Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Displays IT

Jetway PT800TWIN - Dual User Hardware 227

Posted by timothy from the for-both-of-me dept.
Steve K writes "Cost-cutting in IT. Something the beancounters are always looking at, no doubt. Jetway have attempted to provide an answer -- allow two users to utilise one machine at once. HEXUS.net have a review: 'The PT800TWIN is an odd beast. While it's admirable that Jetway have engineered it with MagicTwin support in mind, to go after the low-cost/budget/TCO crowd, you have to wonder about the implementation. It needs Windows XP, adding cost. A large proportion of applications released on Windows require you to have two licenses to run concurrently on a MagicTwin system, adding cost. While you save money on the hardware, you don't on the software.' Not really a revolutionary product, but perhaps it can be taken somewhere with a little more work."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Jetway PT800TWIN - Dual User Hardware More

Jetway PT800TWIN - Dual User Hardware

Comments Filter:

  • A Novel Concept but… (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Izago909 ( 637084 ) * <tauisgodNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Monday September 13, 2004 @07:26PM (#10241900)
    Considering the market that they are targeting, the single largest expense is not the hardware but the software. A full version of XP Pro costs $300 and a full copy of Office 2003 costs $400. Sure, you can get volume discounts, possibly even upgrades, but considering most OEM's offer low end office PC's for the same price as a full version of 2003, you can see how the hardware isn't the biggest concern if you are aiming at the business value market. An effective API layer for Linux that supports the most common business apps could pull in more money. Also, before anyone brings it up, Crossover Office [codeweavers.com] needs a bit more work and a stronger reputation before it would be considered as a common business solution.
    • $300 for XP? How ya figure? http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?desc ription=37-102-153&depa=0 That's OEM, but that's how you buy this machine no? $150
      • Your link is broken. $300 is the MSRP. Check Amazon, Microsoft, and Best Buy websites. An OEM copy would work too, but you still need 2 copies of all your software. Regardless of your choice, this still costs more than their target market will pay.
        • The link isn't broken, slashdot just puts a space in a full URL like that. Find the %20 and remove it, and you get a working link for Windows XP for $145. $300 is right, but thats for both licenses.
      • Did you read the bold print in your own link? Here it is:
        *Must be Purchased with Hardware!!*. So an end-user needs to buy some hardware. Smart end-users will know you can buy a $5.00 cable or something. Corporations can get it at $150 or so, or maybe even less depending on the number of licenses, but it is still not cheap by a long shot. Most desktops today cannot run two users at once on MS Windows XP at the same time in an efficient manner. MS does not design multi-user systems. The best they have
        • Corporations can get it at $150 or so, or maybe even less depending on the number of licenses, but it is still not cheap by a long shot

          My company employs about 18,600 people, and we get Windows XP licenses (not upgrades) for $53. There are only about 5,000 computers. I don't know where you get your information, but mine's first hand.
    • > Considering the market that they are targeting,
      > the single largest expense is not the hardware
      > but the software.

      Considering the market they are targeting, the largest software expense will be 10-15 USD, for a DVD with Windows, Office, Photoshop, etc on, that can be bought as "overstock" from the local peasants-market, probably.

      Rainer
    • Get a linux box and a few Xterms, or a decent server and some low end workstations running X.

      .....Totally scalable, native support out of the box.

      Centralized management, file sharing, and security.

      Off the shelf hardware... Can't beat that for lower TCO....

      • Get a linux box and a few Xterms

        But then wouldn't you have to buy a copy of Crossover Office and Microsoft Office for each X terminal you attach? Many businesses rely on being able to open Microsoft Office documents that OpenOffice.org chokes on.

        • Do you have an example of an MS doc that OOo chokes on? I don't doubt they exist, I've just never had it happen, and I'd like to know what chokes it and how it reacts (junk in the display? crash? error message?).

          • For a Microsoft Office doc that won't open in OpenOffice.org, try anything made in Microsoft Access, the graphical database frontend. OOo doesn't have a corresponding application.

            Or try any of the vertical market applications that exist only for Microsoft Windows.

          • In fact, Chinese versions of Office have been very difficult for Open Office. As of 1.1 there have been many improvements, but people got burned early on and this really hurt the effort.
            The Chinese language is an interesting battleground in Open Source, especially when it comes to productivity apps since a localized desktop isn't really that different from the western version once you get the key-in system set up. An office suite, on the other hand, is quite different between English and Chinese. Onc
    • Not to mention that of all the hardware only the base system can be shared. Keyboard, mouse and monitor all need to stay one-per-user as they are now, and a monitor is a pretty big portion of the price of desktops.
    • This is such an old idea..

