<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_19_237241</id>
	<title>Where Are the Cheap Thin Clients?</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1261216860000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Darren Ginter writes <i>"I find many aspects of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desktop\_virtualization">desktop virtualization</a> compelling, with one exception: the <a href="http://www.google.com/products?rlz=1C1GGLS\_enUS308US309&amp;q=thin\%20client&amp;um=1&amp;ie=UTF-8&amp;sa=N&amp;hl=en&amp;tab=wf">cost of the thin clients</a>, which typically exceeds that of a <a href="http://configure.us.dell.com/dellstore/config.aspx?oc=bi1s8a0&amp;c=us&amp;l=en&amp;s=bsd&amp;cs=04&amp;kc=desktop-inspiron-537s">traditional box</a>. I understand all of the benefits of desktop virtualization (and the downsides, thanks) but I'm very hung up on spending more for less. While there are some sub-$200 products out there, they all seem to cut corners (give me non-vaporware that will drive a 22" LCD at full resolution). I can <a href="http://www.thinstation.org/">PXE boot</a> a homebrew Atom-based thin client for $130, but I'd prefer to be able to buy something assembled. Am I missing something here?"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Darren Ginter writes " I find many aspects of desktop virtualization compelling , with one exception : the cost of the thin clients , which typically exceeds that of a traditional box .
I understand all of the benefits of desktop virtualization ( and the downsides , thanks ) but I 'm very hung up on spending more for less .
While there are some sub- $ 200 products out there , they all seem to cut corners ( give me non-vaporware that will drive a 22 " LCD at full resolution ) .
I can PXE boot a homebrew Atom-based thin client for $ 130 , but I 'd prefer to be able to buy something assembled .
Am I missing something here ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Darren Ginter writes "I find many aspects of desktop virtualization compelling, with one exception: the cost of the thin clients, which typically exceeds that of a traditional box.
I understand all of the benefits of desktop virtualization (and the downsides, thanks) but I'm very hung up on spending more for less.
While there are some sub-$200 products out there, they all seem to cut corners (give me non-vaporware that will drive a 22" LCD at full resolution).
I can PXE boot a homebrew Atom-based thin client for $130, but I'd prefer to be able to buy something assembled.
Am I missing something here?
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30517298</id>
	<title>containing virus outbreaks is FAR easier.</title>
	<author>logicassasin</author>
	<datestamp>1261392420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Problem: desktop user downloads email attachment "Happy Birthday from Nigerian Banker.exe", virus/trojan is unleashed on your network and attempts to spread.</p><p>Solution: In a VMWare View/thin client environment, you take any infected user's virtual desktop offline and push a fresh, clean version to them. Reprimands will be in order for the person resposible, but work stoppage will be reduced to a minimum AND the effort can be handled by one person instead of a team of people to clean up the aftermath.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Problem : desktop user downloads email attachment " Happy Birthday from Nigerian Banker.exe " , virus/trojan is unleashed on your network and attempts to spread.Solution : In a VMWare View/thin client environment , you take any infected user 's virtual desktop offline and push a fresh , clean version to them .
Reprimands will be in order for the person resposible , but work stoppage will be reduced to a minimum AND the effort can be handled by one person instead of a team of people to clean up the aftermath .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Problem: desktop user downloads email attachment "Happy Birthday from Nigerian Banker.exe", virus/trojan is unleashed on your network and attempts to spread.Solution: In a VMWare View/thin client environment, you take any infected user's virtual desktop offline and push a fresh, clean version to them.
Reprimands will be in order for the person resposible, but work stoppage will be reduced to a minimum AND the effort can be handled by one person instead of a team of people to clean up the aftermath.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30505390</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503000</id>
	<title>What did you expect?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261307220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Buzz is expensive and somebody's gotta pay for it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Buzz is expensive and somebody 's got ta pay for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Buzz is expensive and somebody's gotta pay for it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30502998</id>
	<title>It's like bicycles...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261307220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The more you pay, the less you get.
<p>
Though not for the same reason.  You get a complete PC for less than a thin client because complete PCs are made in insanely high volumes compared to thin clients, which are a niche item.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The more you pay , the less you get .
Though not for the same reason .
You get a complete PC for less than a thin client because complete PCs are made in insanely high volumes compared to thin clients , which are a niche item .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The more you pay, the less you get.
Though not for the same reason.
You get a complete PC for less than a thin client because complete PCs are made in insanely high volumes compared to thin clients, which are a niche item.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503768</id>
	<title>IMHO - they are a joke</title>
	<author>pjr.cc</author>
	<datestamp>1261322640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have two thin clients from either 1990 or 1991 sitting in my roof, and generally speaking that was the last time they were actually useful.</p><p>The reality is that dropping a cheap desktop pc on peoples desk, having a data policy, and having file servers is alot cheaper than thin clients. The simple fact is that the market is mostly driven by joe blogs with his home pc and he has no use for thin clients (despite many attempts to make thin clients relevant in the home). When you talk about thin clients its always business and enterprise which instantly adds a 1000\% mark up of any hardware. Joe blogs buys so many home pc's in fact that their prices are so competitive, unlike thin clients.</p><p>Want to pxe boot some atoms? your not going to beat that price, but be prepared for some pain, because licensing thin clients (even your own) is ridiculously expensive at the backend.</p><p>There has also been alot of hot air released into the IT world about "centralising data into the datacenter" which sound great until you actually do it. WAN optimisation does help, but only so much.</p><p>On top of this, thin clients are a perpetual network nuisance. They seem like a good idea until you get 50 or more clients on the same network segment continuously sending tiny little video updates and realise "holy god my network is being flogged to death". It sounds great but the truth is that sporadic write from clients to a shared file server consume much less bandwidth (people will scoff, but you'd be surprised how much different the network profile is for x number of desktops vs x number of thin clients, even with the rather thin rdp protocol).</p><p>There are places where thin clients are used however and heres why:<br>1) Compliance - i know one place that uses them exclusively because they just cant afford for their data to sit on desktops. I.e. the data itself has to be in some central secure location<br>2) POS/Kiosk type work - i.e. people at windows servicing clients<br>3) people who bought into the concept and now regret it... I know too many of these.</p><p>There are advantages to them, but when viewed with an eye to what people are trying to achieve they mostly become irrelevant when people realise policy (cheap) can easily dictate fixing the problems they are trying to fix with a technical solution. One great one i love hearing is how user X can login to any terminal (or even remotely) to the exact same desktop. How many of your users ACTUALLY need that? Can you seriously say that a terminal server for vpn with access to the same file shares and mail server cant give you what you need? Are your users running around random desks every day they come into the office? The truth is (assuming your on windows at work) that profiles will give your users pretty much all they need - a pre-configured outlook and the network shares they're used to seeing.</p><p>The second one is data, stopping users from saving data locally where it might be lost. Well, this is were policy can save your bum. It'll cause some pain now and then (though rarely) when a user looses a bit of documentation cause it was saved on his desktop (Despite the bleedingly obvious file server sitting next to them on the network) and his drive failed but the reality is this is so very rare the cost of a thin client solution becomes rediculous in comparison.</p><p>Thats my $0.02 anyways. Thin clients i find quite interesting, but they are rarely useful at solving any real problems except in niche and very specific scenarios.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have two thin clients from either 1990 or 1991 sitting in my roof , and generally speaking that was the last time they were actually useful.The reality is that dropping a cheap desktop pc on peoples desk , having a data policy , and having file servers is alot cheaper than thin clients .
The simple fact is that the market is mostly driven by joe blogs with his home pc and he has no use for thin clients ( despite many attempts to make thin clients relevant in the home ) .
When you talk about thin clients its always business and enterprise which instantly adds a 1000 \ % mark up of any hardware .
Joe blogs buys so many home pc 's in fact that their prices are so competitive , unlike thin clients.Want to pxe boot some atoms ?
your not going to beat that price , but be prepared for some pain , because licensing thin clients ( even your own ) is ridiculously expensive at the backend.There has also been alot of hot air released into the IT world about " centralising data into the datacenter " which sound great until you actually do it .
WAN optimisation does help , but only so much.On top of this , thin clients are a perpetual network nuisance .
They seem like a good idea until you get 50 or more clients on the same network segment continuously sending tiny little video updates and realise " holy god my network is being flogged to death " .
It sounds great but the truth is that sporadic write from clients to a shared file server consume much less bandwidth ( people will scoff , but you 'd be surprised how much different the network profile is for x number of desktops vs x number of thin clients , even with the rather thin rdp protocol ) .There are places where thin clients are used however and heres why : 1 ) Compliance - i know one place that uses them exclusively because they just cant afford for their data to sit on desktops .
I.e. the data itself has to be in some central secure location2 ) POS/Kiosk type work - i.e .
people at windows servicing clients3 ) people who bought into the concept and now regret it... I know too many of these.There are advantages to them , but when viewed with an eye to what people are trying to achieve they mostly become irrelevant when people realise policy ( cheap ) can easily dictate fixing the problems they are trying to fix with a technical solution .
One great one i love hearing is how user X can login to any terminal ( or even remotely ) to the exact same desktop .
How many of your users ACTUALLY need that ?
Can you seriously say that a terminal server for vpn with access to the same file shares and mail server cant give you what you need ?
Are your users running around random desks every day they come into the office ?
The truth is ( assuming your on windows at work ) that profiles will give your users pretty much all they need - a pre-configured outlook and the network shares they 're used to seeing.The second one is data , stopping users from saving data locally where it might be lost .
Well , this is were policy can save your bum .
It 'll cause some pain now and then ( though rarely ) when a user looses a bit of documentation cause it was saved on his desktop ( Despite the bleedingly obvious file server sitting next to them on the network ) and his drive failed but the reality is this is so very rare the cost of a thin client solution becomes rediculous in comparison.Thats my $ 0.02 anyways .
Thin clients i find quite interesting , but they are rarely useful at solving any real problems except in niche and very specific scenarios .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have two thin clients from either 1990 or 1991 sitting in my roof, and generally speaking that was the last time they were actually useful.The reality is that dropping a cheap desktop pc on peoples desk, having a data policy, and having file servers is alot cheaper than thin clients.
The simple fact is that the market is mostly driven by joe blogs with his home pc and he has no use for thin clients (despite many attempts to make thin clients relevant in the home).
When you talk about thin clients its always business and enterprise which instantly adds a 1000\% mark up of any hardware.
Joe blogs buys so many home pc's in fact that their prices are so competitive, unlike thin clients.Want to pxe boot some atoms?
your not going to beat that price, but be prepared for some pain, because licensing thin clients (even your own) is ridiculously expensive at the backend.There has also been alot of hot air released into the IT world about "centralising data into the datacenter" which sound great until you actually do it.
WAN optimisation does help, but only so much.On top of this, thin clients are a perpetual network nuisance.
They seem like a good idea until you get 50 or more clients on the same network segment continuously sending tiny little video updates and realise "holy god my network is being flogged to death".
It sounds great but the truth is that sporadic write from clients to a shared file server consume much less bandwidth (people will scoff, but you'd be surprised how much different the network profile is for x number of desktops vs x number of thin clients, even with the rather thin rdp protocol).There are places where thin clients are used however and heres why:1) Compliance - i know one place that uses them exclusively because they just cant afford for their data to sit on desktops.
I.e. the data itself has to be in some central secure location2) POS/Kiosk type work - i.e.
people at windows servicing clients3) people who bought into the concept and now regret it... I know too many of these.There are advantages to them, but when viewed with an eye to what people are trying to achieve they mostly become irrelevant when people realise policy (cheap) can easily dictate fixing the problems they are trying to fix with a technical solution.
One great one i love hearing is how user X can login to any terminal (or even remotely) to the exact same desktop.
How many of your users ACTUALLY need that?
Can you seriously say that a terminal server for vpn with access to the same file shares and mail server cant give you what you need?
Are your users running around random desks every day they come into the office?
The truth is (assuming your on windows at work) that profiles will give your users pretty much all they need - a pre-configured outlook and the network shares they're used to seeing.The second one is data, stopping users from saving data locally where it might be lost.
Well, this is were policy can save your bum.
It'll cause some pain now and then (though rarely) when a user looses a bit of documentation cause it was saved on his desktop (Despite the bleedingly obvious file server sitting next to them on the network) and his drive failed but the reality is this is so very rare the cost of a thin client solution becomes rediculous in comparison.Thats my $0.02 anyways.
Thin clients i find quite interesting, but they are rarely useful at solving any real problems except in niche and very specific scenarios.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503890</id>
	<title>Options</title>
	<author>rwa2</author>
	<datestamp>1261324380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They're getting there, just be patient!</p><p>I'm about the evaluate the Fit-PC2 for work, which can be had in diskless forms for under $250.   <a href="http://www.fit-pc.com/" title="fit-pc.com">http://www.fit-pc.com/</a> [fit-pc.com]</p><p>And I'm currently posting from an EeePC 901 running eeebuntu, which is actually quite a bit better and can be had for under $200.  Plug in an external monitor, and rig up the built-in LCD and peripherals as a fancy KVM switching interface for your various VNC, RDP, VMware, NX, etc. backends.  I'm really impressed by the Compiz desktop performance, so you can still get pretty slick transitions between various sessions on different virtual desktops.</p><p>And I'm really looking forward to the explosion of new nVidia ION netbooks and nettops, which will actually give a real nVidia 9400 GPU and dual-core Atom processors to these "thin clients", which means they can actually be used more or less like a real box in terms of running web-based interfaces and things without stuttering and pausing occasionally.</p><p>So with a dirt-cheap nettop, unfortunately you'll pay a little bit more than your target, but at least you get extra features (like a small SSD, built-in speakers, keyboard/mouse/multitouchpad, and maybe even a webcam, etc. that you could probably put to good use with a bit of creativity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're getting there , just be patient ! I 'm about the evaluate the Fit-PC2 for work , which can be had in diskless forms for under $ 250 .
http : //www.fit-pc.com/ [ fit-pc.com ] And I 'm currently posting from an EeePC 901 running eeebuntu , which is actually quite a bit better and can be had for under $ 200 .
Plug in an external monitor , and rig up the built-in LCD and peripherals as a fancy KVM switching interface for your various VNC , RDP , VMware , NX , etc .
backends. I 'm really impressed by the Compiz desktop performance , so you can still get pretty slick transitions between various sessions on different virtual desktops.And I 'm really looking forward to the explosion of new nVidia ION netbooks and nettops , which will actually give a real nVidia 9400 GPU and dual-core Atom processors to these " thin clients " , which means they can actually be used more or less like a real box in terms of running web-based interfaces and things without stuttering and pausing occasionally.So with a dirt-cheap nettop , unfortunately you 'll pay a little bit more than your target , but at least you get extra features ( like a small SSD , built-in speakers , keyboard/mouse/multitouchpad , and maybe even a webcam , etc .
that you could probably put to good use with a bit of creativity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're getting there, just be patient!I'm about the evaluate the Fit-PC2 for work, which can be had in diskless forms for under $250.
http://www.fit-pc.com/ [fit-pc.com]And I'm currently posting from an EeePC 901 running eeebuntu, which is actually quite a bit better and can be had for under $200.
Plug in an external monitor, and rig up the built-in LCD and peripherals as a fancy KVM switching interface for your various VNC, RDP, VMware, NX, etc.
backends.  I'm really impressed by the Compiz desktop performance, so you can still get pretty slick transitions between various sessions on different virtual desktops.And I'm really looking forward to the explosion of new nVidia ION netbooks and nettops, which will actually give a real nVidia 9400 GPU and dual-core Atom processors to these "thin clients", which means they can actually be used more or less like a real box in terms of running web-based interfaces and things without stuttering and pausing occasionally.So with a dirt-cheap nettop, unfortunately you'll pay a little bit more than your target, but at least you get extra features (like a small SSD, built-in speakers, keyboard/mouse/multitouchpad, and maybe even a webcam, etc.
that you could probably put to good use with a bit of creativity.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503682</id>
	<title>choose any hardware and a good Thin Client OS</title>
	<author>GurneyFox</author>
	<datestamp>1261321560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Some Atom based Thin Clients are great machines, e.g. Foxconn's Qbox - though not fan-less which is a problem for some users.

