Re(2): Thin Clients and TCP/IP

["Mike Naughton" <mnaughton@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

That's the problem -- we're using more than just terminal emulation (some
web browsing, and PC apps). I'm not really involved in this side of
things, so I don't know all the details, but I think the decision was made
to go with thin clients because they thought they'd be easier to support.
Not just the hardware itself, but the software (all on the server), and
security might be tighter. There may have been an issue with client access
licenses also, but I could be wrong about that.

I agree -- I'm not wild about them myself, but . . . .

MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com writes:
>IF you only are using terminal emulation, things are a  little better,
>and it seems to work just fine, if you ever get the proper level of
>PTF's, etc, etc up to speed.
>
>It reached a point at one time that IBM was actually giving away these
>thin clients when you bought a new box. I haven't heard much about them
>in the last year or two.
>
>The point of replacing a dumb terminal with another dumb terminal using
>TCP/IP
>continues to escape me....... What a marketing concept......



Mike Naughton
Senior Programmer/Analyst
Judd Wire, Inc.
124 Turnpike Road
Turners Falls, MA  01376
413-863-4357 x444
mnaughton@juddwire.com

+---
| This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-SUB@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com
+---