      Years ago a company called IPC released a product called "PCBuddy" that does the same. I can't find any more links for this unfortunately, the company has since sort of become irrelevant and google is so clogged up with links to some Windows IPC shares.

      Does make me wonder if this new company is trying to patent it though.

  • What the heck? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 13, 2004 @07:27PM (#10241908)
    Why not just buy a damn server and attach dumbterminals then?

    All this thing is really is a scaled down version of time sharing systems that have been around since the 1950's.

    Oh well, I guess the more things change the more they stay the same.
    • That's what it IS doing...sort of...

      Think of it as something your 2 kids can share to surf the net. Cheap, low cost, and adding that second kid for "free". Of course the screwed up Licensing ruins the whole thing. The system is great for people at home...after all it's only 1 INSTALLED copy!!! but for businesses the "grey area" makes this useless because you can't fight the BSA when they see you have 12 of these!!

      As far as making a server... you ain't seen MS licensing prices for their terminal serv

      • If that's true you should start a business selling XP and Office licenses to people by buying Dells and reselling the hardware sans software to Linux enthusiasts.
    • Dumb terminals (including X terminals) aren't of much use anymore because UI's and Web content are so rich. Flash games and animations just aren't well suited to dumb terminals. And look at MacOS, with all its flashy animation and translucency effects.

      No, I don't think I'll be running out to buy this thing, but for a library or school I can imagine it.

    • Licensing.

      Bill Gates is afraid to death of network computers so he changed the licensing rules to make terminals as expensive as regular pc's.

      Each pc user is counted as a head so you would still pay for the cost.

  • Just in case (Score:2, Informative)

    by lordkuri ( 514498 )
    Coralized link [nyud.net]

  • So basically... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Tuxedo Jack ( 648130 ) on Monday September 13, 2004 @07:28PM (#10241915) Homepage
    It's like an inverted KVM switch or a thinclient for one user while the other one - the one actually seated at the machine - has real control.

    This might be useful for governmental machines, like CIA or such, but I can't see it being used in schools or offices, especially if someone infects a machine with something - though it would make it a hell of a lot easier to clean half the machines.
    • both actually 'sit' at the machine, two monitors and sets of keyboards and mouses. the whole point is of course that you would only need one computer for two users. for most work this would be sufficient anyways and while some argue that the hardware isn't the MAIN cost in an office system it still does cost money.

      there's some projects allowing this on linux without any 'special' hardware, too.

      in short it's a niche product for some people who have use for it.. and for other people who don't have advantage
    • It's like an X server. Except it can do it with Windows XP what X has been doing since X10 (we're not to X11). Trident and others used to sell nifty 4 head video cards with keyboard/mouse ports specifically for this purpose about 10 years ago. (they weren't for Linux/BSD)

  • Two users? One machine at once? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Apreche ( 239272 ) on Monday September 13, 2004 @07:32PM (#10241951) Homepage Journal
    Um. You know, if you get a computer with two video cards, two keyboards, two mice and two monitors you can do with with X rather easily. Heck, if you don't mind the performance hit you can technically get a whole bunch of terminals hooked up to one machine like this. You're really not saving that much money though. Commodity PC hardware is so cheap these days that is just doesn't matter that much.
    • Even if it is cheaper, having one system go down is going to cause an inconvience for a lot more people then it would with multiple PCs. Being that some of my co-workers manage to take their system out of comission once every couple weeks I don't think I wanna share.

    • Re:Two users? One machine at once? (Score:4, Funny)

      by Junior J. Junior III ( 192702 ) on Monday September 13, 2004 @07:50PM (#10242132) Homepage
      Yeah, but think of the pr0n possibilities. It's like a gang-bang for your desktop.

    • Re:Two users? One machine at once? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Lumpy ( 12016 ) on Monday September 13, 2004 @08:01PM (#10242200) Homepage
      Heck, if you don't mind the performance hit you can technically get a whole bunch of terminals hooked up to one machine like this.

      it's not much of a performance hit. An old Dual P-III 866 can easily handle 10 users on diskless LTSP terminals and still have enough performance to get users mentioning how "responsive" it is.