Most of the Thin Client operating systems are for certain boxes only (and seem pretty outdated), I'm very happy with LISCON OS which is Ubuntu based and runs on a lot of machines, e.g. the Qbox as far as I know.

You can evaluate a demo version:
<a href="http://www.liscon.com/lmd" title="liscon.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.liscon.com/lmd</a> [liscon.com]

cheers</htmltext>
<tokenext>Some Atom based Thin Clients are great machines , e.g .
Foxconn 's Qbox - though not fan-less which is a problem for some users .
Most of the Thin Client operating systems are for certain boxes only ( and seem pretty outdated ) , I 'm very happy with LISCON OS which is Ubuntu based and runs on a lot of machines , e.g .
the Qbox as far as I know .
You can evaluate a demo version : http : //www.liscon.com/lmd [ liscon.com ] cheers</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some Atom based Thin Clients are great machines, e.g.
Foxconn's Qbox - though not fan-less which is a problem for some users.
Most of the Thin Client operating systems are for certain boxes only (and seem pretty outdated), I'm very happy with LISCON OS which is Ubuntu based and runs on a lot of machines, e.g.
the Qbox as far as I know.
You can evaluate a demo version:
http://www.liscon.com/lmd [liscon.com]

cheers</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503690</id>
	<title>Buy the cheapest Dell system and....</title>
	<author>gooneybird</author>
	<datestamp>1261321620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>1) Go out and do a volume purchase of the cheapest Dell system that meets your needs.<br>
<br>
2) Remove hard drives<br>
<br>
3) Sell hard drives on ebay to offset (reduce) cost of systems <br>
<br>
4) Use as thin clients<br>
<br>
5) Look for new job, after you got fired when the company you work for realized that thin clients suck and you had to go back and purchase hard drives for all of the systems</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ) Go out and do a volume purchase of the cheapest Dell system that meets your needs .
2 ) Remove hard drives 3 ) Sell hard drives on ebay to offset ( reduce ) cost of systems 4 ) Use as thin clients 5 ) Look for new job , after you got fired when the company you work for realized that thin clients suck and you had to go back and purchase hard drives for all of the systems</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1) Go out and do a volume purchase of the cheapest Dell system that meets your needs.
2) Remove hard drives

