Thinstation by Donald A Cupp Jr

[Dashrender]

@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.

[coliver]

@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.

[Dashrender]

@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.

[coliver]

@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.

[Dashrender]

@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

[coliver]

@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!
lol

We 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.

[Dashrender]

@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!
lol

We 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?

[Dashrender]

@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!
lol

We 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.

[coliver]

@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!
lol

We 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.

[coliver]

@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!
lol

We 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.

[scottalanmiller]

@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.

[scottalanmiller]

@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.

[scottalanmiller]

@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.

[scottalanmiller]

@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!
lol

We 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.

[coliver]

@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!
lol

We 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.

[Dashrender]

@scottalanmiller said in Thinstation by Donald A Cupp Jr:

@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.

Well then I can't tell you why one worked perfect and awesome, and the other worked like crap. RDP was being used in both cases.

I guess Coliver is probably right that it's a bad implementation of RDP on the boxes called thinclients from HP, etc.

[Dashrender]

@scottalanmiller said in Thinstation by Donald A Cupp Jr:

@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.

huh - you're the first person I've ever heard say this in the 20 years Since I first dealt with TS.

The definition I was given - thinclient is micro OS on low powered device. Thick Client is RPD/ICA/PCoIP on a typical desktop PC.

[coliver]

@Dashrender said in Thinstation by Donald A Cupp Jr:

@scottalanmiller said in Thinstation by Donald A Cupp Jr:

@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.

huh - you're the first person I've ever heard say this in the 20 years Since I first dealt with TS.

The definition I was given - thinclient is micro OS on low powered device. Thick Client is RPD/ICA/PCoIP on a typical desktop PC.

I've heard it both ways from various people and vendors.

[Dashrender]

@scottalanmiller said in Thinstation by Donald A Cupp Jr:

@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.

Just so I fully understand what you are saying here, when you say local processing, you mean local to the device, as in the PC in my office, or the laptop on my lap? right?

[scottalanmiller]

@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:

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.

Well then I can't tell you why one worked perfect and awesome, and the other worked like crap. RDP was being used in both cases.

I guess Coliver is probably right that it's a bad implementation of RDP on the boxes called thinclients from HP, etc.

Yeah, I mean any thin client can have bad code, or force a fall back to bad settings or an old version, or be SO underpowered that it can't even process RDP properly. Or it could have had networking deficiencies. But all of that would happen with a thick client, too, as the two are the same thing physically and in software.