      Who care's about hardware cost. I can maintain one computer for my church instead of maintaining 10 of them. my weekly "free" It time is the 45 minutes between Church service and when my daughter get's out of Sunday School.

      ever Cince I switched the church to Linux they have had zero downtime, zero viruses, and most importantly zero system screw-up's by the "computer experts" in the congregation that think adding things from help the church.

      Now they are 100% legal, the secretary can not screw up her computer by reinstalling webshots and claria again for the 37th time after being told not to. AND they have internet access on all machines instead of just one.

      They got more, more performance from older out-dated hardware and I dont spend more than a few minutes a week on it.

      Companies would kill for that, check that, companies ARE killing for that. WE already have 20 users on a LTSP arrangement at work.
      • it's not much of a performance hit. An old Dual P-III 866 can easily handle 10 users on diskless LTSP terminals and still have enough performance to get users mentioning how "responsive" it is.

        One thing I've run into is Gnome font anti-aliasing - why you say? It slows down dumb terminals (stand alone x-servers) big time - especially those that don't support xtt. Never mind users using the system over some broadband link - where in Mozilla can take quite literally 15-30 seconds to do a page down on a websi
    • You know, if you have two of almost everything guess what you've got? Two computers! :)
    • No you can't really. X doesn't handle the keyboard. You have to jump through some hoops to get multiple keyboards to work.
      • I'm not sure if that's really true. Why not use two USB keyboards, and manually specify the /dev entry on the commandline with -keyboard for each terminal. You'd think that would work...

        I am _assuming_ you're starting two different instances of the X server (with different conf files, I should think) for the terminals, but I don't think that's cheating.

        -Erwos

        • Re:Two users? One machine at once? (Score:2, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward
          That doesn't work yet. All keyboard scancodes go to the same handler where it gets all mixed up. Multiple screens and mice are OK - multiple keyboard support is still lagging.

          There are some hacks that severe the USB keyboard device and handle it in an X patch, but this is still not mainstream. There are also hacks that use a second keyboard plugged into the PS2 mouse port and have all mice on USB.

          I guess by next year, it will be OK.

  • Use Linux systems instead, like this (Score:5, Informative)

    by vinsci ( 537958 ) on Monday September 13, 2004 @07:33PM (#10241955) Journal
    Linux Multi-Head [c3sl.ufpr.br]: Share a single CPU and RAM among 2 two 16 users, each having their own screens, keyboards, mice etc.

    This was also discussed on Slashdot a short while ago: FourHead: One PC, Four Users [slashdot.org]

    • >
      Share a single CPU and RAM among 2 two 16 users

      I suppose you meant '2 to 16' users, but where does this '16' number comes from?

      Perhaps one can have a bad system with lots of PCI slots and USB ports to accomodate that much users, but is that viable? Does that exist? Typically this needs to be cheap, commodity hardware, thus the usual maximum of four.

  • Why stop there? (Score:5, Funny)

    by FunWithHeadlines ( 644929 ) on Monday September 13, 2004 @07:34PM (#10241976) Homepage
    Hey, if we're going to cut costs let's go all out:

    "ATTENTION STAFF: From now on all developers will share a Jetway PT800TWIIN workstation. You can both log in to the same machine, thereby saving us hardware costs. A cost savings that you can imagine will get passed back to you in higher salaries, but there you would be wrong. Think executive bonuses for coming up with this idea in the first place.

    In a further cost-cutting move, both developers sharing their PT800TWIN workstation will also share the same ergonomic chair. By getting our cleaning service personnel to sretch out your chairs in the off hours, we have found that two moderately overweight programmers can now fit into the same chair. Note the 'moderately' part. From now on all snacks from the kitchen will be removed to encourage proper weight maintenance...and to save costs.

    Futher, you'll be happy to hear, we are discontinuing the practice of commuting. Both developers will now share their cubicles with two other developers in a shared work/sleep arrangement. You will work 12 hours, then utilize the new company-issued hammocks with corporate logo and mini pillows to sleep for 12 hours. During those sleep twelve hours, the other two developers will squeeze into the one chair to continue work. Note that you may need to nudge them out of the hammock first, as there will only be one hammock issued for each four developers.

