Thinstation by Donald A Cupp Jr
-
@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.
-
@coliver said in Thinstation by Donald A Cupp Jr:
@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.
Then he misused the terms. Thick MEANS that you aren't going over the road. Thick, by definition, is local processing. Thin, by definition, is remote processing. That's the sole purpose of those terms.
-
@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.
HP goes like over a decade without updating that stuff. It's ancient if you ever look at the specs.
-
@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.
I suppose if the processing on the thin client isn't enough to even handle the protocol and display, yes the thin client could be at fault. That's like having a local machine that can't handle playing the Netflix video, even when the stream is fast enough.
-
@scottalanmiller 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:
@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.
I suppose if the processing on the thin client isn't enough to even handle the protocol and display, yes the thin client could be at fault. That's like having a local machine that can't handle playing the Netflix video, even when the stream is fast enough.
That would be my guess... a lot of the original thin clients were so under powered even for the little that they do do.
