Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!ucsd!ucbvax!bloom-beacon!eru!luth!sunic!mcsun!ukc!acorn!john
From: john@acorn.co.uk (John Bowler)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x
Subject: Re: X Terms vs Workstations
Keywords: x terms, diskless workstations
Message-ID: <1697@acorn.co.uk>
Date: 19 Feb 90 11:28:46 GMT
References: <66915@aerospace.AERO.ORG>
Reply-To: john@acorn.UUCP (John Bowler)
Organization: Acorn Computers Ltd, Cambridge, UK
Lines: 48

In article <66915@aerospace.AERO.ORG> louis@aerospace.aero.org (Louis M. McDonald) writes:
>I have been asked numerious times why someone should purchase
>and X term when some workstations (especially diskless) are 
>just as cheap). I always give the standard
>
>"A workstation requires a sys admin, but an X term does not"
>
In principle not true, but in practice accurate.  A terminal (any terminal,
not just X terminals) requires sys admin - but the admin is (mostly) confined
to the host (X client) machine(s).  In practice this will be a relatively
small increment to the administration work required anyway.  On the other
hand a discless workstation requires looking after in its own right, and there
are other consequences:-

	1) More machines each with their own environment == more potential
	for confusion if the environments get out of step.

	2) Network security is lower - physical protection of a diskless
	workstation may be more difficult than that of the file (etc)
	server machine and it requires (considerably) less expertise
	to tamper with a diskless workstation than with an X terminal.

	3) The interface between a diskless workstation and a file server
	is far broader than that between an X terminal and an X client
	server (:-) ie a server of X clients :-):-).  This means that
	more things have to be set up and maintained (in addition to
	setting up and maintaining the workstation itself).

>I would be interested in hearing from other people as to their
>thoughts on this issue. Quantitative information would be also
>appreciated (cost of workstation vs x term)
>
Now, as far as I can see the hardware in an X terminal can be exactly the
same as that in a diskless workstation (so can the software if you restrict
it to bootp type stuff just to load the kernel or X server...)  I
assert (without proof) that, despite this, X terminal hardware costs less
than comparable diskless workstation hardware; that an X terminal with
a given (X) performance (measured using any of the widely accepted X
benchmarks :-) costs significantly less than a diskless workstation with
the same performance.  The only problem with proving or disproving these
assertions is agreeing on an X benchmark...

Why should this be so (if it is)?  Because current X servers can get away
with significantly less powerful hardware than that required to give
adequate performance to a workstation running a multi-processing operating
system.

John Bowler (jbowler@acorn.co.uk)