Donald A Cupp Jr:
What do you mean by the terms thick and thin clients here? Do you mean that the thick client was acting as a thin client and that the horsepower made a difference?
Yes I am.
An old IBM PC 300 with XP Pro 512 Meg RAM didn't have the issues caused by Flash (i.e. the flashing screen) but the traditional ThinClients did.
Terminal servers were connected to via RDP.
Okay, so back to my original statement, you are looking in the wrong place. The question about the performance of a thin client is on the server and in the protocol choice, not on the thin client. That same fat client, doing the same job as the thin client, should be identical - because they are both just "videos" of a remote screen. Any performance issues is either in the source or the transmission.
-
Here is a way to rephrase what you are asking that hopefully will make more sense....
You want to drive from your house to work.
Thin client: requires you to take your car from your garage to work.
Thick client: you sleep at work and never travel.Your complaint: it's very bumpy along the road to work
Issue: road is bumpy
But you are mentioning that when you don't need to drive at all and just sleep at the office, that the road isn't bumpy... because there is no road.
Assuming we have to drive, what does sleeping at the office have to do with it? And why ask if this particular brand of car will have bumps, when it is the road that is bumpy?
-
WHAT?!?!
-
The thick client is still remote to the server - it's still running RDP to the TS box.. the differences between the thick and thin client are the client's OS and RAM and CPU power.
What I can't remember is - did the WinTerm thinclients (embedded XP) have this problem or not?
-
@scottalanmiller said in Thinstation by Donald A Cupp Jr:
Here is a way to rephrase what you are asking that hopefully will make more sense....
You want to drive from your house to work.
Thin client: requires you to take your car from your garage to work.
Thick client: you sleep at work and never travel.Your complaint: it's very bumpy along the road to work
Issue: road is bumpy
But you are mentioning that when you don't need to drive at all and just sleep at the office, that the road isn't bumpy... because there is no road.
Assuming we have to drive, what does sleeping at the office have to do with it? And why ask if this particular brand of car will have bumps, when it is the road that is bumpy?
I understand your argument but not why you're making it. @Dashrender was using "thickclients" as thinclients by installing some kind of software on them. So both were going over the same road at the same time.
-
@coliver said in Thinstation by Donald A Cupp Jr:
I understand your argument but not why you're making it. @Dashrender was using "thickclients" as thinclients by installing some kind of software one them. So both were going over the same road at the same time.
Exactly, they were both using RDP to connect to the TS boxes.
-
@Dashrender said in Thinstation by Donald A Cupp Jr:
@coliver said in Thinstation by Donald A Cupp Jr:
I understand your argument but not why you're making it. @Dashrender was using "thickclients" as thinclients by installing some kind of software one them. So both were going over the same road at the same time.
Exactly, they were both using RDP to connect to the TS boxes.
Now the thin clients could have been using an older version of RDP (which is a terrible protocol for what you want to do) or they weren't able to refresh as quickly. So the problem still lies with the protocol but potentially the thin client's implementation of it.
-
@coliver said in Thinstation by Donald A Cupp Jr:
@Dashrender said in Thinstation by Donald A Cupp Jr:
@coliver said in Thinstation by Donald A Cupp Jr:
I understand your argument but not why you're making it. @Dashrender was using "thickclients" as thinclients by installing some kind of software one them. So both were going over the same road at the same time.
Exactly, they were both using RDP to connect to the TS boxes.
Now the thin clients could have been using an older version of RDP (which is a terrible protocol for what you want to do) or they weren't able to refresh as quickly. So the problem still lies with the protocol but potentially the thin client's implementation of it.
I'll give you that. It might have been setup to fail in the hopes of pushing people to pay for the very expensive ICA protocol at the time.
The odd thing was - I tried this again many years later after Windows 7 was out, brand new HP ThinClients, and had the exact same issue. I couldn't believe it the problem didn't seem fixed.
-
@Dashrender said in Thinstation by Donald A Cupp Jr:
@coliver said in Thinstation by Donald A Cupp Jr:
@Dashrender said in Thinstation by Donald A Cupp Jr:
@coliver said in Thinstation by Donald A Cupp Jr:
I understand your argument but not why you're making it. @Dashrender was using "thickclients" as thinclients by installing some kind of software one them. So both were going over the same road at the same time.
Exactly, they were both using RDP to connect to the TS boxes.
Now the thin clients could have been using an older version of RDP (which is a terrible protocol for what you want to do) or they weren't able to refresh as quickly. So the problem still lies with the protocol but potentially the thin client's implementation of it.
I'll give you that. It might have been setup to fail in the hopes of pushing people to pay for the very expensive ICA protocol at the time.
The odd thing was - I tried this again many years later after Windows 7 was out, brand new HP ThinClients, and had the exact same issue. I couldn't believe it the problem didn't seem fixed.
If you were using RDP then the problem won't be fixed. It is a resource intensive protocol on both the server and the client side.
