David Guest wrote:
I'm not convinced with the old client routine and the need for
redundant servers to do it properly. I'll have a look at Winconnect if
I get a chance though. I know David Guest is in love with his EPIA
boards and designed thin-client boxes, but I can't get enthusistic.
No that's Horst you're thinking of Greg.
Thin clients and fat servers are perhaps useful for older style
applications like MD2 but their main advantage is for easing the burden
of tech support. We are using client machines that are perhaps 6 years
old but they are at least P3s. We boot them from the network card as per
my presentation at 640cc, http://ozdoc.mine.nu/thinstation/. If one dies
you just throw it out and put a replacement in. Ex-lease at the auctions
they are about $100.
All the machine has to do is run a X server and sixteen bit colour at
1024 * 768 is sufficient for most. (In fact the older ones complain when
it gets beyond 800*600.) I agree with you about about the screens,
keyboards and mice. They are all LCD, new and optical.
It works well but it works best in bigger networks where the marginal
cost of an additional machine falls to a few hundred dollars in hardware
and less than 30 minutes in techie time. Almost all configuration can be
done remotely. By the sounds of it this does not apply in your setting.
David,
Sorry, I had the client preference ascribed incorrectly, but I knew you
were into thin client. I'm pleased that you recognise the need for good
quality interfaces with this sort of set up.
I seem to also remember a previous discussion that got down to the point
of you explaining the licensing costs still paid to Microsoft for the
privilege of attaching thin clients on the network which also runs an MS
server.
Correct me, please, if I have once again misreported the details, but I
know for certain that I lost interest when you explained the costs of
this additional TC licensing.
And, no, I'm not into remote support and, in fact, I'm in the process of
warning some of my clients against the practice of one of the local PM
software vendors who install VNC into practices for remote support,
without explaining the risks to their customers.
Yes, it's the freeware version, whose web site recommends against its
use over the Internet in favour of a more secure, but not free, version.
I do, however, have a couple of GPs accessing their server via an IPSEC
VPN, so they can have dinner with their family, then work from their
home office. Works great for Medicare Online batching. I'd prefer to
stay away from PPTP, VNC, RDP and PcAnywhere, except where the latter
three are running inside such a VPN.
Winconnect I must look up, however, though I'm not sure if it resolves
the MS licensing issues on a LAN.
Greg
--
Greg Twyford
Information Management & Technology Program Officer
Canterbury Division of General Practice
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ph.: 02 9787 9033
Fax: 02 9787 9200
PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL
***********************************************************************
The information contained in this e-mail and their attached files,
including replies and forwarded copies, are confidential and intended
solely for the addressee(s) and may be legally privileged or prohibited
from disclosure and unauthorised use. If you are not the intended
recipient, any form of reproduction, dissemination, copying, disclosure,
modification, distribution and/or publication or any action taken or
omitted to be taken in reliance upon this message or its attachments is
prohibited.
All liability for viruses is excluded to the fullest extent permitted by
law.
***********************************************************************
_______________________________________________
Gpcg_talk mailing list
[email protected]
http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
