Re: X terminal hardware
- From: alexd <look@xxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2006 11:29:39 GMT
Gordon Henderson wrote:
In article <3160206.4U8f8YvlJK@xxxxxx>, alexd <look@xxxxxx> wrote:
Does anyone have any experience with the current crop of X terminals, eg
Wyse 5150:
http://www.microwarehouse.co.uk/catalogue/item/WYST107
Wow. Didn't realise people were still making "X-Terminals" these days!
Well that's the thing - they don't. All the devices I've listed [imho] just
have X support as a side effect of running linux - they also do VNC, SSH,
Citrix ICA and Windows RDP. The manufacturers have probably realised that
Windows licensing takes up a disproportionate amount of the cost of a <£200
device, and if you're going to use linux, you might as well use the
graphics subsystem [X11] that comes with it.
However, for that price you can get a full-blown PC.
Yeah I keep hearing that old saw; I can also buy a second hand tractor for
the same price as a small car, but it isn't what I want, so I won't.
Compare and contrast the power requirements and noise output of a roomful
of PCs ["The Intel Pentium 4: And They Said Desktop Nuclear Fusion Wasn't
Possible!"] vs. a roomful of thin clients.
It's small & cute though ;-)
Right now I like the look of the HP T5125 the best. For £170, I couldn't buy
a mini-ITX case, mobo, ram, flash storage, IDE-flash adaptor and power
supply. It would never be as small as that, it wouldn't come with linux
pre-installed and configured, and it probably wouldn't be silent either.
The first one runs linux, so it'll be as fast as the PCs are - processor
speed not withstanding. It has 128MB of RAM which is more than adequate
for X only. It doesn't say what the processor clock speed is, but a quick
google on it shows that it's probably 400MHz (or 533) which is going to
be just fine, as it's not running the applications, just drawing them.
That's pretty much what I was hoping to hear. LTSP.org says that X terminal
performance doesn't much improve above 133MHz/24MB on the client. I was
just after opinions from someone who's used one for X.
I run remote X a lot though - both on a LAN and via VPN (ssh tunnel),
displaying on my Linux workstation. It's quite funny running GIMP over a
2Mb ADSL line, remotely, but only for a few minutes, then it gets boring,
as there really is a lot of traffic going over the wires and lag soon
makes itself known.
Yeah, tried that with Kmail. Like you said, it gets boring pretty quickly,
especially with --bling=50cent.
I'm told that using VNC is much faster, but not dabbled in that yet.
Yeah, VNC is vaguely usable over a 'domestic' WAN connection, but I'm a
sucker for full colour depth. I really should have a go with NX [if only
for its session management, which is where X11 falls down in comparison to
Windows RDP, IMO], but I can't find any pre-compiled packages for
Debian/AMD64, or a HOWTO written in words of less than four sill a
bulls ;-)
--
<http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) (gebssnfxl@xxxxxxxxxxx)
09:37:50 up 7 days, 24 min, 3 users, load average: 0.02, 0.01, 0.00
This is my BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMSTICK
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: X terminal hardware
- From: Nigel Wade
- Re: X terminal hardware
- From: Vic
- Re: X terminal hardware
- From: Owain
- Re: X terminal hardware
- References:
- X terminal hardware
- From: alexd
- Re: X terminal hardware
- From: Gordon Henderson
- X terminal hardware
- Prev by Date: Re: Firefox UK version isn't really!
- Next by Date: Re: X terminal hardware
- Previous by thread: Re: X terminal hardware
- Next by thread: Re: X terminal hardware
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