    We know you will appreciate the cost-cutting moves that will help yield higher profits and will be a boon to the executive V.P.s who thought of this move after reading an article in Forbes that called this the next big thing in business. You can thank the V.P. personally when he comes back from his 3-month trip to Fiji paid for by the bonus he received from suggesting this approach. Please join me in thanking him. And get back to work."

    • Re:Why stop there? (Score:2, Interesting)

      by nolife ( 233813 )
      Note that you may need to nudge them out of the hammock first.

      Sounds like life on a US Navy Submarine.. They called it "hot racking", you slept in a bunk while person B worked, then you swapped. The last of those older subs are now all decommissioned and the newer subs have enough for everyone in theory but I am sure it still happens on occasion. The step up from sharing a bunk was the bunks with equipment within arms reach, like a 4500# air bank valve actuator, a bleeder valve, or in an open area with

  • Why? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by FiReaNGeL ( 312636 ) <fireang3l.hotmail@com> on Monday September 13, 2004 @07:34PM (#10241977) Homepage
    Why choose to buy one very performing desktop to split his performance in half, instead of buying 2 cheap desktops? Performing hardware is always more costly than twice its underperforming counterpart...

    Also, twice the applications running, twice the opportunity to crash...?
    • dunno about what software you use but why would anyone on this day and age use software that crashes often for _work_?

      most of the time the desktop will be sitting doing almost nothing. it's not hard to think up a scenario where you would need fast cpu power couple of times a day for 3 minutes at a time or so(calculating some tables or whatever) but the rest of the day you could do well with a crappy one.

      and of course you could always buy just one super crappy computer and share that, it would still be mor

    • Re:Why? (Score:4, Informative)

      by mabhatter654 ( 561290 ) on Monday September 13, 2004 @08:07PM (#10242241)
      performance doesn't really cut in half...after all, most people spend 75% of their time reading or typing, not aranging windows...that means the second person is using resources "just sitting there" anyway. The chances 2 people are going to load large apps at the same time really doesn't come up that often.

      Of course windows is horrible about program usage...it tries to open new copies of programs in ram every time you start another... again, the design of Linux proves much better for this situation!

      • Re:Why? (Score:2, Insightful)

        by tepples ( 727027 )

        The chances 2 people are going to load large apps at the same time really doesn't come up that often.

        What about the first 30 minutes of the work day?

    • While, if you look at the price of a top performing part and one half that speed (Call them the $300 3.4GHz P4 and the $100 1.7GHz P4, based on pricewatch.com's listings), you might say that there's a 3x price differential when, in fact, the margin's much lower.

      Using a single system, you're not requiring a pair of motherboards, cases and video cards (assuming you're sanely using a dual-head card), which more than makes up the hardware cost difference. Add in the fact that you can share HDD space (OS + app
  • It looks like if one were to use this with Windows XP there's still the software consideration -- fortunately, there's a wealth of Free or Open software that could be run on here without having to worry about doubling license costs. Most offices could get by with Mozilla and StarOffice.

    Maybe even go so far as putting Linux on the thing? As long as you're working on a budget system anyway.

    • Hmm I think people are missing the point, sure you have to buy 2 license for your software, but how is that different then buying 2 separate machines? From a support standpoint, it is easier to configure and support 25 machines instead of 50. I see this as a good thing for small companies that want or need to stick with windows but can't get the justify having enough systems to realize cost savings from a full blown Thin cliient scenario.
      • I really don't think you save that much.

        If one of these breaks (hardware or software), you have two people not working instead of just one. And maybe 2 people's documents lost, rather than just one.

        And Windows XP is just not that well designed for multi-user multitasking. Suppose my coworker hits ctrl-alt-delete. Now the machine is stalled, waiting for him to do whatever he was going to do. Oops, he just opened a message in outlook with a virus, and now I have it too.

        So with this, the stupid user doe

  • re-inventing the wheel? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by museumpeace ( 735109 ) on Monday September 13, 2004 @07:38PM (#10242014) Journal
    You don't have to be too old to remember departmental computers and minicomputers with timesharing that enabled 10 people, 2 of whom actually knew how to get net work done on a computer, to use one $50000 system. When did we hit bottom? This is not progress. I think these guys are re-inventing the flat tire. Wouldn't they be miles ahead to start with an OS that was multi-usr from the get-go and available with a LIceNse for Users at no eXpense?
  • ...to set up two X displays on a dual-headed machine, with each display being served by a different keyboard and mouse?