3) Sell hard drives on ebay to offset (reduce) cost of systems 

4) Use as thin clients

5) Look for new job, after you got fired when the company you work for realized that thin clients suck and you had to go back and purchase hard drives for all of the systems</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30507896</id>
	<title>Thin clients are not cost effective</title>
	<author>bbasgen</author>
	<datestamp>1261316640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We did an extensive study and pilot of thin clients recently. Even at $260/thin client, when you consider the back-end servers, storage, VM licensing (on both the server and thin client), and recurring costs -- thin clients worked out to be about $710/unit. We currently buy desktops for $650/unit, and this actually gets worse over time due to licensing costs.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We did an extensive study and pilot of thin clients recently .
Even at $ 260/thin client , when you consider the back-end servers , storage , VM licensing ( on both the server and thin client ) , and recurring costs -- thin clients worked out to be about $ 710/unit .
We currently buy desktops for $ 650/unit , and this actually gets worse over time due to licensing costs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We did an extensive study and pilot of thin clients recently.
Even at $260/thin client, when you consider the back-end servers, storage, VM licensing (on both the server and thin client), and recurring costs -- thin clients worked out to be about $710/unit.
We currently buy desktops for $650/unit, and this actually gets worse over time due to licensing costs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30505686</id>
	<title>Re:The client is not the expensive bit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261339380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"(assuming you are using Windows type thin clients, if you use SunRay and Solaris yes you can save some serious cost but most users will WINE until you connect the SunRay to RDP off a Windows server and giver them their familiar environment back)"</p><p>it's pretty sad that you went anonymous thought i understand why. your ad for microsoft has been noticed. yes i consider your entire comment as a windows advertisement. anon as well,</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" ( assuming you are using Windows type thin clients , if you use SunRay and Solaris yes you can save some serious cost but most users will WINE until you connect the SunRay to RDP off a Windows server and giver them their familiar environment back ) " it 's pretty sad that you went anonymous thought i understand why .
your ad for microsoft has been noticed .
yes i consider your entire comment as a windows advertisement .
anon as well,</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"(assuming you are using Windows type thin clients, if you use SunRay and Solaris yes you can save some serious cost but most users will WINE until you connect the SunRay to RDP off a Windows server and giver them their familiar environment back)"it's pretty sad that you went anonymous thought i understand why.
your ad for microsoft has been noticed.
yes i consider your entire comment as a windows advertisement.
anon as well,</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30504104</id>
	<title>Total Cost of Pnwership !</title>
	<author>redelm</author>
	<datestamp>1261326840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As others have said, low volume of thin-client sales keep the price high -- high fixed costs per unit outweigh the savings in electronics &amp; licences in a full PC. Note the unsharp competition.</p><p>What you are missing is that first-cost (equipment purchase) is a very small part of TCO.  The biggest cost is for user time doing maintenence/downtime.  This has always been MS-Windows achilles heel, requiring ~10\% user time for stability/security.<br>At $10+/hr, it doesn't take too many hours to pay any differential in HW cost.  This (and paranoiac security) have been the drivers for TC.</p><p>Personally, I'm intrigued by the underlying concept of stateless computing.  Of course an oxymoron, the idea of minimizing or focussing state is attractive.  The anti-indirection.  Starting with<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/etc and progressing (or regressing to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.REG), others have also found the idea compelling.  Very low state made IBM mainframes relatively unattractive compared to PCs, excessive state makes MS-Windows (and some perversions of Linux) hard to maintain.  An optimum is still to be found -- on a clear disk [no goals] you can seek forever.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As others have said , low volume of thin-client sales keep the price high -- high fixed costs per unit outweigh the savings in electronics &amp; licences in a full PC .
Note the unsharp competition.What you are missing is that first-cost ( equipment purchase ) is a very small part of TCO .
The biggest cost is for user time doing maintenence/downtime .
This has always been MS-Windows achilles heel , requiring ~ 10 \ % user time for stability/security.At $ 10 + /hr , it does n't take too many hours to pay any differential in HW cost .
This ( and paranoiac security ) have been the drivers for TC.Personally , I 'm intrigued by the underlying concept of stateless computing .
Of course an oxymoron , the idea of minimizing or focussing state is attractive .
The anti-indirection .
Starting with /etc and progressing ( or regressing to .REG ) , others have also found the idea compelling .
Very low state made IBM mainframes relatively unattractive compared to PCs , excessive state makes MS-Windows ( and some perversions of Linux ) hard to maintain .
An optimum is still to be found -- on a clear disk [ no goals ] you can seek forever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As others have said, low volume of thin-client sales keep the price high -- high fixed costs per unit outweigh the savings in electronics &amp; licences in a full PC.
Note the unsharp competition.What you are missing is that first-cost (equipment purchase) is a very small part of TCO.
The biggest cost is for user time doing maintenence/downtime.
This has always been MS-Windows achilles heel, requiring ~10\% user time for stability/security.At $10+/hr, it doesn't take too many hours to pay any differential in HW cost.
This (and paranoiac security) have been the drivers for TC.Personally, I'm intrigued by the underlying concept of stateless computing.
Of course an oxymoron, the idea of minimizing or focussing state is attractive.
The anti-indirection.
Starting with /etc and progressing (or regressing to .REG), others have also found the idea compelling.
Very low state made IBM mainframes relatively unattractive compared to PCs, excessive state makes MS-Windows (and some perversions of Linux) hard to maintain.
An optimum is still to be found -- on a clear disk [no goals] you can seek forever.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503252</id>
	<title>Re:virtualised setup even</title>
	<author>gedw99</author>
	<datestamp>1261314120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.techworld.com.au/article/329382/red\_hat\_open\_sources\_desktop\_application\_protocol" title="techworld.com.au" rel="nofollow">http://www.techworld.com.au/article/329382/red\_hat\_open\_sources\_desktop\_application\_protocol</a> [techworld.com.au]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.techworld.com.au/article/329382/red \ _hat \ _open \ _sources \ _desktop \ _application \ _protocol [ techworld.com.au ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.techworld.com.au/article/329382/red\_hat\_open\_sources\_desktop\_application\_protocol [techworld.com.au]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503232</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503734</id>
	<title>Why pre-built?</title>
	<author>John Pfeiffer</author>
	<datestamp>1261322280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anything 'pre-built' is going to cost too much or be otherwise unsuitable.  It isn't hard to find Atom-based Mini-ITX systems for like $150.  There's also things like that piece of hardware MSI was putting out that is basically the guts of a netbook in a package that mounts to the VESA mounting plate on the back of an LCD and has its own stand...though I don't know what that was supposed to cost.  I would think a good Atom machine would be cheap, and more than suitable.  (Perhaps even overkill.)</p><p>Speaking of thinclients though, I actually have an old IBM hardware x-windows terminal.  It's very cool.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:3</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anything 'pre-built ' is going to cost too much or be otherwise unsuitable .
It is n't hard to find Atom-based Mini-ITX systems for like $ 150 .
There 's also things like that piece of hardware MSI was putting out that is basically the guts of a netbook in a package that mounts to the VESA mounting plate on the back of an LCD and has its own stand...though I do n't know what that was supposed to cost .
I would think a good Atom machine would be cheap , and more than suitable .
( Perhaps even overkill .
) Speaking of thinclients though , I actually have an old IBM hardware x-windows terminal .
It 's very cool .
: 3</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anything 'pre-built' is going to cost too much or be otherwise unsuitable.
It isn't hard to find Atom-based Mini-ITX systems for like $150.
There's also things like that piece of hardware MSI was putting out that is basically the guts of a netbook in a package that mounts to the VESA mounting plate on the back of an LCD and has its own stand...though I don't know what that was supposed to cost.
I would think a good Atom machine would be cheap, and more than suitable.
(Perhaps even overkill.
)Speaking of thinclients though, I actually have an old IBM hardware x-windows terminal.
It's very cool.
:3</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503404</id>
	<title>Right here baby</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261317960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here you go: http://www.norhtec.com/products/mctc/index.html</p><p>You're welcome.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here you go : http : //www.norhtec.com/products/mctc/index.htmlYou 're welcome .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here you go: http://www.norhtec.com/products/mctc/index.htmlYou're welcome.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503662</id>
	<title>Long Term Costs</title>
	<author>kibbey</author>
	<datestamp>1261321320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not about the cost of the hardware.  A large organization will want the cost of management and support to be low as that is an ongoing expense.  A thin client that costs double what a PC costs can return that upfront cost over a couple of years worth of much cheaper support costs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not about the cost of the hardware .
A large organization will want the cost of management and support to be low as that is an ongoing expense .
A thin client that costs double what a PC costs can return that upfront cost over a couple of years worth of much cheaper support costs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not about the cost of the hardware.
A large organization will want the cost of management and support to be low as that is an ongoing expense.
A thin client that costs double what a PC costs can return that upfront cost over a couple of years worth of much cheaper support costs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30508758</id>
	<title>Re:Nettops?</title>
	<author>Rudeboy777</author>
	<datestamp>1261327260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My thought exactly, let me link you to exactly what the OP is asking for for 200 bucks:</p><p><a href="http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16883103228&amp;Tpk=aspire\%20revo" title="newegg.com">http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16883103228&amp;Tpk=aspire\%20revo</a> [newegg.com]</p><p>Don't need the hard drive? Who cares??</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My thought exactly , let me link you to exactly what the OP is asking for for 200 bucks : http : //www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx ? Item = N82E16883103228&amp;Tpk = aspire \ % 20revo [ newegg.com ] Do n't need the hard drive ?
Who cares ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My thought exactly, let me link you to exactly what the OP is asking for for 200 bucks:http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16883103228&amp;Tpk=aspire\%20revo [newegg.com]Don't need the hard drive?
Who cares?
?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503006</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30502994</id>
	<title>other costs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261307100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We usually use WYSE clients and you might be right, however, don't forget to sum up additional costs for traditional hardware, such as maintenance (drives, fans)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We usually use WYSE clients and you might be right , however , do n't forget to sum up additional costs for traditional hardware , such as maintenance ( drives , fans )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We usually use WYSE clients and you might be right, however, don't forget to sum up additional costs for traditional hardware, such as maintenance (drives, fans)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30505740</id>
	<title>Re:Yes</title>
	<author>mabhatter654</author>
	<datestamp>1261339800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>we don't get paid $50 per hour to build PCs from parts. It might actually be cheaper per box, but the company wants to be spending your limited time (=$$) on other things with more return.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>we do n't get paid $ 50 per hour to build PCs from parts .
It might actually be cheaper per box , but the company wants to be spending your limited time ( = $ $ ) on other things with more return .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>we don't get paid $50 per hour to build PCs from parts.
It might actually be cheaper per box, but the company wants to be spending your limited time (=$$) on other things with more return.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30504214</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503090</id>
	<title>Go home brew</title>
	<author>bragr</author>
	<datestamp>1261309500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Personally, I don't see a problem with the home-brew solution. When you want something very specific, its often your only choice. Any it wouldn't be that hard either, you get a Mobo/CPU combo, case/PSU combo, and a stick of ram, it takes you 4 screws, and plugging 3 things, and 2 or 3 minutes in the BIOS.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally , I do n't see a problem with the home-brew solution .
When you want something very specific , its often your only choice .
Any it would n't be that hard either , you get a Mobo/CPU combo , case/PSU combo , and a stick of ram , it takes you 4 screws , and plugging 3 things , and 2 or 3 minutes in the BIOS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personally, I don't see a problem with the home-brew solution.
When you want something very specific, its often your only choice.
Any it wouldn't be that hard either, you get a Mobo/CPU combo, case/PSU combo, and a stick of ram, it takes you 4 screws, and plugging 3 things, and 2 or 3 minutes in the BIOS.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503240</id>
	<title>CapEx vs OpEx</title>
	<author>Krokant</author>
	<datestamp>1261313940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Don't forget that the biggest cost in a client is not necessarily the purchasing of the hardware (which is obviously the most visibile cost). Various studies (Gartner, IDC,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...) indicate that a PC that is purchased for $500 (one-time cost) in fact costs somewhere between $1500 and $4500 per year (!) to manage. These hidden costs are mainly into the backend infrastructure supporting these PC's in corporate environments, people managing them, deploying software on them,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... Google for desktop TCO and you'll find plenty of information. Sure, you might disagree with the exact numbers provided by a Gartner<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/IDC<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/Forrester but at least it gives an indication.<br>
<br>
For thin clients (and desktop virtualization for that matter), this is also where the cost savings are. No serious VDI vendor will tell you that the CapEx (investment in hardware, licenses,...) is cheaper with thin clients and virtual desktops: you need to buy additional licenses, you're going to run desktops on server hardware (ok, 100 at a time on the same box) and then I still didn't start about the licensing galore (Microsoft VECD, Citrix XenDesktop or VMware View or...). The real cost savings are in the fact that it's much easier to manage, and being able to let your very expensive system administators do something else than troubleshooting a desktop (which costs you twice for the end-user downtime and the sysadmin troubleshooting it). <br>
<br>
The same goes for thin clients: the up-front investment is larger, but they are very easy to manage (plug into the network and the thing autoconfigures itself, pointing you to your virtual desktop -- which means fewer expensive sysadmin interventions on-site for replacing hardware!), they live longer compared to traditional desktops (these used to have three-year lifecycles whereas thin clients typically have a five-year lifecycle -- roughly speaking you'll need to buy two traditional desktops for one thin client in a 5-year desktop lifespan; I'll concur to the fact that with the economic situation, you'll see prolongued lifetimes for both thin clients &amp; desktops but the idea remains the same, numbers might differ today).<br>
<br>
So is the thin client cheaper? In most situations and looking at the total picture, sure it is. Even despite a higher up-front investment. The real problem is not really the price of a thin client  but whether your applications and IT environment support thin clients/server based computing (TS/Citrix/VDI).<br>
<br>
Sidenote: I work for a consulting firm where I work a lot with VDI &amp; Server Based Computing in general; we strive to be independent as possible (trying to nuance the vendor claims as much as possible for our clients) but that might mean I am a bit biased towards using SBC if it works<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't forget that the biggest cost in a client is not necessarily the purchasing of the hardware ( which is obviously the most visibile cost ) .
Various studies ( Gartner , IDC , ... ) indicate that a PC that is purchased for $ 500 ( one-time cost ) in fact costs somewhere between $ 1500 and $ 4500 per year ( !
) to manage .
These hidden costs are mainly into the backend infrastructure supporting these PC 's in corporate environments , people managing them , deploying software on them , ... Google for desktop TCO and you 'll find plenty of information .
Sure , you might disagree with the exact numbers provided by a Gartner /IDC /Forrester but at least it gives an indication .
For thin clients ( and desktop virtualization for that matter ) , this is also where the cost savings are .
No serious VDI vendor will tell you that the CapEx ( investment in hardware , licenses,... ) is cheaper with thin clients and virtual desktops : you need to buy additional licenses , you 're going to run desktops on server hardware ( ok , 100 at a time on the same box ) and then I still did n't start about the licensing galore ( Microsoft VECD , Citrix XenDesktop or VMware View or... ) .
The real cost savings are in the fact that it 's much easier to manage , and being able to let your very expensive system administators do something else than troubleshooting a desktop ( which costs you twice for the end-user downtime and the sysadmin troubleshooting it ) .
The same goes for thin clients : the up-front investment is larger , but they are very easy to manage ( plug into the network and the thing autoconfigures itself , pointing you to your virtual desktop -- which means fewer expensive sysadmin interventions on-site for replacing hardware !
) , they live longer compared to traditional desktops ( these used to have three-year lifecycles whereas thin clients typically have a five-year lifecycle -- roughly speaking you 'll need to buy two traditional desktops for one thin client in a 5-year desktop lifespan ; I 'll concur to the fact that with the economic situation , you 'll see prolongued lifetimes for both thin clients &amp; desktops but the idea remains the same , numbers might differ today ) .
So is the thin client cheaper ?
In most situations and looking at the total picture , sure it is .
Even despite a higher up-front investment .
The real problem is not really the price of a thin client but whether your applications and IT environment support thin clients/server based computing ( TS/Citrix/VDI ) .
Sidenote : I work for a consulting firm where I work a lot with VDI &amp; Server Based Computing in general ; we strive to be independent as possible ( trying to nuance the vendor claims as much as possible for our clients ) but that might mean I am a bit biased towards using SBC if it works ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't forget that the biggest cost in a client is not necessarily the purchasing of the hardware (which is obviously the most visibile cost).
Various studies (Gartner, IDC, ...) indicate that a PC that is purchased for $500 (one-time cost) in fact costs somewhere between $1500 and $4500 per year (!
) to manage.
These hidden costs are mainly into the backend infrastructure supporting these PC's in corporate environments, people managing them, deploying software on them, ... Google for desktop TCO and you'll find plenty of information.
Sure, you might disagree with the exact numbers provided by a Gartner /IDC /Forrester but at least it gives an indication.
For thin clients (and desktop virtualization for that matter), this is also where the cost savings are.
No serious VDI vendor will tell you that the CapEx (investment in hardware, licenses,...) is cheaper with thin clients and virtual desktops: you need to buy additional licenses, you're going to run desktops on server hardware (ok, 100 at a time on the same box) and then I still didn't start about the licensing galore (Microsoft VECD, Citrix XenDesktop or VMware View or...).
The real cost savings are in the fact that it's much easier to manage, and being able to let your very expensive system administators do something else than troubleshooting a desktop (which costs you twice for the end-user downtime and the sysadmin troubleshooting it).
The same goes for thin clients: the up-front investment is larger, but they are very easy to manage (plug into the network and the thing autoconfigures itself, pointing you to your virtual desktop -- which means fewer expensive sysadmin interventions on-site for replacing hardware!
), they live longer compared to traditional desktops (these used to have three-year lifecycles whereas thin clients typically have a five-year lifecycle -- roughly speaking you'll need to buy two traditional desktops for one thin client in a 5-year desktop lifespan; I'll concur to the fact that with the economic situation, you'll see prolongued lifetimes for both thin clients &amp; desktops but the idea remains the same, numbers might differ today).
So is the thin client cheaper?
In most situations and looking at the total picture, sure it is.
Even despite a higher up-front investment.
The real problem is not really the price of a thin client  but whether your applications and IT environment support thin clients/server based computing (TS/Citrix/VDI).
Sidenote: I work for a consulting firm where I work a lot with VDI &amp; Server Based Computing in general; we strive to be independent as possible (trying to nuance the vendor claims as much as possible for our clients) but that might mean I am a bit biased towards using SBC if it works ;)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503022</id>
	<title>In the queue...</title>
	<author>Goffee71</author>
	<datestamp>1261307820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...waiting for a skinny latte and no-meat salad?</htmltext>
<tokenext>...waiting for a skinny latte and no-meat salad ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...waiting for a skinny latte and no-meat salad?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503382</id>
	<title>Re:I'm Confused</title>
	<author>drinkypoo</author>
	<datestamp>1261317600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What are the benefits of desktop virtualization? As they apply to you, that is.</p></div><p>No desktops to screw up</p><p>Hardware failure? Replace the hardware from a spare, which takes less time and effort because the hardware is small and has few attached cables.</p><p>No data on the user's desktop which must be managed and backed up, <em>ever</em> </p><p>One big PC is actually cheaper than a lot of small PCs, though not very much cheaper. Still, a difference is a difference; I have yet to see a PC under $600 actually worth buying for corporate use, every attempt I've made in that direction has been disappointing if not disastrous. Thin clients, of course, are a bit different.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What are the benefits of desktop virtualization ?
As they apply to you , that is.No desktops to screw upHardware failure ?
Replace the hardware from a spare , which takes less time and effort because the hardware is small and has few attached cables.No data on the user 's desktop which must be managed and backed up , ever One big PC is actually cheaper than a lot of small PCs , though not very much cheaper .
Still , a difference is a difference ; I have yet to see a PC under $ 600 actually worth buying for corporate use , every attempt I 've made in that direction has been disappointing if not disastrous .
Thin clients , of course , are a bit different .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What are the benefits of desktop virtualization?
As they apply to you, that is.No desktops to screw upHardware failure?
Replace the hardware from a spare, which takes less time and effort because the hardware is small and has few attached cables.No data on the user's desktop which must be managed and backed up, ever One big PC is actually cheaper than a lot of small PCs, though not very much cheaper.
Still, a difference is a difference; I have yet to see a PC under $600 actually worth buying for corporate use, every attempt I've made in that direction has been disappointing if not disastrous.
Thin clients, of course, are a bit different.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503076</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30506730</id>
	<title>The elephant that no one has mentioned.</title>
	<author>sgt101</author>
	<datestamp>1261305000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well on Score 5 to be honest - because I don't read below that unless moderating or following a thread I won't say for sure!</p><p>BUT : CELLPHONES</p><p>cheap internet clients by the millions, or billions.</p><p>There you go. The elephant in every room.</p><p>I wish I worked for Vodaphone, there would be nothing to worry about.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well on Score 5 to be honest - because I do n't read below that unless moderating or following a thread I wo n't say for sure ! BUT : CELLPHONEScheap internet clients by the millions , or billions.There you go .
The elephant in every room.I wish I worked for Vodaphone , there would be nothing to worry about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well on Score 5 to be honest - because I don't read below that unless moderating or following a thread I won't say for sure!BUT : CELLPHONEScheap internet clients by the millions, or billions.There you go.
The elephant in every room.I wish I worked for Vodaphone, there would be nothing to worry about.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30504854</id>
	<title>Re:Go home brew</title>
	<author>Bazman</author>
	<datestamp>1261332540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you really think you can do this for less than the price of comparable commercial thin clients, then I suggest you quit your job and go into the thin client business.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you really think you can do this for less than the price of comparable commercial thin clients , then I suggest you quit your job and go into the thin client business .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you really think you can do this for less than the price of comparable commercial thin clients, then I suggest you quit your job and go into the thin client business.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503090</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30502996</id>
	<title>Yes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261307160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><em>Am I missing something here?</em></p><p>A cheap thin client?</p><p>*ducks*</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Am I missing something here ? A cheap thin client ?
* ducks *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Am I missing something here?A cheap thin client?
*ducks*</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503730</id>
	<title>I see it like this</title>
	<author>garaged</author>
	<datestamp>1261322220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It all comes down to "green technology", and I don't think I'm very wrong about it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It all comes down to " green technology " , and I do n't think I 'm very wrong about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It all comes down to "green technology", and I don't think I'm very wrong about it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30505832</id>
	<title>Re:Yes</title>
	<author>InlawBiker</author>
	<datestamp>1261340580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I got color on my 80x24 terminal running at 9600 baud full duplex, bitches.  Lynx screams now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I got color on my 80x24 terminal running at 9600 baud full duplex , bitches .
Lynx screams now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I got color on my 80x24 terminal running at 9600 baud full duplex, bitches.
Lynx screams now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30502996</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30507310</id>
	<title>minimums</title>
	<author>Eil</author>
	<datestamp>1261309740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, it's kinda like hard drives. There's a minimal cost to make the drive no matter how much space you make available on it. You pretty much never see a brand-new hard disk selling for less than $40, even if it can only hold some absurdly small number of gigabytes.</p><p>Same goes for computers. Even if you use old technology, you have to price the unit to cover the up-front costs of design and licensing as well as the ongoing costs of manufacturing and logistics. By the time you get your unit out the door, it's $150-$200 retail and most of your prospective buyers will look at it and say, "Heck, we can get second-hand Pentium 4 desktops for $99 a pop. No thanks!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , it 's kinda like hard drives .
There 's a minimal cost to make the drive no matter how much space you make available on it .
You pretty much never see a brand-new hard disk selling for less than $ 40 , even if it can only hold some absurdly small number of gigabytes.Same goes for computers .
Even if you use old technology , you have to price the unit to cover the up-front costs of design and licensing as well as the ongoing costs of manufacturing and logistics .
By the time you get your unit out the door , it 's $ 150- $ 200 retail and most of your prospective buyers will look at it and say , " Heck , we can get second-hand Pentium 4 desktops for $ 99 a pop .
No thanks !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, it's kinda like hard drives.
There's a minimal cost to make the drive no matter how much space you make available on it.
You pretty much never see a brand-new hard disk selling for less than $40, even if it can only hold some absurdly small number of gigabytes.Same goes for computers.
Even if you use old technology, you have to price the unit to cover the up-front costs of design and licensing as well as the ongoing costs of manufacturing and logistics.
By the time you get your unit out the door, it's $150-$200 retail and most of your prospective buyers will look at it and say, "Heck, we can get second-hand Pentium 4 desktops for $99 a pop.
No thanks!
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30507258</id>
	<title>Re:Slow news day?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261309140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I had one of these under my desk, briefly.  Don't get these if you care about noise.  Video uses shared memory, and rendering almost anything requires CPU power.  The fans on the hot P4s ramp up at the slightest provocation.  They sound like vacuum cleaners.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I had one of these under my desk , briefly .
Do n't get these if you care about noise .
Video uses shared memory , and rendering almost anything requires CPU power .
The fans on the hot P4s ramp up at the slightest provocation .
They sound like vacuum cleaners .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I had one of these under my desk, briefly.
Don't get these if you care about noise.
Video uses shared memory, and rendering almost anything requires CPU power.
The fans on the hot P4s ramp up at the slightest provocation.
They sound like vacuum cleaners.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503058</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503370</id>
	<title>It's all about TCO and maturity of client/server.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261317120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We are going towards thin clients and virtualized desktops at my workplace and I must say the price of the units are not that bad.<br>If you get some volume the actually cost quite a bit less than a SFF PC, at least the entry level ones.<br>I've been trying many of them (HP, Fujitsu, WYSE, Igel) out for quite a while and all of them can support 22" &amp; 24" monitors at native resolutions.</p><p>One thing to bear in mind when talking thin clients are total cost of ownership (TCO)<br>The TCO of a thin client is far less than that of a PC.<br>Not only because the user can't mess it up and because it rarely breaks down, but mainly unit installation and systems management costs.<br>No need for endpoint security and expensive and complex distribution and inventory systems.<br>If you work in a large environment with many branch offices you see the advantages immediately.<br>There is basically no need for on site technicians what so ever.</p><p>For an organization they become cheaper to own in the end, which is why they are compelling.</p><p>The energy savings can also be substantial!<br>I have been running scans on our few thousands of PCs for a while and the actual CPU utilization is about 15\% average (this is on four-five years old HW, mind you), and yet the users scream for new HW.<br>The real issue is network latency basically, which is why a centralized desktop solution with thin clients is perfect.<br>To be able to streamline the performance of the server cluster to the actual usage of the clients saves our medium business ten's of thousands dollars each year.</p><p>Couple this together with the fact that users get almost no network latency what so ever to databases and application servers and you have a sure business case.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We are going towards thin clients and virtualized desktops at my workplace and I must say the price of the units are not that bad.If you get some volume the actually cost quite a bit less than a SFF PC , at least the entry level ones.I 've been trying many of them ( HP , Fujitsu , WYSE , Igel ) out for quite a while and all of them can support 22 " &amp; 24 " monitors at native resolutions.One thing to bear in mind when talking thin clients are total cost of ownership ( TCO ) The TCO of a thin client is far less than that of a PC.Not only because the user ca n't mess it up and because it rarely breaks down , but mainly unit installation and systems management costs.No need for endpoint security and expensive and complex distribution and inventory systems.If you work in a large environment with many branch offices you see the advantages immediately.There is basically no need for on site technicians what so ever.For an organization they become cheaper to own in the end , which is why they are compelling.The energy savings can also be substantial ! I have been running scans on our few thousands of PCs for a while and the actual CPU utilization is about 15 \ % average ( this is on four-five years old HW , mind you ) , and yet the users scream for new HW.The real issue is network latency basically , which is why a centralized desktop solution with thin clients is perfect.To be able to streamline the performance of the server cluster to the actual usage of the clients saves our medium business ten 's of thousands dollars each year.Couple this together with the fact that users get almost no network latency what so ever to databases and application servers and you have a sure business case .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We are going towards thin clients and virtualized desktops at my workplace and I must say the price of the units are not that bad.If you get some volume the actually cost quite a bit less than a SFF PC, at least the entry level ones.I've been trying many of them (HP, Fujitsu, WYSE, Igel) out for quite a while and all of them can support 22" &amp; 24" monitors at native resolutions.One thing to bear in mind when talking thin clients are total cost of ownership (TCO)The TCO of a thin client is far less than that of a PC.Not only because the user can't mess it up and because it rarely breaks down, but mainly unit installation and systems management costs.No need for endpoint security and expensive and complex distribution and inventory systems.If you work in a large environment with many branch offices you see the advantages immediately.There is basically no need for on site technicians what so ever.For an organization they become cheaper to own in the end, which is why they are compelling.The energy savings can also be substantial!I have been running scans on our few thousands of PCs for a while and the actual CPU utilization is about 15\% average (this is on four-five years old HW, mind you), and yet the users scream for new HW.The real issue is network latency basically, which is why a centralized desktop solution with thin clients is perfect.To be able to streamline the performance of the server cluster to the actual usage of the clients saves our medium business ten's of thousands dollars each year.Couple this together with the fact that users get almost no network latency what so ever to databases and application servers and you have a sure business case.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30504214</id>
	<title>Re:Yes</title>
	<author>VampireByte</author>
	<datestamp>1261327980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>...but I'd prefer to be able to buy something assembled</i> </p><p>Slashdot, news for nerds. So sad, I remember when nerds built their own systems.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...but I 'd prefer to be able to buy something assembled Slashdot , news for nerds .
So sad , I remember when nerds built their own systems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...but I'd prefer to be able to buy something assembled Slashdot, news for nerds.
So sad, I remember when nerds built their own systems.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30502996</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30505296</id>
