This does not at all surprise me....A friend came back from the US about 3 years ago and commented that there servers/pc networks were quite uncommon - almost everyone tended to TS for office networks. The reason I think it didn't take off here faster is I guess the expensive servers required, licencing costs for the TS sessions, and network expertise too. Nowadays probably mainly licencing costs is the main hurdle. No doubt pricing is set so that much of the cost of the server (server OS) and the work stations (TS licences) goes to you know who now, and not to the hardware suppliers.
Still funny how we have gone full circle back to *cough* minicomputers/thin clients by killing all the minicomputer manufacturers along the way (anyone even remember the names DEC, Alpha, MIPS, Prime, PDP, VAX, VMS, or even Cray) Oh yes VMS, that's what Dave Cutler worked on before creating Windows NT to battle OS/2 and IBM and Unix. VMS was battling Unix too....hmm some things in the world don't change do they? Still - Windows hasn't ever yet come up with an operating system able to print an error message such as: ?Mon-F-Power Failure (this is from RT-11/TSX+), and yes I have seen it. Impressive. (the display screen the error message was seen on was on a separate power supply!) Well - it is Friday and this is the Off-Topic list. If it helps I did see a Pascal compiler when I worked on PDP's. >John >I have not sold a 'Server and network of PC's' for about 4 years, We >#Highly# recommend to our clients a TS and thin clients, the reason is cost of ownership and remote access. Yes you may consider TS as Terminals with graphics but the PC boom was on the basis of GUI usability, TS is the best of both, central management / thin client >Thin client shipments grew 39% last year which says something John _______________________________________________ Offtopic mailing list [email protected] http://ns3.123.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/offtopic