    Give the X server access to the raw HID devices...Use udev to make sure the same keyboard and the same mouse show up as the same device node every time. (Even if you disconnect and reconnect the USB device.)

    Never done it, but I think that's how it would be done.
    • The scheme used in the system recently mentioned here requires a kernel patch. Seems silly to me. I would think that by using a serial kb and mouse you could probably pretty easily get the X server to talk to the second display as a separate entity, but then what do I know? I've never tried. The backstreet ruby patch from the linux console project lets you have multiple consoles, but I can't see why this would be necessary for X.
      • It's because XFree86 wants to "own" a virtual terminal, and Linux will send all the user input to one vt as well. You can start a number of X servers, for example one on vt7 and one on vt8, but only one of those terminals can have the keyboard input. And in a regular Linux box, if you hook up a bunch of keyboards, all that input is STILL going to get mixed and routed to whichever vt currently owns the keyboard input.

        It seems in some ways that the /dev/input setup in more recent Linux was a step backward

        • It seems in some ways that the /dev/input setup in more recent Linux was a step backwards, towards a single user per computer.

          Well, what you could do is make keyboards 'attachable' to terminals. Meaning, your first keyboard (let's call it keyboard0) is attached to every tty by default. You could use sysctl to attach keyboardX to ttyY, and connect arbitrary devices to arbitrary terminals.

          I'm not a kernel hacker, but that seems like a reasonable solution from an end user standpoint.

    • The problem is the keyboard. The keyboard driver is prehistoric and it doesn't help if you have everything double but has only one keyboard. You have to jump through some hoops to get multiple keyboards to work.

  • Xterms (Score:3, Insightful)

    by sPaKr ( 116314 ) on Monday September 13, 2004 @07:40PM (#10242030)
    Wasnt their a story several months ago where someone was shiping 4way xtermainls all homed on a single pentium? I mean XP supporting only 2users seems rather weak when they have 4way X machines using extra video cards and usb kb/mouse.
    • The problem with that X machine is that the company's internally standard Windows software won't run very well on it. This allows a migration to timesharing without needing to adapt to new software as well.
      • enablers! Thats like saying well if your a heroine addict getting off heronine is hard and people wont like it. So if a heronie addict cant afford heroine we should just give it to them. To mix metaphores, methadone is available in the form of Citrix. Long story short, stop being a junky

  • But in 10 years hardware will be free (Score:4, Insightful)

    by aardwolf204 ( 630780 ) on Monday September 13, 2004 @07:40PM (#10242035)
    And considering that in 10 years the hardware will be free [wired.com] this doesnt look like such a great investment.

    Stateless Linux [slashdot.org] anyone?
  • Applica did this five or so years ago. I tested their U2 product back 1999-ish.

    http://www.applica.com/ [applica.com]
  • This just sounds like more trouble than its worth. If you want to go think-client, then go thin-client and reap the benefits. If you want individual workstations, then do that. Don't try to meet in the middle, or you'll find yourself with twice the headaches and none of the benefits.
    • Yeah. And let me point this out as well. If there is one thing that Windows developers (particularly those like me that tend to use lots of high-speed timer callbacks and Win32 calls) do on a regular basis it is crash the machine. The last thing I want is the guy in the next cubicle blowing away my last couple hours work because he COPYMEMORY'ed a few megs of crap over my code space. Separate is good.

  • savings! (Score:4, Interesting)

    by pchan- ( 118053 ) on Monday September 13, 2004 @07:44PM (#10242071) Journal
    While you save money on the hardware, you don't on the software.

    as opposed to not saving on software AND not saving on hardware? sounds like a good solution to me. besides, you're paying for a single install of winxp, not two, so that's software savings right there. and yes, sometimes windows xp is the right tool for the job and is worth paying for (like in some office environments where the workers know, want, and need windows). forcing people to use linux against their will can be just as stupid as forcing people to use windows against their will.
    • again, all those silly EULAs get in the way here.. it'd be fine for you or me to buy one of these for home...nobody would bother us. but a business that buys 12 for their shop employees would be in a world of hurt if the BSA ever came knocking... most windows software nodays is per machine/per user/per cpu in the "fine print" You'd get sued first, sort it out in court later!!
      • Suppose you have 2 employees; you have the following options:

        2 separate computers - costs: (2*cost of computer hardware)+(2*cost of software licenses)

        1 computer, two consoles - costs: (1*cost of computer hardware)+(2*cost of software licenses)

        There is a cost savings, although it might be somewhat minimal.