	<title>I used to buy thin clients, but no longer.</title>
	<author>CFD339</author>
	<datestamp>1261335840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Initially, these made sense for my application.   Today, it makes much more sense to pay 30-40\% less for a netbook that has faster processing, better graphics, twice the ram, much more storage, and doesn't need it's own keyboard and monitor.  On top of that, power consumption is very similar and reliability is much higher.</p><p>Nobody seems to see a netbook without the screen and keyboard for less money.  Seems stupid, but for that kind of hardware that isn't in a netbook configuration, you pay over $500, while the netbook runs $300.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Initially , these made sense for my application .
Today , it makes much more sense to pay 30-40 \ % less for a netbook that has faster processing , better graphics , twice the ram , much more storage , and does n't need it 's own keyboard and monitor .
On top of that , power consumption is very similar and reliability is much higher.Nobody seems to see a netbook without the screen and keyboard for less money .
Seems stupid , but for that kind of hardware that is n't in a netbook configuration , you pay over $ 500 , while the netbook runs $ 300 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Initially, these made sense for my application.
Today, it makes much more sense to pay 30-40\% less for a netbook that has faster processing, better graphics, twice the ram, much more storage, and doesn't need it's own keyboard and monitor.
On top of that, power consumption is very similar and reliability is much higher.Nobody seems to see a netbook without the screen and keyboard for less money.
Seems stupid, but for that kind of hardware that isn't in a netbook configuration, you pay over $500, while the netbook runs $300.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503538</id>
	<title>A thin client or a web browser?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261320060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With the inevitable move to web-applications and 'the cloud', wouldn't the ideal 'thin client' be an inexpensive nettop with a decent web browser?</p><p>And if your organisation "is not yet ready for that move", install the thin client software on those computers so they still work in your old environment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With the inevitable move to web-applications and 'the cloud ' , would n't the ideal 'thin client ' be an inexpensive nettop with a decent web browser ? And if your organisation " is not yet ready for that move " , install the thin client software on those computers so they still work in your old environment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With the inevitable move to web-applications and 'the cloud', wouldn't the ideal 'thin client' be an inexpensive nettop with a decent web browser?And if your organisation "is not yet ready for that move", install the thin client software on those computers so they still work in your old environment.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30511962</id>
	<title>Re:Thin clients for under $200 right now</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261410300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hi and please see following site for your information, Thin Client less than $150 at www.sunde.co.uk<br>This is the new generation of multi user network computer terminal unit, Which effectively allows many users to share the untapped resources of a single host computer, while providing full PC experience.<br>the revolution of Network Computing, it is a computing  ready device. &ldquo;The ultimate IT going green solution&rdquo; means you enjoy the benefits of reduced hardware costs, energy costs, Air-conditioning cost, maintenance and support costs. And reduces the carbon foot print hence eco friendly.<br>. There are many advantages to use this Thin Client:</p><p>* Share a 1 PC with up to 40 users.<br>*Save 70\% on your hardware cost<br>*Save 80\% on maintenance.<br>*Save 95\% on electricity<br>*Generate 95\% less e-waste<br>* Reduce CO2 emissions<br>* Save time, Easy to set up<br>* No hardware maintenance</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hi and please see following site for your information , Thin Client less than $ 150 at www.sunde.co.ukThis is the new generation of multi user network computer terminal unit , Which effectively allows many users to share the untapped resources of a single host computer , while providing full PC experience.the revolution of Network Computing , it is a computing ready device .
   The ultimate IT going green solution    means you enjoy the benefits of reduced hardware costs , energy costs , Air-conditioning cost , maintenance and support costs .
And reduces the carbon foot print hence eco friendly.. There are many advantages to use this Thin Client : * Share a 1 PC with up to 40 users .
* Save 70 \ % on your hardware cost * Save 80 \ % on maintenance .
* Save 95 \ % on electricity * Generate 95 \ % less e-waste * Reduce CO2 emissions * Save time , Easy to set up * No hardware maintenance</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hi and please see following site for your information, Thin Client less than $150 at www.sunde.co.ukThis is the new generation of multi user network computer terminal unit, Which effectively allows many users to share the untapped resources of a single host computer, while providing full PC experience.the revolution of Network Computing, it is a computing  ready device.
“The ultimate IT going green solution” means you enjoy the benefits of reduced hardware costs, energy costs, Air-conditioning cost, maintenance and support costs.
And reduces the carbon foot print hence eco friendly.. There are many advantages to use this Thin Client:* Share a 1 PC with up to 40 users.
*Save 70\% on your hardware cost*Save 80\% on maintenance.
*Save 95\% on electricity*Generate 95\% less e-waste* Reduce CO2 emissions* Save time, Easy to set up* No hardware maintenance</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503992</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30506018</id>
	<title>netbooks</title>
	<author>Stephen Samuel</author>
	<datestamp>1261341780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I just played with a friend's netbook, while fixing it (turned out to be the PS cable).
<p>
It's small, and simple. It netboots,  has 1GB of ram and drove my 19"monitor just fine without any special work.  For the price, you can just ignore the 9" screen.
</p><p>
Don't bother buying the latest and greatest.  Get machines that are near the end of their sales life.  It's cheaper and they'll probably last just as long.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I just played with a friend 's netbook , while fixing it ( turned out to be the PS cable ) .
It 's small , and simple .
It netboots , has 1GB of ram and drove my 19 " monitor just fine without any special work .
For the price , you can just ignore the 9 " screen .
Do n't bother buying the latest and greatest .
Get machines that are near the end of their sales life .
It 's cheaper and they 'll probably last just as long .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just played with a friend's netbook, while fixing it (turned out to be the PS cable).
It's small, and simple.
It netboots,  has 1GB of ram and drove my 19"monitor just fine without any special work.
For the price, you can just ignore the 9" screen.
Don't bother buying the latest and greatest.
Get machines that are near the end of their sales life.
It's cheaper and they'll probably last just as long.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503786</id>
	<title>About your hangup...</title>
	<author>Eric S. Smith</author>
	<datestamp>1261323240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> <i>I'm very hung up on spending more for less.</i></p></div> </blockquote><p>Stay away from "enterprise solutions," then &mdash; or, rather, make very careful comparisons between the cost of buying a ready-made thing and a DIY effort.</p><blockquote><div><p> <i>Am I missing something here?</i></p></div> </blockquote><p>That the thin clients you've been looking at are priced for fat organizations (with, possibly, thick decision-makers).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm very hung up on spending more for less .
Stay away from " enterprise solutions , " then    or , rather , make very careful comparisons between the cost of buying a ready-made thing and a DIY effort .
Am I missing something here ?
That the thin clients you 've been looking at are priced for fat organizations ( with , possibly , thick decision-makers ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I'm very hung up on spending more for less.
Stay away from "enterprise solutions," then — or, rather, make very careful comparisons between the cost of buying a ready-made thing and a DIY effort.
Am I missing something here?
That the thin clients you've been looking at are priced for fat organizations (with, possibly, thick decision-makers).
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30513038</id>
	<title>As someone who has recently worked in the TC biz</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261415880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have recently worked in the Thin-Client (TC) enginering division of HP, so I can tell you, with some authority, that what you're looking for is not a TC.  You're looking for a cheap desktop.</p><p>A TC focuses on security, simplicity, and low energy consumption / heat generation.  A TC company spends a LOT of money on engineers who work very hard locking down a TC's OS and physical access ports to make sure it is secure, making it simple to use and maintain, and making them run at as cool and at as low a wattage as possible (23W TC vs. 250W desktop).</p><p>Security is important because a company that uses TCs uses several hundred at least, and usually thousands or tens of thousands.  When an IT department is looking to buy TCs, they're for users who don't know a lot about computers, like car rental agency reps or hotel front desk reps who just need to check what cars/rooms are available, process your reservation, etc.  Another major use for TCs is for grocery store checkout lanes, including self-checkout lanes.  That's why security is so important.  Most of these employees know just enough about computers to cause problems through their ignorance, and when the anyone has access to these machines, via self-checkout lanes, you need to make sure they are secure from hacking.</p><p>Maintenance is a huge problem because these companies may have only 5-10 units at any one branch, but multiply this out to hundreds of branches, and maintaining them becomes a massive problem.  You don't want to pay for IT personnel to travel around the country, and outsourcing the maintenance to local companies is also cost prohibitive (as well as impractical).  TCs are attractive in this scenario because you can simply have the branch manager mail a broken TC to your IT HQ, and mail a replacement back.  Anyone can plug in the replacement, and it's immediately good to go.  Doing this with a desktop computer costs several orders of magnitude more, because special care has to be taken to make sure the moving parts, which a TC doesn't have, are secure, and the whole thing is padded well.  Desktops are also much heavier, and directly cost more to ship as a result.</p><p>Lastly, you have to remember that the initial cost of a computer is often less than the cost of energy to run it over the device's lifespan.  Cooling a device, when enclosed in a grocery store self-checkout system, also costs energy.  Now that many grocery stores, hotel front desks, etc., are open 24/7, the total energy cost is significant.</p><p>So what you are looking for, my friend, is a cheap desktop.  A TC is not what you're looking for.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have recently worked in the Thin-Client ( TC ) enginering division of HP , so I can tell you , with some authority , that what you 're looking for is not a TC .
You 're looking for a cheap desktop.A TC focuses on security , simplicity , and low energy consumption / heat generation .
A TC company spends a LOT of money on engineers who work very hard locking down a TC 's OS and physical access ports to make sure it is secure , making it simple to use and maintain , and making them run at as cool and at as low a wattage as possible ( 23W TC vs. 250W desktop ) .Security is important because a company that uses TCs uses several hundred at least , and usually thousands or tens of thousands .
When an IT department is looking to buy TCs , they 're for users who do n't know a lot about computers , like car rental agency reps or hotel front desk reps who just need to check what cars/rooms are available , process your reservation , etc .
Another major use for TCs is for grocery store checkout lanes , including self-checkout lanes .
That 's why security is so important .
Most of these employees know just enough about computers to cause problems through their ignorance , and when the anyone has access to these machines , via self-checkout lanes , you need to make sure they are secure from hacking.Maintenance is a huge problem because these companies may have only 5-10 units at any one branch , but multiply this out to hundreds of branches , and maintaining them becomes a massive problem .
You do n't want to pay for IT personnel to travel around the country , and outsourcing the maintenance to local companies is also cost prohibitive ( as well as impractical ) .
TCs are attractive in this scenario because you can simply have the branch manager mail a broken TC to your IT HQ , and mail a replacement back .
Anyone can plug in the replacement , and it 's immediately good to go .
Doing this with a desktop computer costs several orders of magnitude more , because special care has to be taken to make sure the moving parts , which a TC does n't have , are secure , and the whole thing is padded well .
Desktops are also much heavier , and directly cost more to ship as a result.Lastly , you have to remember that the initial cost of a computer is often less than the cost of energy to run it over the device 's lifespan .
Cooling a device , when enclosed in a grocery store self-checkout system , also costs energy .
Now that many grocery stores , hotel front desks , etc. , are open 24/7 , the total energy cost is significant.So what you are looking for , my friend , is a cheap desktop .
A TC is not what you 're looking for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have recently worked in the Thin-Client (TC) enginering division of HP, so I can tell you, with some authority, that what you're looking for is not a TC.
You're looking for a cheap desktop.A TC focuses on security, simplicity, and low energy consumption / heat generation.
A TC company spends a LOT of money on engineers who work very hard locking down a TC's OS and physical access ports to make sure it is secure, making it simple to use and maintain, and making them run at as cool and at as low a wattage as possible (23W TC vs. 250W desktop).Security is important because a company that uses TCs uses several hundred at least, and usually thousands or tens of thousands.
When an IT department is looking to buy TCs, they're for users who don't know a lot about computers, like car rental agency reps or hotel front desk reps who just need to check what cars/rooms are available, process your reservation, etc.
Another major use for TCs is for grocery store checkout lanes, including self-checkout lanes.
That's why security is so important.
Most of these employees know just enough about computers to cause problems through their ignorance, and when the anyone has access to these machines, via self-checkout lanes, you need to make sure they are secure from hacking.Maintenance is a huge problem because these companies may have only 5-10 units at any one branch, but multiply this out to hundreds of branches, and maintaining them becomes a massive problem.
You don't want to pay for IT personnel to travel around the country, and outsourcing the maintenance to local companies is also cost prohibitive (as well as impractical).
TCs are attractive in this scenario because you can simply have the branch manager mail a broken TC to your IT HQ, and mail a replacement back.
Anyone can plug in the replacement, and it's immediately good to go.
Doing this with a desktop computer costs several orders of magnitude more, because special care has to be taken to make sure the moving parts, which a TC doesn't have, are secure, and the whole thing is padded well.
Desktops are also much heavier, and directly cost more to ship as a result.Lastly, you have to remember that the initial cost of a computer is often less than the cost of energy to run it over the device's lifespan.
Cooling a device, when enclosed in a grocery store self-checkout system, also costs energy.
Now that many grocery stores, hotel front desks, etc., are open 24/7, the total energy cost is significant.So what you are looking for, my friend, is a cheap desktop.
A TC is not what you're looking for.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30505776</id>
	<title>Re:Market Segmentation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261340160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Even somebody looking his, hers, &amp; kids terminals would be looking at $1200 of TCs + $5k server, vs $2000 of PCs. Why bother?"</p><p>to annoy an angry god. forget i said that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Even somebody looking his , hers , &amp; kids terminals would be looking at $ 1200 of TCs + $ 5k server , vs $ 2000 of PCs .
Why bother ?
" to annoy an angry god .
forget i said that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Even somebody looking his, hers, &amp; kids terminals would be looking at $1200 of TCs + $5k server, vs $2000 of PCs.
Why bother?
"to annoy an angry god.
forget i said that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30504164</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30504466</id>
	<title>Re:I'm Confused</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261329660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Additional point of security --- thin-clients are of limited usefulness without the network behind them. Makes them a less attractive target for employee theft versus a full blown PC.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Additional point of security --- thin-clients are of limited usefulness without the network behind them .
Makes them a less attractive target for employee theft versus a full blown PC .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Additional point of security --- thin-clients are of limited usefulness without the network behind them.
Makes them a less attractive target for employee theft versus a full blown PC.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503554</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30514088</id>
	<title>Re:1996 called,</title>
	<author>gedhrel</author>
	<datestamp>1261420380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The university in question has been hauled over the coals in the past after laptops containing confidential information were sold. It's not the only one.</p><p>(That was about a decade ago; our DPO still has to make regular court appearances to update on the process of contacting the people affected and mitigaion of the damage.)</p><p>Encrypted laptops, etc, are all well and good; however, there'salso a cost in convenience when someone can't get at their data because rather than slap it on some robust bit of network storage that's properly backed up, they've kept it on their desktop for the last three months and everything has gone up in smoke.</p><p>The bonus is that the data stays on-site where it can be properly curated. And doesn't wind up on J.Random User's home laptop that then gets nicked going through customs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The university in question has been hauled over the coals in the past after laptops containing confidential information were sold .
It 's not the only one .
( That was about a decade ago ; our DPO still has to make regular court appearances to update on the process of contacting the people affected and mitigaion of the damage .
) Encrypted laptops , etc , are all well and good ; however , there'salso a cost in convenience when someone ca n't get at their data because rather than slap it on some robust bit of network storage that 's properly backed up , they 've kept it on their desktop for the last three months and everything has gone up in smoke.The bonus is that the data stays on-site where it can be properly curated .
And does n't wind up on J.Random User 's home laptop that then gets nicked going through customs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The university in question has been hauled over the coals in the past after laptops containing confidential information were sold.
It's not the only one.
(That was about a decade ago; our DPO still has to make regular court appearances to update on the process of contacting the people affected and mitigaion of the damage.
)Encrypted laptops, etc, are all well and good; however, there'salso a cost in convenience when someone can't get at their data because rather than slap it on some robust bit of network storage that's properly backed up, they've kept it on their desktop for the last three months and everything has gone up in smoke.The bonus is that the data stays on-site where it can be properly curated.
And doesn't wind up on J.Random User's home laptop that then gets nicked going through customs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30505022</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503076</id>
	<title>I'm Confused</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261309260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What <i>are</i> the benefits of desktop virtualization? As they apply to you, that is. Every user of this technology that I know of is a big company or school that needs to deploy hundreds (sometimes thousands!) of desktop systems, and often can't afford to have an IT guy at every site. That's why they're willing to pay a premium price for the thin clients &mdash; it's more than offset by lower "cost of ownership".</p><p>Even if do have a use for DV that isn't obvious to me, you might as well do it with PCs. The only catch with them is that you have to install the client software on each PC. Thin clients are for people who don't want to do that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What are the benefits of desktop virtualization ?
As they apply to you , that is .
Every user of this technology that I know of is a big company or school that needs to deploy hundreds ( sometimes thousands !
) of desktop systems , and often ca n't afford to have an IT guy at every site .
That 's why they 're willing to pay a premium price for the thin clients    it 's more than offset by lower " cost of ownership " .Even if do have a use for DV that is n't obvious to me , you might as well do it with PCs .
The only catch with them is that you have to install the client software on each PC .
Thin clients are for people who do n't want to do that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What are the benefits of desktop virtualization?
As they apply to you, that is.
Every user of this technology that I know of is a big company or school that needs to deploy hundreds (sometimes thousands!
) of desktop systems, and often can't afford to have an IT guy at every site.
That's why they're willing to pay a premium price for the thin clients — it's more than offset by lower "cost of ownership".Even if do have a use for DV that isn't obvious to me, you might as well do it with PCs.
The only catch with them is that you have to install the client software on each PC.
Thin clients are for people who don't want to do that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30504026</id>
	<title>Virtualization not the be all, end all...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261326000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For sake of this argument, let's assume that in your shop your users are running applications that benefit substantially from local CPU power. In that case, it makes a lot of sense to give the user a real CPU, not a shared, virtual one. You could use a stripped down PC as the "thin client." The cost of these devices are at the commodity level, and you can be assured that your getting what your paying for.</p><p>Now, keep in mind, you can still leverage some the benefits offered by virtualization by using some of the abstraction/encapsulation techniques that are de-rigueur in virtual environments. The first step is to remove local storage from a standard PC and require that all of your remote clients will use PXE boot and network storage only (iSCSI or similar). Now, you will get the benefits of using network storage, without sacrificing CPU power.  Specifically, this solution encapsulates the user's OS and application licenses in a single place. It provides increased reliability by  giving every workstation RAID protected storage.</p><p>This design which uses "virtual" disks only gives some benefits from a TCO perspective. For example, you can assign software to individual users, not local hardware. Users may use any available or job-appropriate workstation, and gain access to their licensed software, etc.</p><p>I admit I haven't tested this extensively under Windows, and may be more picky about activation/licensing issues when moving to different local hardware. Linux would have absolutely no trouble with this mode of operation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For sake of this argument , let 's assume that in your shop your users are running applications that benefit substantially from local CPU power .
In that case , it makes a lot of sense to give the user a real CPU , not a shared , virtual one .
You could use a stripped down PC as the " thin client .
" The cost of these devices are at the commodity level , and you can be assured that your getting what your paying for.Now , keep in mind , you can still leverage some the benefits offered by virtualization by using some of the abstraction/encapsulation techniques that are de-rigueur in virtual environments .
The first step is to remove local storage from a standard PC and require that all of your remote clients will use PXE boot and network storage only ( iSCSI or similar ) .
Now , you will get the benefits of using network storage , without sacrificing CPU power .
Specifically , this solution encapsulates the user 's OS and application licenses in a single place .
It provides increased reliability by giving every workstation RAID protected storage.This design which uses " virtual " disks only gives some benefits from a TCO perspective .
For example , you can assign software to individual users , not local hardware .
Users may use any available or job-appropriate workstation , and gain access to their licensed software , etc.I admit I have n't tested this extensively under Windows , and may be more picky about activation/licensing issues when moving to different local hardware .
Linux would have absolutely no trouble with this mode of operation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For sake of this argument, let's assume that in your shop your users are running applications that benefit substantially from local CPU power.
In that case, it makes a lot of sense to give the user a real CPU, not a shared, virtual one.
You could use a stripped down PC as the "thin client.
" The cost of these devices are at the commodity level, and you can be assured that your getting what your paying for.Now, keep in mind, you can still leverage some the benefits offered by virtualization by using some of the abstraction/encapsulation techniques that are de-rigueur in virtual environments.
The first step is to remove local storage from a standard PC and require that all of your remote clients will use PXE boot and network storage only (iSCSI or similar).
Now, you will get the benefits of using network storage, without sacrificing CPU power.
Specifically, this solution encapsulates the user's OS and application licenses in a single place.
It provides increased reliability by  giving every workstation RAID protected storage.This design which uses "virtual" disks only gives some benefits from a TCO perspective.
For example, you can assign software to individual users, not local hardware.
Users may use any available or job-appropriate workstation, and gain access to their licensed software, etc.I admit I haven't tested this extensively under Windows, and may be more picky about activation/licensing issues when moving to different local hardware.
Linux would have absolutely no trouble with this mode of operation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30506424</id>
	<title>Re:It's like bicycles...</title>
	<author>dasunt</author>
	<datestamp>1261302120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Though not for the same reason. You get a complete PC for less than a thin client because complete PCs are made in insanely high volumes compared to thin clients, which are a niche item.</p></div></blockquote><p>
Actually, isn't that similar to bicycles?
</p><p>
The typical big box discount retailer, such as Walmart or Target, orders bicycles in high volume.  The bicycles are made for a consumer who may ride only a hundred miles in the lifespan of the bicycle, and wants to pay less than $200.
</p><p>
A $800-$1000 bicycle from a shop may not have any more features than a Walmart bike (and frequently has less, since a lot of those bikes won't have a full suspension), but the components are higher quality, and, with regular maintenance, are designed for thousands upon thousands of miles.
</p><p>
So, to review, a Walmart bicycle is a mass market item, sold in high volumes, but at low quality.
</p><p>
A bicycle shop bicycle is a niche item, sold in low volumes, but the quality is much higher.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Though not for the same reason .
You get a complete PC for less than a thin client because complete PCs are made in insanely high volumes compared to thin clients , which are a niche item .
Actually , is n't that similar to bicycles ?
The typical big box discount retailer , such as Walmart or Target , orders bicycles in high volume .
The bicycles are made for a consumer who may ride only a hundred miles in the lifespan of the bicycle , and wants to pay less than $ 200 .
A $ 800- $ 1000 bicycle from a shop may not have any more features than a Walmart bike ( and frequently has less , since a lot of those bikes wo n't have a full suspension ) , but the components are higher quality , and , with regular maintenance , are designed for thousands upon thousands of miles .
So , to review , a Walmart bicycle is a mass market item , sold in high volumes , but at low quality .
A bicycle shop bicycle is a niche item , sold in low volumes , but the quality is much higher .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Though not for the same reason.
You get a complete PC for less than a thin client because complete PCs are made in insanely high volumes compared to thin clients, which are a niche item.
Actually, isn't that similar to bicycles?
The typical big box discount retailer, such as Walmart or Target, orders bicycles in high volume.
The bicycles are made for a consumer who may ride only a hundred miles in the lifespan of the bicycle, and wants to pay less than $200.
A $800-$1000 bicycle from a shop may not have any more features than a Walmart bike (and frequently has less, since a lot of those bikes won't have a full suspension), but the components are higher quality, and, with regular maintenance, are designed for thousands upon thousands of miles.
So, to review, a Walmart bicycle is a mass market item, sold in high volumes, but at low quality.
A bicycle shop bicycle is a niche item, sold in low volumes, but the quality is much higher.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30502998</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503314</id>
	<title>...cheaper?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261315620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>a nice computer costs 1000+$<br>a good computer is 500+, usable 400+.<br>you get clients for less than 200.<br>that is *already* cheap, compared to the option of a full computer.<br>it's already less then half of what a full computer would cost.<br>if you want t3h ceapest, probably used computers are the only option.</p><p>a full 22" monitor usually means that you'll need at least a gigabit lan, a graphic card of at least 64mb, or a good cpu if you don't have enough graphic.<br>that's not so "thin" when you think about it.<br>now consider that the market is small compared to the pc market, and i don't think thinclients costs so much anymore.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>a nice computer costs 1000 + $ a good computer is 500 + , usable 400 + .you get clients for less than 200.that is * already * cheap , compared to the option of a full computer.it 's already less then half of what a full computer would cost.if you want t3h ceapest , probably used computers are the only option.a full 22 " monitor usually means that you 'll need at least a gigabit lan , a graphic card of at least 64mb , or a good cpu if you do n't have enough graphic.that 's not so " thin " when you think about it.now consider that the market is small compared to the pc market , and i do n't think thinclients costs so much anymore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>a nice computer costs 1000+$a good computer is 500+, usable 400+.you get clients for less than 200.that is *already* cheap, compared to the option of a full computer.it's already less then half of what a full computer would cost.if you want t3h ceapest, probably used computers are the only option.a full 22" monitor usually means that you'll need at least a gigabit lan, a graphic card of at least 64mb, or a good cpu if you don't have enough graphic.that's not so "thin" when you think about it.now consider that the market is small compared to the pc market, and i don't think thinclients costs so much anymore.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30527756</id>
	<title>Re:1996 called,</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261514880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... but this isn't not a completely incredible approach.</p><p>I couldn't quite stop myself from avoiding erring when refraining to prevent my failing to not misunderstand what you were saying<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; ... but this is n't not a completely incredible approach.I could n't quite stop myself from avoiding erring when refraining to prevent my failing to not misunderstand what you were saying .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; ... but this isn't not a completely incredible approach.I couldn't quite stop myself from avoiding erring when refraining to prevent my failing to not misunderstand what you were saying ...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503810</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30507306</id>
	<title>Re:The client is not the expensive bit</title>
	<author>newdsfornerds</author>
	<datestamp>1261309680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Users will whine. Then they will go home and drink WINE.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Users will whine .
Then they will go home and drink WINE .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Users will whine.
Then they will go home and drink WINE.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30505658</id>
	<title>I've got mine.</title>
	<author>hey!</author>
	<datestamp>1261339200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's in the trunk of my flying car.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's in the trunk of my flying car .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's in the trunk of my flying car.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30504134</id>
	<title>SunRay</title>
	<author>Greyfox</author>
	<datestamp>1261327200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You can find a 24" flat panel SunRay for about what the 24" flat panel would cost. If they're on a decent network their performance is actually pretty nice. Check ebay first as you might find a bunch from a company that was testing them or has a deploy and is upgrading or something.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You can find a 24 " flat panel SunRay for about what the 24 " flat panel would cost .
If they 're on a decent network their performance is actually pretty nice .
Check ebay first as you might find a bunch from a company that was testing them or has a deploy and is upgrading or something .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can find a 24" flat panel SunRay for about what the 24" flat panel would cost.
If they're on a decent network their performance is actually pretty nice.
Check ebay first as you might find a bunch from a company that was testing them or has a deploy and is upgrading or something.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503788</id>
	<title>The client is not the expensive bit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261323300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not just the cheap thin client, it is the data centre side where you really pay.<br>From experience, thin clients save neither money nor power cost once you have taken the hit on the data centre side server, storage and networking capacity they will take and then the huge bill for the virtualisation management software. (assuming you are using Windows type thin clients, if you use SunRay and Solaris yes you can save some serious cost but most users will WINE until you connect the SunRay to RDP off a Windows server and giver them their familiar environment back)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not just the cheap thin client , it is the data centre side where you really pay.From experience , thin clients save neither money nor power cost once you have taken the hit on the data centre side server , storage and networking capacity they will take and then the huge bill for the virtualisation management software .
( assuming you are using Windows type thin clients , if you use SunRay and Solaris yes you can save some serious cost but most users will WINE until you connect the SunRay to RDP off a Windows server and giver them their familiar environment back )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not just the cheap thin client, it is the data centre side where you really pay.From experience, thin clients save neither money nor power cost once you have taken the hit on the data centre side server, storage and networking capacity they will take and then the huge bill for the virtualisation management software.
(assuming you are using Windows type thin clients, if you use SunRay and Solaris yes you can save some serious cost but most users will WINE until you connect the SunRay to RDP off a Windows server and giver them their familiar environment back)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30502996</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30505602</id>
	<title>$53 in China</title>
	<author>franticek</author>
	<datestamp>1261338720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Chinese webshops supply thin clients for as low <a href="http://www.focalprice.com/CN004S/Net\_Computer\_Silver.html" title="focalprice.com" rel="nofollow">as $53</a> [focalprice.com] w/free shipping worldwide.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Chinese webshops supply thin clients for as low as $ 53 [ focalprice.com ] w/free shipping worldwide .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Chinese webshops supply thin clients for as low as $53 [focalprice.com] w/free shipping worldwide.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503124</id>
	<title>stand of the shoulders of others</title>
	<author>seringen</author>
	<datestamp>1261310640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Dave Richards is well known in the Gnome community for working with thin clients, specifically for the city of largo, florida. if you wanted some input on the subject you might want to ask him. he's on gnome's planet, or  <a href="http://davelargo.blogspot.com/" title="blogspot.com" rel="nofollow">http://davelargo.blogspot.com/</a> [blogspot.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Dave Richards is well known in the Gnome community for working with thin clients , specifically for the city of largo , florida .