-
@coliver said in Thinstation by Donald A Cupp Jr:
@Dashrender said in Thinstation by Donald A Cupp Jr:
@coliver said in Thinstation by Donald A Cupp Jr:
@Dashrender said in Thinstation by Donald A Cupp Jr:
@coliver said in Thinstation by Donald A Cupp Jr:
I understand your argument but not why you're making it. @Dashrender was using "thickclients" as thinclients by installing some kind of software one them. So both were going over the same road at the same time.
Exactly, they were both using RDP to connect to the TS boxes.
Now the thin clients could have been using an older version of RDP (which is a terrible protocol for what you want to do) or they weren't able to refresh as quickly. So the problem still lies with the protocol but potentially the thin client's implementation of it.
I'll give you that. It might have been setup to fail in the hopes of pushing people to pay for the very expensive ICA protocol at the time.
The odd thing was - I tried this again many years later after Windows 7 was out, brand new HP ThinClients, and had the exact same issue. I couldn't believe it the problem didn't seem fixed.
If you were using RDP then the problem won't be fixed. It is a resource intensive protocol on both the server and the client side.
So you think the HP thinclient just doesn't have enough processing power? huh - wow. lame!
lol -
@Dashrender said in Thinstation by Donald A Cupp Jr:
@coliver said in Thinstation by Donald A Cupp Jr:
@Dashrender said in Thinstation by Donald A Cupp Jr:
@coliver said in Thinstation by Donald A Cupp Jr:
@Dashrender said in Thinstation by Donald A Cupp Jr:
@coliver said in Thinstation by Donald A Cupp Jr:
I understand your argument but not why you're making it. @Dashrender was using "thickclients" as thinclients by installing some kind of software one them. So both were going over the same road at the same time.
Exactly, they were both using RDP to connect to the TS boxes.
Now the thin clients could have been using an older version of RDP (which is a terrible protocol for what you want to do) or they weren't able to refresh as quickly. So the problem still lies with the protocol but potentially the thin client's implementation of it.
I'll give you that. It might have been setup to fail in the hopes of pushing people to pay for the very expensive ICA protocol at the time.
The odd thing was - I tried this again many years later after Windows 7 was out, brand new HP ThinClients, and had the exact same issue. I couldn't believe it the problem didn't seem fixed.
If you were using RDP then the problem won't be fixed. It is a resource intensive protocol on both the server and the client side.
So you think the HP thinclient just doesn't have enough processing power? huh - wow. lame!
lolWe have a few HP Thinclients that we were testing with Terminal servers way before I started here. They used RDP and apparently it was really bad.
-
@coliver said in Thinstation by Donald A Cupp Jr:
@Dashrender said in Thinstation by Donald A Cupp Jr:
@coliver said in Thinstation by Donald A Cupp Jr:
@Dashrender said in Thinstation by Donald A Cupp Jr:
@coliver said in Thinstation by Donald A Cupp Jr:
@Dashrender said in Thinstation by Donald A Cupp Jr:
@coliver said in Thinstation by Donald A Cupp Jr:
I understand your argument but not why you're making it. @Dashrender was using "thickclients" as thinclients by installing some kind of software one them. So both were going over the same road at the same time.
Exactly, they were both using RDP to connect to the TS boxes.
Now the thin clients could have been using an older version of RDP (which is a terrible protocol for what you want to do) or they weren't able to refresh as quickly. So the problem still lies with the protocol but potentially the thin client's implementation of it.
I'll give you that. It might have been setup to fail in the hopes of pushing people to pay for the very expensive ICA protocol at the time.
The odd thing was - I tried this again many years later after Windows 7 was out, brand new HP ThinClients, and had the exact same issue. I couldn't believe it the problem didn't seem fixed.
If you were using RDP then the problem won't be fixed. It is a resource intensive protocol on both the server and the client side.
So you think the HP thinclient just doesn't have enough processing power? huh - wow. lame!
lolWe have a few HP Thinclients that we were testing with Terminal servers way before I started here. They used RDP and apparently it was really bad.
Assuming you still have Terminal/RDS servers, and you can find one of those old thinclients, would you mind testing one and see what happens when you visit Flash based pages?
-
@coliver said in Thinstation by Donald A Cupp Jr:
@Dashrender said in Thinstation by Donald A Cupp Jr:
@coliver said in Thinstation by Donald A Cupp Jr:
@Dashrender said in Thinstation by Donald A Cupp Jr:
@coliver said in Thinstation by Donald A Cupp Jr:
@Dashrender said in Thinstation by Donald A Cupp Jr:
@coliver said in Thinstation by Donald A Cupp Jr:
I understand your argument but not why you're making it. @Dashrender was using "thickclients" as thinclients by installing some kind of software one them. So both were going over the same road at the same time.
Exactly, they were both using RDP to connect to the TS boxes.
