The Thin Client: Not Much New

Much ado has been made about the thin client and Web browser software as the enabling technology. In this brief, I contend that browsers bring little if no new benefits with respect to thin client implementation.

Thin Client Benefits

The typically cited benefits of thin clients include

Workstation Hardware Cost
Workstation Configuration and Troubleshooting Cost
Software Configuration Management Cost
Security
Reliable, Server-Based Data Backup

Indeed, an Internet PC based on a browser does have these features. However, so do other thin clients that have been in use for a decade, and there are no compelling reasons to choose the browser-based solution over them.

Implementing Thin Client Without Browsers

Many organizations have been successfully using thin clients for years. Diskless workstations are the ultimate thin clients. They load their operating system code from a network file server, then access all applications and data from file servers as well. Applications can access data and other processes through various middleware techniques simply by loading the middleware client software from the file server.

A common and pragmatic variation on the diskless workstation is a standard PC with local storage that uses that storage only for the operating system and a small set of common, stable, shrink-wrapped applications. This can increase the speed of many operations for users, at the cost of some control over configuration management and troubleshooting costs.

These implementations differ from browser-based thin clients primarily in the network protocols and user interface. Much of the allure of browser-based solutions is exactly the latter feature, which has little to do with the thin client nature of the architecture. Since the browser solution does little to alleviate the issues of application load speed and high network traffic that troubled earlier thin client options, it really offers no compelling reasons to adopt it, aside from the ability to execute software on the server via CGI.

Other Thin Clients Have Their Place, Too

Another thin client topology, labeled distributed presentation by Gartner Group several years ago, is embodied by the X terminal and Wyse's WinTerm. These configurations limit the desktop to display functionality, with all software executing on a server. The WinTerm uses NT servers running Citrix' WinFrame.

Platform Independence

Finally, there is one area where browser-based thin clients definitely can distinguish themselves from the others, namely platform independence. Aside from some basic power-on configuration, browser-based thin clients from any vendor should be able to stand in for those of any other. The appeal to this is, presumably, to break dependence on Intel as the provider of desktop microprocessors. To do this, other chip vendors must provide a superior price/performance product. To date, only the Intel cloners have achieved this, which means the same benefit can be had with diskless workstations. For that matter, X and WinFrame-based terminals need not be based on Intel chips.