NComputing vs the rest
Patrick
publicity for their shared computing solutions. However their
technology is not new. It is a rehash of existing terminal server
technology but the difference is that as far as I know, the NComputing
boxes can only use their proprietary terminal server. Perhaps this
lack of distinction from existing, well proven solutions is one reason
why NComputing has struggled to make sales in NZ.
We did buy an L230 which works over a network, but in order to run it,
it needs its own dedicated terminal server and has a few flakiness
issues. It does work but the fact that it is incompatible with
existing infrastructure is an issue.
There is an alternative in the form of the well developed industrial
thin client hardware, which essentially does the same thing but uses
"standard" protocols - depending on the model it can support RDP,
rdesktop, Citrix etc. Essentially the other end can be some form of
terminal server - Windows, Linux or some other compatible system. It
means you can integrate these into an existing solution that you
already have.
I am writing this right now because I think that L230 that we bought a
few months back is about to be mothballed - unless I can find some
other use for it. Its role can be taken by a much cheaper second hand
HP thin client, which can connect to a terminal server that is being
used for other roles with other clients - it doesn't have to run
NComputing's own separate terminal server software. These HP and other
brands of devices can be had for as little as $100 each. They have no
moving parts, save a lot of power, and produce no noise or heat.
I am writing this to be educational. We didn't actually know anything
about the existing thin client solutions when we bought the L230. But
now with these other options, we are likely to be outfitting the
school with other brands than the NComputing system because they don't
require an NComputing-only solution. NComputing may have the highest
profile from specifically targeting schools (we get publicity material
from them several times a year) but they don't have the best solution,
in my view.
Julian Davison
> I would guess most people reading this have seen NComputing's
> publicity for their shared computing solutions.
> I am writing this to be educational. We didn't actually know anything
> about the existing thin client solutions when we bought the L230. But
> now with these other options, we are likely to be outfitting the
> school with other brands than the NComputing system because they don't
> require an NComputing-only solution. NComputing may have the highest
> profile from specifically targeting schools (we get publicity material
> from them several times a year) but they don't have the best solution,
> in my view.
Depends on what you're trying to achieve.
I would not use the NComputing devices I've seen in place of an ethernet
connected 'thin client' (in my case Atom boards network booting Ubuntu).
Primarily due to their comparative lack of flexibility.
Their multi-head-on-one-box solution does have more appeal for the
situations where you have a 'more powerful' machine and would like to
extract a few more seats out of it.
I had a few issues with their software, which broke on application
of Windows Updates (fixed by updating their software, which didn't
behave well with proxies), but otherwise it seemed to be a fairly
neat hack.
Definitely horses for courses.
J,
Patrick
Given that you can run any server OS on such a machine?
I think that the only distinction that can be made is whether that
server should have, for example, a RAID disk array, server grade CPU
(e.g. Xeon) and memory etc - these are what pushes the price up. That
is where the main distinction on cost comes - not the operating system
cost, which is practically the same. Ditto any licensing costs which
may apply (depending on your choice of OS).
Although, I understand, they have managed to get the cost for the X
series terminals very low per-terminal when all the terminals are very
close together.
So I think what NComputing have done can be summed up in a few words:
it can run on a desktop OS instead of a server, apart from that there
isn't much differentiation.
Julian Davison
> How is a "more powerful machine" distinct from a small server?
It's a desktop.
It has desktop software on it.
It sits in a classroom.
"More powerful" in comparison with a thin client, or well
loaded terminal server. The kind of machine that you have
to run Photoshop on for a single person, but could usefully use
to allow a few people to browse the internet or write Word
documents.
[snip]
> Although, I understand, they have managed to get the cost for the X
> series terminals very low per-terminal when all the terminals are very
> close together.
You might notice that the 'X series terminals' aren't ethernet
connected, and are thus the ones I was referring to.
Indeed these require a PCI card in the shared PC.
> So I think what NComputing have done can be summed up in a few words:
> it can run on a desktop OS instead of a server, apart from that there
> isn't much differentiation.
You've lost me entirely. Differentiation with what?
NComputing, when I last looked, and these options still seem to exist,
even if they've expanded their range, had two primary offerings:
1. PCI-card linking <some number> of heads to a single stand-alone PC
2. Ethernet units linked to a server
Each of these used proprietary software from NComputing.
The first, in my view, offers a useful addition to allow more than one
person to use a computer in, say, a classroom.
The second, in my view, offered no advanages, and a few disadvantages
when compared with 'traditional thin clients'.
Which brings us back to 'Horses for courses'.
J,
Patrick
On Oct 4, 4:25 pm, Julian Davison <jul...@tech.cbhs.school.nz> wrote:
> On 4/10/2010 4:12 p.m., Patrick wrote:
>
> > How is a "more powerful machine" distinct from a small server?
>
> It's a desktop.
> It has desktop software on it.
> It sits in a classroom.
> "More powerful" in comparison with a thin client, or well
> loaded terminal server. The kind of machine that you have
> to run Photoshop on for a single person, but could usefully use
> to allow a few people to browse the internet or write Word
> documents.
as well as terminal server clients. The main issue is then whether it
can run installed software usefully for a local user as well as TS
client sessions.