if you wanted some input on the subject you might want to ask him .
he 's on gnome 's planet , or http : //davelargo.blogspot.com/ [ blogspot.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dave Richards is well known in the Gnome community for working with thin clients, specifically for the city of largo, florida.
if you wanted some input on the subject you might want to ask him.
he's on gnome's planet, or  http://davelargo.blogspot.com/ [blogspot.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503520</id>
	<title>Why HTPC?</title>
	<author>Junta</author>
	<datestamp>1261319880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>'Thin-client' goes a bit far there.  My HTPC is a diskless client that netboots a MythFrontend.  This way, I transfer the pre-compressed streams (which will always be able to be more efficient than any real-time compression) to my box.  The box has no storage and the computational complexity required is sufficiently low to avoid overly loud noise.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>'Thin-client ' goes a bit far there .
My HTPC is a diskless client that netboots a MythFrontend .
This way , I transfer the pre-compressed streams ( which will always be able to be more efficient than any real-time compression ) to my box .
The box has no storage and the computational complexity required is sufficiently low to avoid overly loud noise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'Thin-client' goes a bit far there.
My HTPC is a diskless client that netboots a MythFrontend.
This way, I transfer the pre-compressed streams (which will always be able to be more efficient than any real-time compression) to my box.
The box has no storage and the computational complexity required is sufficiently low to avoid overly loud noise.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503232</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30505182</id>
	<title>Do you mean cheap or inexpensive?</title>
	<author>diefuchsjagden</author>
	<datestamp>1261335060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Cheap or inexpensive? to me cheap is crap and inexpensive means the value exceeds the cost</htmltext>
<tokenext>Cheap or inexpensive ?
to me cheap is crap and inexpensive means the value exceeds the cost</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cheap or inexpensive?
to me cheap is crap and inexpensive means the value exceeds the cost</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30506554</id>
	<title>Re:I'm Confused</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1261303140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Desktop breaks? Ship out a new box, they plug it in and away they go. You don't need to worry about what software they need as it's all on the server.</p></div></blockquote><p>You can do this with disk images and a standard hardware package.</p><blockquote><div><p>Security - no hard drives on desktop which can be stolen.</p></div></blockquote><p>I've never heard of a hard drive being stolen.  If you're refering to data theft, that still happens on the flash drive or the encrypted zip they email out of the office.</p><blockquote><div><p>Patching/maintenance. Would you rather maintain patches on 1000 desktops or 10 big boxes in the data centre?</p></div></blockquote><p>When you have 1k machines you are maintaining you have automation for patching, you don't patch by hand.  If you keep your systems consistent its no different patching one or 100k.</p><blockquote><div><p>Power/cooling/noise at sites. A "real" thin client (as opposed to a PC masquerading as a thin client) will have minimal power requirements which leads to less cooling and noise (no fans or crunching hard drives)</p></div></blockquote><p>The most expensive components from a power perspective are CPU and video.  Fans and hard drives are trivial in the grand scheme of things, and the performance increase you get from havin ga local system far outweighs anything you're going to shave off here.</p><blockquote><div><p>Portability. I don't care which desk I sit at, my virtual desktop will automatically have all my apps. If you have a solution like Sun's Sunray, you can even log out of your Sunray half way through writing a document, move to another desk (possibly in another city) and pick up the doc where you left off.</p></div></blockquote><p>What OS can you not do that with?  What OS doesn't support networked home directories?</p><blockquote><div><p>High bandwidth apps run in the same data centre as the database server/whatever and you only get the screen updates down the wire which can be more efficient.</p></div></blockquote><p>You haven't actually used this stuff have you?  What takes longer to get, several megabytes of pixels or the first few rows of a cursor on a database?</p><p>I sit at home, using a database 1300 miles away, using a local app because its FAR more responsive and FAR less annoying than the lag of doing a remove viewing session.</p><p>Nothing you've  specified is actually a benefit.  Its not that you've stated anything untrue, its just that everything you've said really doesn't actually apply when you compare to a standard desktop.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Desktop breaks ?
Ship out a new box , they plug it in and away they go .
You do n't need to worry about what software they need as it 's all on the server.You can do this with disk images and a standard hardware package.Security - no hard drives on desktop which can be stolen.I 've never heard of a hard drive being stolen .
If you 're refering to data theft , that still happens on the flash drive or the encrypted zip they email out of the office.Patching/maintenance .
Would you rather maintain patches on 1000 desktops or 10 big boxes in the data centre ? When you have 1k machines you are maintaining you have automation for patching , you do n't patch by hand .
If you keep your systems consistent its no different patching one or 100k.Power/cooling/noise at sites .
A " real " thin client ( as opposed to a PC masquerading as a thin client ) will have minimal power requirements which leads to less cooling and noise ( no fans or crunching hard drives ) The most expensive components from a power perspective are CPU and video .
Fans and hard drives are trivial in the grand scheme of things , and the performance increase you get from havin ga local system far outweighs anything you 're going to shave off here.Portability .
I do n't care which desk I sit at , my virtual desktop will automatically have all my apps .
If you have a solution like Sun 's Sunray , you can even log out of your Sunray half way through writing a document , move to another desk ( possibly in another city ) and pick up the doc where you left off.What OS can you not do that with ?
What OS does n't support networked home directories ? High bandwidth apps run in the same data centre as the database server/whatever and you only get the screen updates down the wire which can be more efficient.You have n't actually used this stuff have you ?
What takes longer to get , several megabytes of pixels or the first few rows of a cursor on a database ? I sit at home , using a database 1300 miles away , using a local app because its FAR more responsive and FAR less annoying than the lag of doing a remove viewing session.Nothing you 've specified is actually a benefit .
Its not that you 've stated anything untrue , its just that everything you 've said really does n't actually apply when you compare to a standard desktop .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Desktop breaks?
Ship out a new box, they plug it in and away they go.
You don't need to worry about what software they need as it's all on the server.You can do this with disk images and a standard hardware package.Security - no hard drives on desktop which can be stolen.I've never heard of a hard drive being stolen.
If you're refering to data theft, that still happens on the flash drive or the encrypted zip they email out of the office.Patching/maintenance.
Would you rather maintain patches on 1000 desktops or 10 big boxes in the data centre?When you have 1k machines you are maintaining you have automation for patching, you don't patch by hand.
If you keep your systems consistent its no different patching one or 100k.Power/cooling/noise at sites.
A "real" thin client (as opposed to a PC masquerading as a thin client) will have minimal power requirements which leads to less cooling and noise (no fans or crunching hard drives)The most expensive components from a power perspective are CPU and video.
Fans and hard drives are trivial in the grand scheme of things, and the performance increase you get from havin ga local system far outweighs anything you're going to shave off here.Portability.
I don't care which desk I sit at, my virtual desktop will automatically have all my apps.
If you have a solution like Sun's Sunray, you can even log out of your Sunray half way through writing a document, move to another desk (possibly in another city) and pick up the doc where you left off.What OS can you not do that with?
What OS doesn't support networked home directories?High bandwidth apps run in the same data centre as the database server/whatever and you only get the screen updates down the wire which can be more efficient.You haven't actually used this stuff have you?
What takes longer to get, several megabytes of pixels or the first few rows of a cursor on a database?I sit at home, using a database 1300 miles away, using a local app because its FAR more responsive and FAR less annoying than the lag of doing a remove viewing session.Nothing you've  specified is actually a benefit.
Its not that you've stated anything untrue, its just that everything you've said really doesn't actually apply when you compare to a standard desktop.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503554</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503296</id>
	<title>VDI and regular computer</title>
	<author>AbbyNormal</author>
	<datestamp>1261315200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Could do what we are planning and use existing workstations with VDI (http://www.vmware.com/products/view/features.html).  Depending on your seat requirements, you may want to try pricing out a homegrown box of your own.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Could do what we are planning and use existing workstations with VDI ( http : //www.vmware.com/products/view/features.html ) .
Depending on your seat requirements , you may want to try pricing out a homegrown box of your own .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Could do what we are planning and use existing workstations with VDI (http://www.vmware.com/products/view/features.html).
Depending on your seat requirements, you may want to try pricing out a homegrown box of your own.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503356</id>
	<title>PC Overt IP aims at that problem.</title>
	<author>maitas</author>
	<datestamp>1261316940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But remember that retail price below 100 USD is extremely difficult becouse of shipping cost from Chine, retail space, etc.</p><p>I bought an ASUS Eee PC 900A refurbished for 149 USD from Ebay, so add a VNC client (or the Goole remote desktop software they have just opensourced) and you have a pretty decent solution.</p><p>The thin client idea is not about low price, is about beeing stateless. Here in Argentina I work with an ensurance company that has 100\% of its apps web based, so they dont need and remote desktop solution, just a plain and simple browser (they can even use a chumby!).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But remember that retail price below 100 USD is extremely difficult becouse of shipping cost from Chine , retail space , etc.I bought an ASUS Eee PC 900A refurbished for 149 USD from Ebay , so add a VNC client ( or the Goole remote desktop software they have just opensourced ) and you have a pretty decent solution.The thin client idea is not about low price , is about beeing stateless .
Here in Argentina I work with an ensurance company that has 100 \ % of its apps web based , so they dont need and remote desktop solution , just a plain and simple browser ( they can even use a chumby !
) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But remember that retail price below 100 USD is extremely difficult becouse of shipping cost from Chine, retail space, etc.I bought an ASUS Eee PC 900A refurbished for 149 USD from Ebay, so add a VNC client (or the Goole remote desktop software they have just opensourced) and you have a pretty decent solution.The thin client idea is not about low price, is about beeing stateless.
Here in Argentina I work with an ensurance company that has 100\% of its apps web based, so they dont need and remote desktop solution, just a plain and simple browser (they can even use a chumby!
).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30505022</id>
	<title>Re:1996 called,</title>
	<author>SanityInAnarchy</author>
	<datestamp>1261333980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>We also export pictures of our data to users, not the data itself, which is quite a bonus.</p></div><p>How so?</p><p>Last I tried this, I found that for the vast majority of things you'd like to do, sending a picture of the data (even a compressed picture) is likely to be much larger than the data itself. The Slashdot homepage is 108 kilobytes. A PNG image of the Slashdot homepage was 220 kilobytes, and even when compressed with 'pngcrush -brute' (which takes something like 30 seconds on my machine) only gets it down to 173 kilobytes.</p><p>So even if you have unlimited time and power to compress the image, if you're going to deliver it perfectly, it's going to be 65 kilobytes more -- and that's just for what's visible within the frame. If I scroll, even if you use some sort of brilliant delta-compression, you're adding to the count -- again, compared with 108 kilobytes.</p><p>It's hard to imagine what kind of file is going to be larger than a picture of that file.</p><p>Maybe I'm missing the point? Maybe it's some sort of poor-man's DRM -- you don't want someone to be able to just walk off with the original data, but it's not as bad if they walk off with a screenshot?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We also export pictures of our data to users , not the data itself , which is quite a bonus.How so ? Last I tried this , I found that for the vast majority of things you 'd like to do , sending a picture of the data ( even a compressed picture ) is likely to be much larger than the data itself .
The Slashdot homepage is 108 kilobytes .
A PNG image of the Slashdot homepage was 220 kilobytes , and even when compressed with 'pngcrush -brute ' ( which takes something like 30 seconds on my machine ) only gets it down to 173 kilobytes.So even if you have unlimited time and power to compress the image , if you 're going to deliver it perfectly , it 's going to be 65 kilobytes more -- and that 's just for what 's visible within the frame .
If I scroll , even if you use some sort of brilliant delta-compression , you 're adding to the count -- again , compared with 108 kilobytes.It 's hard to imagine what kind of file is going to be larger than a picture of that file.Maybe I 'm missing the point ?
Maybe it 's some sort of poor-man 's DRM -- you do n't want someone to be able to just walk off with the original data , but it 's not as bad if they walk off with a screenshot ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We also export pictures of our data to users, not the data itself, which is quite a bonus.How so?Last I tried this, I found that for the vast majority of things you'd like to do, sending a picture of the data (even a compressed picture) is likely to be much larger than the data itself.
The Slashdot homepage is 108 kilobytes.
A PNG image of the Slashdot homepage was 220 kilobytes, and even when compressed with 'pngcrush -brute' (which takes something like 30 seconds on my machine) only gets it down to 173 kilobytes.So even if you have unlimited time and power to compress the image, if you're going to deliver it perfectly, it's going to be 65 kilobytes more -- and that's just for what's visible within the frame.
If I scroll, even if you use some sort of brilliant delta-compression, you're adding to the count -- again, compared with 108 kilobytes.It's hard to imagine what kind of file is going to be larger than a picture of that file.Maybe I'm missing the point?
Maybe it's some sort of poor-man's DRM -- you don't want someone to be able to just walk off with the original data, but it's not as bad if they walk off with a screenshot?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503810</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503286</id>
	<title>Thin clients, a dime a dozern</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261314720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My suggestion:</p><p>Step 1: Realize that almost nobody wants a laptop that has a busted screen, as it is often more expensive to replace the screen/backlight than it is to get a new laptop<br>Step 2: Hop on eBay and purchase fully functional laptops with busted screens, with the intent of using the ubiquitous vga-out for your LCD monitor<br>Step 3: If they have their hard drives pulled, boot them from SD or PXE.<br>Step 4: Pat yourself on the back. You saved money, you recycled, and you basically have a mini-UPS system built into each machine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My suggestion : Step 1 : Realize that almost nobody wants a laptop that has a busted screen , as it is often more expensive to replace the screen/backlight than it is to get a new laptopStep 2 : Hop on eBay and purchase fully functional laptops with busted screens , with the intent of using the ubiquitous vga-out for your LCD monitorStep 3 : If they have their hard drives pulled , boot them from SD or PXE.Step 4 : Pat yourself on the back .
You saved money , you recycled , and you basically have a mini-UPS system built into each machine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My suggestion:Step 1: Realize that almost nobody wants a laptop that has a busted screen, as it is often more expensive to replace the screen/backlight than it is to get a new laptopStep 2: Hop on eBay and purchase fully functional laptops with busted screens, with the intent of using the ubiquitous vga-out for your LCD monitorStep 3: If they have their hard drives pulled, boot them from SD or PXE.Step 4: Pat yourself on the back.
You saved money, you recycled, and you basically have a mini-UPS system built into each machine.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30505102</id>
	<title>Economics 101 ...</title>
	<author>smpoole7</author>
	<datestamp>1261334520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The retail price of something is rarely based on the cost to make the unit. This is a common fallacy. The retail price is primarily determined by what the market will pay for the unit. It's just that simple.<br><br>The demand for thin clients is much smaller than the demand for full-blown, self-contained computer units (primarily driven by home sales).</htmltext>
<tokenext>The retail price of something is rarely based on the cost to make the unit .
This is a common fallacy .
The retail price is primarily determined by what the market will pay for the unit .
It 's just that simple.The demand for thin clients is much smaller than the demand for full-blown , self-contained computer units ( primarily driven by home sales ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The retail price of something is rarely based on the cost to make the unit.
This is a common fallacy.
The retail price is primarily determined by what the market will pay for the unit.
It's just that simple.The demand for thin clients is much smaller than the demand for full-blown, self-contained computer units (primarily driven by home sales).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503248</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30509272</id>
	<title>Re:CapEx vs OpEx</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261333200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>you're a fucking tool.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>you 're a fucking tool .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you're a fucking tool.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503240</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503336</id>
	<title>Re:Thinnish thick clients.</title>
	<author>drinkypoo</author>
	<datestamp>1261316280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>They allow for custom PC hardware (card readers, barcode scanners, webcams for teleconferencing and so on).</p> </div><p>Card readers and barcode scanners are keyboard devices. You can get them with USB these days. In fact, I've got a USB CueCat.</p><p>Webcams are a bit tricky, but they should be highly doable with the new FUSE character device support. That is a good point, though.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They allow for custom PC hardware ( card readers , barcode scanners , webcams for teleconferencing and so on ) .
Card readers and barcode scanners are keyboard devices .
You can get them with USB these days .
In fact , I 've got a USB CueCat.Webcams are a bit tricky , but they should be highly doable with the new FUSE character device support .
That is a good point , though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They allow for custom PC hardware (card readers, barcode scanners, webcams for teleconferencing and so on).
Card readers and barcode scanners are keyboard devices.
You can get them with USB these days.
In fact, I've got a USB CueCat.Webcams are a bit tricky, but they should be highly doable with the new FUSE character device support.
That is a good point, though.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503202</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30513962</id>
	<title>Re:It's like bicycles...</title>
	<author>jollyreaper</author>
	<datestamp>1261419900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>&gt; The more you pay for a bicycle the less you get? What on Earth are you talking about?</p><p>It works exactly the same for bikinis, really.</p></div><p>But it's <i>soooo</i> worth it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; The more you pay for a bicycle the less you get ?
What on Earth are you talking about ? It works exactly the same for bikinis , really.But it 's soooo worth it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; The more you pay for a bicycle the less you get?
What on Earth are you talking about?It works exactly the same for bikinis, really.But it's soooo worth it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503452</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30506236</id>
	<title>Re:1996 called,</title>
	<author>Vancorps</author>
	<datestamp>1261300380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The thing you don't quite get is that a picture is the same size for a given resolution. Yes it will go up and down depending on how many structures are in the image but you have an upper limit. Contrast that against the need to download that 1gig powerpoint presentation over the Internet over ATT 3G spotty speed and you quickly realize how much faster it is to just transmit the pictures of what you are seeing. This is why RDP is much faster over the Internet than directly managing the machine. </p><p>Now most Internet services can handle the bitmap transfer. Local software will cache bitmaps so common things like the start menu aren't redownloaded, this means that image size drops the more you use it. </p><p>I don't believe this is a more secure approach, but it is definitely faster. Scrolling only requires downloading enough of the screen to cover the new info to be displayed, usually the process of scrolling gives the machine enough time to download it. Smooth scrolling isn't always perfect, but over a LAN or at least a decent Internet connection it's great, it will also tolerate temporary disconnects so you rarely ever lose your work. </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The thing you do n't quite get is that a picture is the same size for a given resolution .
Yes it will go up and down depending on how many structures are in the image but you have an upper limit .
Contrast that against the need to download that 1gig powerpoint presentation over the Internet over ATT 3G spotty speed and you quickly realize how much faster it is to just transmit the pictures of what you are seeing .
This is why RDP is much faster over the Internet than directly managing the machine .
Now most Internet services can handle the bitmap transfer .
Local software will cache bitmaps so common things like the start menu are n't redownloaded , this means that image size drops the more you use it .
I do n't believe this is a more secure approach , but it is definitely faster .
Scrolling only requires downloading enough of the screen to cover the new info to be displayed , usually the process of scrolling gives the machine enough time to download it .
Smooth scrolling is n't always perfect , but over a LAN or at least a decent Internet connection it 's great , it will also tolerate temporary disconnects so you rarely ever lose your work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The thing you don't quite get is that a picture is the same size for a given resolution.
Yes it will go up and down depending on how many structures are in the image but you have an upper limit.
Contrast that against the need to download that 1gig powerpoint presentation over the Internet over ATT 3G spotty speed and you quickly realize how much faster it is to just transmit the pictures of what you are seeing.
This is why RDP is much faster over the Internet than directly managing the machine.
Now most Internet services can handle the bitmap transfer.
Local software will cache bitmaps so common things like the start menu aren't redownloaded, this means that image size drops the more you use it.
I don't believe this is a more secure approach, but it is definitely faster.
Scrolling only requires downloading enough of the screen to cover the new info to be displayed, usually the process of scrolling gives the machine enough time to download it.
Smooth scrolling isn't always perfect, but over a LAN or at least a decent Internet connection it's great, it will also tolerate temporary disconnects so you rarely ever lose your work. </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30505022</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30507386</id>
	<title>Re:The client is not the expensive bit</title>
	<author>lordtoran</author>
	<datestamp>1261310280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With your advertisement for expensive proprietary software you do one thing exceptionally well: totally miss the point.</p><p>The article author wants to boot an operating system via PXE, with no OS actually being present on the client. Even if he were to do it the traditional "remote login" way, the OS on the clients doesn't matter, nor is it visible at all, only the server OS.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With your advertisement for expensive proprietary software you do one thing exceptionally well : totally miss the point.The article author wants to boot an operating system via PXE , with no OS actually being present on the client .
Even if he were to do it the traditional " remote login " way , the OS on the clients does n't matter , nor is it visible at all , only the server OS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With your advertisement for expensive proprietary software you do one thing exceptionally well: totally miss the point.The article author wants to boot an operating system via PXE, with no OS actually being present on the client.
Even if he were to do it the traditional "remote login" way, the OS on the clients doesn't matter, nor is it visible at all, only the server OS.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503122</id>
	<title>Market Segmentation</title>
	<author>RAMMS+EIN</author>
	<datestamp>1261310580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the explanation may be market segmentation. Thin clients are aimed at large organizations, where a few hundred dollars for a machine is chump change. They will happily buy greatly overpriced thin clients, because even the cost of an overpriced thin client on a desk is still dwarfed by the cost of the employee at the desk.</p><p>For home users, the picture is different, because they tend to see the computer in isolation. But the vast majority of home users wouldn't want to buy a thin client at any price, because they wouldn't know what to do with it.</p><p>If you want a cheap thin client, I would recommend to either buy one second hand (you can get them for under 100 dollars), or to just get whatever box you can and pretend it's a thin client.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the explanation may be market segmentation .
Thin clients are aimed at large organizations , where a few hundred dollars for a machine is chump change .
They will happily buy greatly overpriced thin clients , because even the cost of an overpriced thin client on a desk is still dwarfed by the cost of the employee at the desk.For home users , the picture is different , because they tend to see the computer in isolation .
But the vast majority of home users would n't want to buy a thin client at any price , because they would n't know what to do with it.If you want a cheap thin client , I would recommend to either buy one second hand ( you can get them for under 100 dollars ) , or to just get whatever box you can and pretend it 's a thin client .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the explanation may be market segmentation.
Thin clients are aimed at large organizations, where a few hundred dollars for a machine is chump change.
They will happily buy greatly overpriced thin clients, because even the cost of an overpriced thin client on a desk is still dwarfed by the cost of the employee at the desk.For home users, the picture is different, because they tend to see the computer in isolation.
But the vast majority of home users wouldn't want to buy a thin client at any price, because they wouldn't know what to do with it.If you want a cheap thin client, I would recommend to either buy one second hand (you can get them for under 100 dollars), or to just get whatever box you can and pretend it's a thin client.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503294</id>
	<title>Re:I'm Confused</title>
	<author>i.r.id10t</author>
	<datestamp>1261315140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Also groups like this have an overall budget, but it is split into portions- purchase of physical goods, purchases of services, and payroll money.  Which is why a local university is fighting with the budget guys to stop paying $300k a year for licenensing their learning management system/course delivery system, adopt a F/OSS solution, and spend an extra $200k per year on a couple of developers to make customizations, etc.  Sure it looks like an overall savings of $100k per year, but the $200k people money comes from a different pool than the $300k license money...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Also groups like this have an overall budget , but it is split into portions- purchase of physical goods , purchases of services , and payroll money .
Which is why a local university is fighting with the budget guys to stop paying $ 300k a year for licenensing their learning management system/course delivery system , adopt a F/OSS solution , and spend an extra $ 200k per year on a couple of developers to make customizations , etc .
Sure it looks like an overall savings of $ 100k per year , but the $ 200k people money comes from a different pool than the $ 300k license money.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also groups like this have an overall budget, but it is split into portions- purchase of physical goods, purchases of services, and payroll money.
Which is why a local university is fighting with the budget guys to stop paying $300k a year for licenensing their learning management system/course delivery system, adopt a F/OSS solution, and spend an extra $200k per year on a couple of developers to make customizations, etc.
Sure it looks like an overall savings of $100k per year, but the $200k people money comes from a different pool than the $300k license money...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503076</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30505336</id>
	<title>Shuttle X27D</title>
	<author>Captain Damnit</author>
	<datestamp>1261336200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From Newegg: <a href="http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16856101079&amp;Tpk=shuttle\%20x27d" title="newegg.com" rel="nofollow">Shuttle X27D</a> [newegg.com]</p><p>Add in a 2GB stick of RAM and you're looking at around $210-230 per seat.  They PXE boot, work great with LTSP and Ubuntu, and they drive a Samsung 22" LCD at full resolution.  How cheap are you expecting?</p><p>If you want to go below that, you're going to have to start salvaging old machines and converting them to thin clients. But then, you're only saving the purchase price, and the real compelling savings with an Atom-based thin client is the 50+ watt power consumption savings.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From Newegg : Shuttle X27D [ newegg.com ] Add in a 2GB stick of RAM and you 're looking at around $ 210-230 per seat .
They PXE boot , work great with LTSP and Ubuntu , and they drive a Samsung 22 " LCD at full resolution .
How cheap are you expecting ? If you want to go below that , you 're going to have to start salvaging old machines and converting them to thin clients .
But then , you 're only saving the purchase price , and the real compelling savings with an Atom-based thin client is the 50 + watt power consumption savings .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From Newegg: Shuttle X27D [newegg.com]Add in a 2GB stick of RAM and you're looking at around $210-230 per seat.
They PXE boot, work great with LTSP and Ubuntu, and they drive a Samsung 22" LCD at full resolution.
How cheap are you expecting?If you want to go below that, you're going to have to start salvaging old machines and converting them to thin clients.
But then, you're only saving the purchase price, and the real compelling savings with an Atom-based thin client is the 50+ watt power consumption savings.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503476</id>
	<title>The Ultimate Thin Client</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261319400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think this has been missed, but Android, and Chrome OS are really thin clients to Google's cloud with minor local functionality.</p><p>The true NX type thin client, though good, is going the way of the Neanderthal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think this has been missed , but Android , and Chrome OS are really thin clients to Google 's cloud with minor local functionality.The true NX type thin client , though good , is going the way of the Neanderthal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think this has been missed, but Android, and Chrome OS are really thin clients to Google's cloud with minor local functionality.The true NX type thin client, though good, is going the way of the Neanderthal.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503354</id>
	<title>Thin clients aren't fat enough for the cloud</title>
	<author>jabjoe</author>
	<datestamp>1261316940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The very people who think the cloud is the future, think everything will be written in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET or JIT'ed javascript. Last few times the thin client idea failed it was because of control, but it seams like each time it comes back there is more over head (more than you might expect from Moore's law). This time I'm not convinced a thin client will cut it. What you need is native apps from a database, one safe place to find apps, and everything kept up to date......Wait that's a repository! Compare the two side by side, mmmmm, I'll use fast native apps from a repository please, especially on a crap machine!</htmltext>
<tokenext>The very people who think the cloud is the future , think everything will be written in .NET or JIT'ed javascript .
Last few times the thin client idea failed it was because of control , but it seams like each time it comes back there is more over head ( more than you might expect from Moore 's law ) .
This time I 'm not convinced a thin client will cut it .
What you need is native apps from a database , one safe place to find apps , and everything kept up to date......Wait that 's a repository !
Compare the two side by side , mmmmm , I 'll use fast native apps from a repository please , especially on a crap machine !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The very people who think the cloud is the future, think everything will be written in .NET or JIT'ed javascript.
Last few times the thin client idea failed it was because of control, but it seams like each time it comes back there is more over head (more than you might expect from Moore's law).
This time I'm not convinced a thin client will cut it.
What you need is native apps from a database, one safe place to find apps, and everything kept up to date......Wait that's a repository!
Compare the two side by side, mmmmm, I'll use fast native apps from a repository please, especially on a crap machine!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30523852</id>
	<title>Re:Nettops?</title>
	<author>funnyguy</author>
	<datestamp>1261498500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nettops with network boot are a good choice.  The reason Thin Clients are more expensive is they usually have an expensive, flash based disk inside.  Thin clients also often include a Windows XP embedded or some other tweaked OS.  It isn't like 20 years ago when they were just XTERMs.</p><p>Also, you are likely paying a tax for the thin client management software that accompanies most thin clients now days.  This software allows you to do things like install applications directly to a thin client's flash.  Not so thin anymore.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nettops with network boot are a good choice .
The reason Thin Clients are more expensive is they usually have an expensive , flash based disk inside .
Thin clients also often include a Windows XP embedded or some other tweaked OS .
It is n't like 20 years ago when they were just XTERMs.Also , you are likely paying a tax for the thin client management software that accompanies most thin clients now days .
This software allows you to do things like install applications directly to a thin client 's flash .
Not so thin anymore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nettops with network boot are a good choice.
The reason Thin Clients are more expensive is they usually have an expensive, flash based disk inside.
Thin clients also often include a Windows XP embedded or some other tweaked OS.
It isn't like 20 years ago when they were just XTERMs.Also, you are likely paying a tax for the thin client management software that accompanies most thin clients now days.
This software allows you to do things like install applications directly to a thin client's flash.
Not so thin anymore.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503006</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503284</id>
	<title>That's because thin clients are PCs...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261314600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"I find many aspects of desktop virtualization compelling, with one exception: the cost of the thin clients, which typically exceeds that of a traditional box.</p></div><p>Thing is, if you're using office productivity apps or database front ends (the usual applications for desktop virtualization) then the most computationally intensive part of the job is probably <i>rendering the user interface</i> - so your thin client needs to have pretty much the same CPU and GPU clout as the desktop it is replacing. The Flash RAM costs as much as 10x the amount of HD storage and (since most people expect Thin Clients to be Thin) you're probably paying a premium for laptop-class components. The only real saving is DRAM - which is dirt cheap.