Now the thin clients could have been using an older version of RDP (which is a terrible protocol for what you want to do) or they weren't able to refresh as quickly. So the problem still lies with the protocol but potentially the thin client's implementation of it.
I'll give you that. It might have been setup to fail in the hopes of pushing people to pay for the very expensive ICA protocol at the time.
The odd thing was - I tried this again many years later after Windows 7 was out, brand new HP ThinClients, and had the exact same issue. I couldn't believe it the problem didn't seem fixed.
If you were using RDP then the problem won't be fixed. It is a resource intensive protocol on both the server and the client side.
So you think the HP thinclient just doesn't have enough processing power? huh - wow. lame!
lolWe have a few HP Thinclients that we were testing with Terminal servers way before I started here. They used RDP and apparently it was really bad.
So, If you've been told that those HP devices were really bad does that mean this is a thinclient issue, or a server side issue?
I had this problem across 4 different brand thinclients.
-
@Dashrender said in Thinstation by Donald A Cupp Jr:
@coliver said in Thinstation by Donald A Cupp Jr:
@Dashrender said in Thinstation by Donald A Cupp Jr:
@coliver said in Thinstation by Donald A Cupp Jr:
@Dashrender said in Thinstation by Donald A Cupp Jr:
@coliver said in Thinstation by Donald A Cupp Jr:
@Dashrender said in Thinstation by Donald A Cupp Jr:
@coliver said in Thinstation by Donald A Cupp Jr:
I understand your argument but not why you're making it. @Dashrender was using "thickclients" as thinclients by installing some kind of software one them. So both were going over the same road at the same time.
Exactly, they were both using RDP to connect to the TS boxes.
Now the thin clients could have been using an older version of RDP (which is a terrible protocol for what you want to do) or they weren't able to refresh as quickly. So the problem still lies with the protocol but potentially the thin client's implementation of it.
I'll give you that. It might have been setup to fail in the hopes of pushing people to pay for the very expensive ICA protocol at the time.
The odd thing was - I tried this again many years later after Windows 7 was out, brand new HP ThinClients, and had the exact same issue. I couldn't believe it the problem didn't seem fixed.
If you were using RDP then the problem won't be fixed. It is a resource intensive protocol on both the server and the client side.
So you think the HP thinclient just doesn't have enough processing power? huh - wow. lame!
lolWe have a few HP Thinclients that we were testing with Terminal servers way before I started here. They used RDP and apparently it was really bad.
Assuming you still have Terminal/RDS servers, and you can find one of those old thinclients, would you mind testing one and see what happens when you visit Flash based pages?
Hah, they are still around but the terminal servers are long gone.
-
@Dashrender said in Thinstation by Donald A Cupp Jr:
@coliver said in Thinstation by Donald A Cupp Jr:
@Dashrender said in Thinstation by Donald A Cupp Jr:
@coliver said in Thinstation by Donald A Cupp Jr:
@Dashrender said in Thinstation by Donald A Cupp Jr:
@coliver said in Thinstation by Donald A Cupp Jr:
@Dashrender said in Thinstation by Donald A Cupp Jr:
@coliver said in Thinstation by Donald A Cupp Jr:
I understand your argument but not why you're making it. @Dashrender was using "thickclients" as thinclients by installing some kind of software one them. So both were going over the same road at the same time.
Exactly, they were both using RDP to connect to the TS boxes.
Now the thin clients could have been using an older version of RDP (which is a terrible protocol for what you want to do) or they weren't able to refresh as quickly. So the problem still lies with the protocol but potentially the thin client's implementation of it.
I'll give you that. It might have been setup to fail in the hopes of pushing people to pay for the very expensive ICA protocol at the time.
The odd thing was - I tried this again many years later after Windows 7 was out, brand new HP ThinClients, and had the exact same issue. I couldn't believe it the problem didn't seem fixed.
If you were using RDP then the problem won't be fixed. It is a resource intensive protocol on both the server and the client side.
So you think the HP thinclient just doesn't have enough processing power? huh - wow. lame!
lolWe have a few HP Thinclients that we were testing with Terminal servers way before I started here. They used RDP and apparently it was really bad.
So, If you've been told that those HP devices were really bad does that mean this is a thinclient issue, or a server side issue?
I had this problem across 4 different brand thinclients.
Depends were you using RDP for everything? We are using PCoIP now and have had a lot of luck with it.
-
@Dashrender said in Thinstation by Donald A Cupp Jr:
The thick client is still remote to the server - it's still running RDP to the TS box.. the differences between the thick and thin client are the client's OS and RAM and CPU power.
If you are RDPing, then it is a thin client. It's the use of RDP that makes it a thin client. You are using the terms very strangely. In both cases, they are just PCs running an RDP client. Stop using RDP on either, and they become thick clients.
The differences are never OS, RAM or CPU. Those are not at all factors between the two things.