> [snip]
>
> > Although, I understand, they have managed to get the cost for the X
> > series terminals very low per-terminal when all the terminals are very
> > close together.
>
> You might notice that the 'X series terminals' aren't ethernet
> connected, and are thus the ones I was referring to.
> Indeed these require a PCI card in the shared PC.
>
> > So I think what NComputing have done can be summed up in a few words:
> > it can run on a desktop OS instead of a server, apart from that there
> > isn't much differentiation.
>
> You've lost me entirely. Differentiation with what?
You can run the NComputing software on a Windows XP desktop and serve
multiple remote desktop sessions to your interconnected clients.
Microsoft doesn't provide that solution on a desktop OS - there can
only be one remote desktop session, and it locks out a local user.
> NComputing, when I last looked, and these options still seem to exist,
> even if they've expanded their range, had two primary offerings:
>
> 1. PCI-card linking <some number> of heads to a single stand-alone PC
>
> 2. Ethernet units linked to a server
can share a desktop PC.
The main distinction is how they are physically connected, wth the X
series using USB cables and the L series running over Ethernet.
> Each of these used proprietary software from NComputing.
>
> The first, in my view, offers a useful addition to allow more than one
> person to use a computer in, say, a classroom.
>
> The second, in my view, offered no advanages, and a few disadvantages
> when compared with 'traditional thin clients'.
main difference between them is the method of physically connecting
them together. The ethernet based solution can still be sharing a
desktop PC - the main advantage is these PCs can be much further
apart.
Paul Conroy
to look at Microsofts Multipoint Server 2010
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/multipoint/learn-more.aspx This can
operate either as an individual machine or as part of a domain. HP's
MS 6000 Desktop is an ideal hardware platform to run Multipoint Server
on
http://h10010.www1.hp.com/wwpc/us/en/sm/WF25a/12454-12454-321959-338927-3641157-4071482.html?jumpid=in_r33/us/en/ps/dso/virtual_education/multiseat/buy_now
Patrick
server using standard thin clients rather than specialised hardware
and protocols.
On Oct 5, 9:37 am, Paul Conroy <p-con...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> If you're considering technologies similar to NComputing you'd do well
> MS 6000 Desktop is an ideal hardware platform to run Multipoint Server
Julian Davison
>
> On Oct 4, 4:25 pm, Julian Davison<jul...@tech.cbhs.school.nz> wrote:
>> On 4/10/2010 4:12 p.m., Patrick wrote:
>>
>>> How is a "more powerful machine" distinct from a small server?
>>
>> It's a desktop.
>> It has desktop software on it.
>> It sits in a classroom.
>> "More powerful" in comparison with a thin client, or well
>> loaded terminal server. The kind of machine that you have
>> to run Photoshop on for a single person, but could usefully use
>> to allow a few people to browse the internet or write Word
>> documents.
>
> That desktop can be loaded with Windows Server and allow a local user
> as well as terminal server clients. The main issue is then whether it
> can run installed software usefully for a local user as well as TS
> client sessions.
It sure can.
It isn't required to do that, though, which is the point.
>> [snip]
>>> So I think what NComputing have done can be summed up in a few words:
>>> it can run on a desktop OS instead of a server, apart from that there
>>> isn't much differentiation.
>>
>> You've lost me entirely. Differentiation with what?
>
> With standard thin clients connecting to a terminal server.
>
> You can run the NComputing software on a Windows XP desktop and serve
> multiple remote desktop sessions to your interconnected clients.
> Microsoft doesn't provide that solution on a desktop OS - there can
> only be one remote desktop session, and it locks out a local user.
Very correct. Though remote desktop requires a somewhat more complete
client than the NComputing X series.
The X series is clearly the budget option.
>
>> NComputing, when I last looked, and these options still seem to exist,
>> even if they've expanded their range, had two primary offerings:
>>
>> 1. PCI-card linking<some number> of heads to a single stand-alone PC
>>
>> 2. Ethernet units linked to a server
>
> As far as I can tell , both use the same software and therefore both
> can share a desktop PC.
Yup. Just like you can install Windows Server on any desktop PC,
if you want. Doesn't mean you *have* to use it in that way.
> The main distinction is how they are physically connected, wth the X
> series using USB cables and the L series running over Ethernet.
They're targeted at different audiences. X is for small groups with
limited hardware.
L is for a large distributed group.
>> Each of these used proprietary software from NComputing.
>>
>> The first, in my view, offers a useful addition to allow more than one
>> person to use a computer in, say, a classroom.
>>
>> The second, in my view, offered no advanages, and a few disadvantages
>> when compared with 'traditional thin clients'.
>
> The way that I see it is, the two have to be considered similarly, the
> main difference between them is the method of physically connecting
> them together. The ethernet based solution can still be sharing a
> desktop PC - the main advantage is these PCs can be much further
> apart.
You can certainly choose to view, or even use, them identically.
I maintain that they are different and aimed at different target
audiences. I definitely wouldn't use them interchangably.
J,