</p><p>Also, since the main market for these is corporate, any retail prices you see will be inflated so that corporate clients can be offered a nice "discount".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" I find many aspects of desktop virtualization compelling , with one exception : the cost of the thin clients , which typically exceeds that of a traditional box.Thing is , if you 're using office productivity apps or database front ends ( the usual applications for desktop virtualization ) then the most computationally intensive part of the job is probably rendering the user interface - so your thin client needs to have pretty much the same CPU and GPU clout as the desktop it is replacing .
The Flash RAM costs as much as 10x the amount of HD storage and ( since most people expect Thin Clients to be Thin ) you 're probably paying a premium for laptop-class components .
The only real saving is DRAM - which is dirt cheap .
Also , since the main market for these is corporate , any retail prices you see will be inflated so that corporate clients can be offered a nice " discount " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I find many aspects of desktop virtualization compelling, with one exception: the cost of the thin clients, which typically exceeds that of a traditional box.Thing is, if you're using office productivity apps or database front ends (the usual applications for desktop virtualization) then the most computationally intensive part of the job is probably rendering the user interface - so your thin client needs to have pretty much the same CPU and GPU clout as the desktop it is replacing.
The Flash RAM costs as much as 10x the amount of HD storage and (since most people expect Thin Clients to be Thin) you're probably paying a premium for laptop-class components.
The only real saving is DRAM - which is dirt cheap.
Also, since the main market for these is corporate, any retail prices you see will be inflated so that corporate clients can be offered a nice "discount".
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503554</id>
	<title>Re:I'm Confused</title>
	<author>larien</author>
	<datestamp>1261320300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>There are varied benefits, but some highlights:
<ul>
<li>Desktop breaks?  Ship out a new box, they plug it in and away they go.  You don't need to worry about what software they need as it's all on the server.</li>
<li>Security - no hard drives on desktop which can be stolen.</li>
<li>Patching/maintenance.  Would you rather maintain patches on 1000 desktops or 10 big boxes in the data centre?</li>
<li>Power/cooling/noise at sites.  A "real" thin client (as opposed to a PC masquerading as a thin client) will have minimal power requirements which leads to less cooling and noise (no fans or crunching hard drives)</li>
<li>Portability.  I don't care which desk I sit at, my virtual desktop will automatically have all my apps.  If you have a solution like Sun's Sunray, you can even log out of your Sunray half way through writing a document, move to another desk (possibly in another city) and pick up the doc where you left off.</li>
<li>High bandwidth apps run in the same data centre as the database server/whatever and you only get the screen updates down the wire which can be more efficient.
</li></ul></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are varied benefits , but some highlights : Desktop breaks ?
Ship out a new box , they plug it in and away they go .
You do n't need to worry about what software they need as it 's all on the server .
Security - no hard drives on desktop which can be stolen .
Patching/maintenance. Would you rather maintain patches on 1000 desktops or 10 big boxes in the data centre ?
Power/cooling/noise at sites .
A " real " thin client ( as opposed to a PC masquerading as a thin client ) will have minimal power requirements which leads to less cooling and noise ( no fans or crunching hard drives ) Portability .
I do n't care which desk I sit at , my virtual desktop will automatically have all my apps .
If you have a solution like Sun 's Sunray , you can even log out of your Sunray half way through writing a document , move to another desk ( possibly in another city ) and pick up the doc where you left off .
High bandwidth apps run in the same data centre as the database server/whatever and you only get the screen updates down the wire which can be more efficient .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are varied benefits, but some highlights:

Desktop breaks?
Ship out a new box, they plug it in and away they go.
You don't need to worry about what software they need as it's all on the server.
Security - no hard drives on desktop which can be stolen.
Patching/maintenance.  Would you rather maintain patches on 1000 desktops or 10 big boxes in the data centre?
Power/cooling/noise at sites.
A "real" thin client (as opposed to a PC masquerading as a thin client) will have minimal power requirements which leads to less cooling and noise (no fans or crunching hard drives)
Portability.
I don't care which desk I sit at, my virtual desktop will automatically have all my apps.
If you have a solution like Sun's Sunray, you can even log out of your Sunray half way through writing a document, move to another desk (possibly in another city) and pick up the doc where you left off.
High bandwidth apps run in the same data centre as the database server/whatever and you only get the screen updates down the wire which can be more efficient.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503076</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30507132</id>
	<title>Re:I'm Confused</title>
	<author>loners</author>
	<datestamp>1261308180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here is the solution for the local university:</p><p>1) combine the OSS into one single project<br>2) start making necessary customizations<br>3) license usage to the uni for 250k<br>4) profit!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here is the solution for the local university : 1 ) combine the OSS into one single project2 ) start making necessary customizations3 ) license usage to the uni for 250k4 ) profit !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here is the solution for the local university:1) combine the OSS into one single project2) start making necessary customizations3) license usage to the uni for 250k4) profit!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503294</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503452</id>
	<title>Re:It's like bicycles...</title>
	<author>vegiVamp</author>
	<datestamp>1261318980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>&gt; The more you pay for a bicycle the less you get? What on Earth are you talking about?<br><br>It works exactly the same for bikinis, really.</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; The more you pay for a bicycle the less you get ?
What on Earth are you talking about ? It works exactly the same for bikinis , really .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; The more you pay for a bicycle the less you get?
What on Earth are you talking about?It works exactly the same for bikinis, really.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503248</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30504956</id>
	<title>Wyse for $219</title>
	<author>chemi392</author>
	<datestamp>1261333320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>From CDW:
<a href="http://www.cdw.com/shop/products/default.aspx?edc=1199380&amp;enkwrd=ALLPROD:(902114-01L)" title="cdw.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.cdw.com/shop/products/default.aspx?edc=1199380&amp;enkwrd=ALLPROD:(902114-01L)</a> [cdw.com]
<br>Wyse S50 for $218.99