      • most windows software nodays is per machine/per user/per cpu

        I looked into this and it appears to only relate to terminal services and external devices connecting to a PC. Technically, a second monitor/keyboard/mouse set is not any more an external device than the first set and doesn't trip over anything in the EULA that forces you to purchase extra licenses.

        However, if you're doing this with BeTwin and you use the bonus terminal services session that it includes you just broke your "contract" with Micro

  • "It needs Windows XP, adding cost."
    True, Linux may be cheaper (free) but I think this is aimed at the wider corporate audience. I know this would be great in our call center. We would still need a Clientele (for example) license for each tech but Clientele doesn't run (last I checked) on Linux and we need one license per tech now.
    I think office would not need multiple licenses either as it is a per CPU license.
  • What does this do that Citrix and thin clients can't?

    • Re:Hum... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by bluekanoodle ( 672900 )
      It's cheaper for those looking for a solution on a smaller scale. Citrix is great if you have enough users to justify the cost of a separate server, and the licensing for citrix, and the software license. However, for 2 to 10 users that might be overkill.
  • It's called Sun Ray, and it's here now.

    And it ROCKS.

    http://wwws.sun.com/sunray/sunray150/index.html

  • Oops (Score:2)

    by zaxios ( 776027 )
    I misread that as "Segway" and saw "It needs Windows XP". Then I thought, "Oh, God, we've reached new levels of pointless bloat!"

  • BeTwin (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    We use BeTwin here at work, and I wouldn't recommend it to anyone that actually wanted their users to do anything with the computer over and above basic web surfing and one other app...not to mention the list of programs that it doesn't work with (non listed on the site, as little testing was done, and we use some odd software (ie Pegasus Mail,XPSP2,etc...etc))

  • I'd really like to be able to do this with my G5, so my wife and I could use it at the same time. It's got the power and the ability to have multiple users simultaneously logged in - all I need is two physical consoles.

  • Why does this approach require THEIR motherboard?

    Why can't the same thing be done (dubious though the approach is) on any commodity PC? This just supplies a couple of driver hacks to get >1 person logged into a single WinXP PC. (Note that this can already be done with non-console users accessing the common machine via Remote Desktop.)

    So what does their motherboard enable that isn't available on other products??

  • How do licenses apply when you're using Remote Desktop through Windows? Do both people need a license when the software is installed on one machine, and the others remote desktop in and use it remotely?

    I'm not up on microsoft licensing, but it seems like you could get away with one license for the machine it is installed on. I would think it would be similar to two users logging in on the same machine, each with a different profile...just curious.

  • Internet Cafe (Score:2, Insightful)

    by ARRRLovin ( 807926 )
    It looks like the perfect app for that would be in an Internet cafe with 2 15" monitors, keyboards and meese. Less maintenance and you can just re-image every morning before you open the doors.
  • I knew this article looked [slashdot.org] familiar

  • Remote Vnc instead. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by blackest_k ( 761565 ) on Monday September 13, 2004 @09:08PM (#10242610) Homepage Journal
    I have been trying a few experiments on my Lan. with different systems of remote connection, realvnc, tightvnc and Remote desktop for windows Xp.

    My linux pc has real multiuser capabilitys since each user gets a seperate desktop. With the majority of actual processing carried out on the superior host machine, very weak clients can be supported.

    With Remotedesktop for instance I had a P166 laptop running 98 se in 48 meg of ram connected to an XP1600 pc running XP pro across a wireless lan.

    The response of the 98 terminal seemed better than running applications locally with little use of the swop file. that underpowered laptop was practically reborn and almost as capable as the remote controlled XP Pc doing most of the work.

    with linux a kde desktop being served (via a realvnc client) to a windows Pc ran smoothly and still allowed a local user at the linux pc but then linux is a proper muliuser environment.

    The practical limitation is the bandwidth of the Lan and the power of the server Pc.

    Someone said whats the point your just spliting a powerful machine in half or quarters or what ever.

    thing is to run a word processor or any other number of other tasks doesn't take a huge amount of processing power a lot of the time a pc is waiting for you.

    As single users we often leave tasks running in the background and hardly miss the resources on a powerful system. Sharing the CPu cycles with another user is not much worse than that.

