Neven,
> If your definition of thin is
>
> 1. No client side installation whatsoever (not even an EXE).
> 2. Can run over slow, unreliable networks.
> 3. Can run on relatively poorly spec clients
>
> Yourv'e been reading too many Citrix Sales Brochures
I've never read any of their brochures - I've deployed solutions using
Citrix, there *IS* a difference :).
> Re your points
>
> 1. Thats not thin thats Anorexic (Even the Citrix Client has an EXE)
OK. I deploy anorexic web solutions :)
> 2. Has nothing to do with the arguement!
Well, actually, it has - won't classify a "thin client" as one requiring a
dedicated 10Mb bandwidth to run.
> 3. Is as a result of being Thin not a definition of it!
A client that requires a superfast, hot off the production line CPU, with
oodles of RAM and hard disk space isn't thin either.
Using *MY* definition, if you don't have (1) to (3), you're not thin!
> Thin vs Fat client relates to the relative positioning of the
> functionality
> of the whole system
As well, as installation - what is the point of deploying a "thin client"
solution if it takes one hour to install each client? It costs you more to
install than it is to buy the software!
> Citrix is indeed a very thin client - Client/Server Apps tend
> to be fat - 3
> tier CS Thin (You could make a 3 tier system fat by
> positioning the middle
> tier at the client but I don't see the point)
> ADO is simply an access method and as such doesn't even
> really qualify as a
> client
However, if installing ADO is part of your client install, then you DON'T
have a thin client solution.
Regards,
Dennis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Zealand Delphi Users group - Delphi List - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Website: http://www.delphi.org.nz