    Yes with windows program you probably do need to pay for multiuser to be legal but not so much with linux.

    in a home environment do you really need to buy a top pc for everyone or run linux on 1 good one and have a few low powered boxes around the house where your family can log on and use the powerful system while dad sits on it locally reading slashdot.

  • Very cool.... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by NerveGas ( 168686 ) on Monday September 13, 2004 @09:22PM (#10242695)

    The current implementation doesn't seem to work very well, but the idea is pretty cool.

    With a current workstation being much more powerful than most users really need, this isn't a bad idea.

    For the office, I've built a score of AthlonXP 2500+/Nforce2 IGP machines with 512 megs of memory and all-around good, quality hardware for about $450 each. It doesn't make much sense to go for anything slower on the CPU. If I saved $30 (less than 10% of the system cost), I'd probably lose 30% of the performance. But at the same time, that's a lot more CPU than they need for IE, Excell, and Thunderbird.

    It would be very cool to build similar with a gig of memory (say, $600), and let two people in the same cubicle use them. We currently have our customer-service monkies stacked two and three to a cube, so it would work out terrifically.

    In fact, if it weren't for one terribly critical piece of Windows-only software, I would have long ago gone to a dual-CPU Linux machine with 8 gigs of memory, and given twenty people a dumb/thin client with which to connect to it. However, that *still* requires an extra computer on their desktop.

    steve

  • We've got a similar thing happening at work. Certain people (read: PHB's) have this huge aversion to spending $800 on a PC (inc. OS and monitor) for use on the factory floor, when the software package(s) we use costs $7K-$10K per box.

    The aversion comes from having a physical box that can be 'counted', if you are wondering. The goal is to do more with less PCs, not paying any attention to the point where too few impacts productivity. Nobody seems to notice the depreciation on hardware is surpassed by softw

  • As a Linux user plagued with crappy gaming experiences and having to dual boot, I was really hoping when I read the title of this article that we would be talking about a system with two computers in one box, so I could run two operating systems at once if I wanted to.

    Imagine that... two machines in one box, and a KVM switch built into the case for picking which one you want to interact with. Mmmmmm.....

    Either that, or like .. Transitive gets out of vaporware.

  • We tried one of these at work... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by No-op ( 19111 ) on Monday September 13, 2004 @10:10PM (#10242979)
    I was looking to provide two separate terminals for a very, very expensive financial data application that typically has two screens anyway- if you work in the industry you know the one I'm talking about.

    I read about the "MagicTwin" boxes on a hardware site, and thought it might be worth a shot to see if I could get it to work with the "per terminal" licensing features.

    it was a PAIN IN THE ASS to get the whole system working properly, and it basically is just a hacked up version of RDP so it provides a terminal on a second keyboard, mouse, and monitor (the machines have a built in dual head card, or require certain add in cards).

    all in all, it was usable, but nothing to write home about. it didn't work for duping the app either, as it was pretty much the same as a terminal session through RDP and I think people have tried that route before :)

    seriously though, it's kind of cheesy and proprietary... you'd be better off buying generic hardware (a decent shuttle box, for example) and having two separate machines. the admin overhead of that little POS is really not worth the effort, IMHO.

    (for reference, mine is an AMD based box, with a NForce2 IGP- I think it's the magictwin 765 or something like that.)
  • I used to build and sell Alloy multi-user systems (full pc's on 8bit ISA cards) in the mid 80's, and even did some PC-MOS and DR DOS systems on AT clones w/serial terminals.
    Using the IBM expansion unit you could put plenty of Alloy cards in. We used serial terminals and in most businesses the people that NEEDED terminals could have one, back when an XT was $8,000 and an AT was even more.

    I did a few Altos 80186 Xenix multi-user systems too, also using serial terminals.

    Low end multi-user systems have been

  • One word: (Score:3, Informative)

    by Goeland86 ( 741690 ) <goeland86.gmail@com> on Tuesday September 14, 2004 @01:27AM (#10243801) Homepage
    LTSP! [ltsp.org] Allow about 300 people to run the same program with only ONE (1) license of each, and use diskless terminals. SAVE MORE, and with Open Source software. I won't say it enough! L(inux)T(erminal)S(erver)P(roject)!!!

Slashdot Top Deals

FORTRAN is not a flower but a weed -- it is hardy, occasionally blooms, and grows in every computer. -- A.J. Perlis

Close