<br> <br>Supports RDP and Citrix ICA</htmltext>
<tokenext>From CDW : http : //www.cdw.com/shop/products/default.aspx ? edc = 1199380&amp;enkwrd = ALLPROD : ( 902114-01L ) [ cdw.com ] Wyse S50 for $ 218.99 Supports RDP and Citrix ICA</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From CDW:
http://www.cdw.com/shop/products/default.aspx?edc=1199380&amp;enkwrd=ALLPROD:(902114-01L) [cdw.com]
Wyse S50 for $218.99

 Supports RDP and Citrix ICA</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30508248</id>
	<title>Re:Thinnish thick clients.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261321200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How easy are they to find warranty replacement parts for?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How easy are they to find warranty replacement parts for ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How easy are they to find warranty replacement parts for?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503202</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30508494</id>
	<title>Pano cube</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261324020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We've had good experience with the Pano cubes.... they run vmware images, so it's easy to push out templates. And the unit is soooo small. No fans, nice performance. I think it's 2.5x.2.25x2.5inches, small AC adapter too.<br>
&nbsp; Only problem is that it will not do dual monitor without a weird adapter ( and it's VGA, not DVI )  And the video card is crap ( but you're limited to VMware's compatibility there anyway )</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We 've had good experience with the Pano cubes.... they run vmware images , so it 's easy to push out templates .
And the unit is soooo small .
No fans , nice performance .
I think it 's 2.5x.2.25x2.5inches , small AC adapter too .
  Only problem is that it will not do dual monitor without a weird adapter ( and it 's VGA , not DVI ) And the video card is crap ( but you 're limited to VMware 's compatibility there anyway )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We've had good experience with the Pano cubes.... they run vmware images, so it's easy to push out templates.
And the unit is soooo small.
No fans, nice performance.
I think it's 2.5x.2.25x2.5inches, small AC adapter too.
  Only problem is that it will not do dual monitor without a weird adapter ( and it's VGA, not DVI )  And the video card is crap ( but you're limited to VMware's compatibility there anyway )</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503232</id>
	<title>virtualised setup even</title>
	<author>gedw99</author>
	<datestamp>1261313880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree fully.</p><p>With the KVM &amp; the new spice drives, you can virtualise even your HTPC !!<br>It does HD quality video over my network with no problem.<br>This is in the basement.</p><p>So all i need on All dekstops is a very simple thin client.<br>100 mbit nic<br>hdmi.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree fully.With the KVM &amp; the new spice drives , you can virtualise even your HTPC !
! It does HD quality video over my network with no problem.This is in the basement.So all i need on All dekstops is a very simple thin client.100 mbit nichdmi .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree fully.With the KVM &amp; the new spice drives, you can virtualise even your HTPC !
!It does HD quality video over my network with no problem.This is in the basement.So all i need on All dekstops is a very simple thin client.100 mbit nichdmi.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503992</id>
	<title>Thin clients for under $200 right now</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261325580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>HP's offering:  <a href="http://h10010.www1.hp.com/wwpc/us/en/sm/WF05a/12454-12454-321959-338927-3640405-4063703.html" title="hp.com">http://h10010.www1.hp.com/wwpc/us/en/sm/WF05a/12454-12454-321959-338927-3640405-4063703.html</a> [hp.com] - $199<br>This is ARM-based mind.</p><p>From Dell:<br><a href="http://www.dell.com/us/en/home/desktops/inspiron-zino-hd/pd.aspx?refid=inspiron-zino-hd&amp;s=dhs&amp;cs=19" title="dell.com">http://www.dell.com/us/en/home/desktops/inspiron-zino-hd/pd.aspx?refid=inspiron-zino-hd&amp;s=dhs&amp;cs=19</a> [dell.com]<br>$250 right now, but was about $200 during black friday</p><p>From Acer:<br><a href="http://www.frys.com/product/6054148" title="frys.com">http://www.frys.com/product/6054148</a> [frys.com]</p><p>$200, has been $180.<br>To be fair, all these products are very recent, and I wouldn't expect anyone to be aware of them.<br>There are others too, but they tend to cost more.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>HP 's offering : http : //h10010.www1.hp.com/wwpc/us/en/sm/WF05a/12454-12454-321959-338927-3640405-4063703.html [ hp.com ] - $ 199This is ARM-based mind.From Dell : http : //www.dell.com/us/en/home/desktops/inspiron-zino-hd/pd.aspx ? refid = inspiron-zino-hd&amp;s = dhs&amp;cs = 19 [ dell.com ] $ 250 right now , but was about $ 200 during black fridayFrom Acer : http : //www.frys.com/product/6054148 [ frys.com ] $ 200 , has been $ 180.To be fair , all these products are very recent , and I would n't expect anyone to be aware of them.There are others too , but they tend to cost more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>HP's offering:  http://h10010.www1.hp.com/wwpc/us/en/sm/WF05a/12454-12454-321959-338927-3640405-4063703.html [hp.com] - $199This is ARM-based mind.From Dell:http://www.dell.com/us/en/home/desktops/inspiron-zino-hd/pd.aspx?refid=inspiron-zino-hd&amp;s=dhs&amp;cs=19 [dell.com]$250 right now, but was about $200 during black fridayFrom Acer:http://www.frys.com/product/6054148 [frys.com]$200, has been $180.To be fair, all these products are very recent, and I wouldn't expect anyone to be aware of them.There are others too, but they tend to cost more.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503128</id>
	<title>Sun Ray's work well and are cheap</title>
	<author>therus121</author>
	<datestamp>1261310820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Have a look at the 'Sun Rays' from Sun - they've been around for years; they are cheap and very reliable:

<a href="http://www.sun.com/software/index.jsp?cat=Desktop&amp;subcat=Sun\%20Ray\%20Clients" title="sun.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.sun.com/software/index.jsp?cat=Desktop&amp;subcat=Sun\%20Ray\%20Clients</a> [sun.com]

The prices shown on the Sun site are list-price - we get a Very healthy discount off of this, which brings the prices down even further.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Have a look at the 'Sun Rays ' from Sun - they 've been around for years ; they are cheap and very reliable : http : //www.sun.com/software/index.jsp ? cat = Desktop&amp;subcat = Sun \ % 20Ray \ % 20Clients [ sun.com ] The prices shown on the Sun site are list-price - we get a Very healthy discount off of this , which brings the prices down even further .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have a look at the 'Sun Rays' from Sun - they've been around for years; they are cheap and very reliable:

http://www.sun.com/software/index.jsp?cat=Desktop&amp;subcat=Sun\%20Ray\%20Clients [sun.com]

The prices shown on the Sun site are list-price - we get a Very healthy discount off of this, which brings the prices down even further.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503388</id>
	<title>They're being eclipsed by cheap traditional PC's</title>
	<author>intrico</author>
	<datestamp>1261317720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You already included a link to $249 PC in your blurb, for example.  $249 is dirt cheap when you look at how far prices have fallen over the past several years, and not far at all from the sub-$200 price point that you speak of.    If the cost of a full-blown PC is already dirt-cheap, there will naturally be little economic incentive for a separate genre of thin client PC's.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You already included a link to $ 249 PC in your blurb , for example .
$ 249 is dirt cheap when you look at how far prices have fallen over the past several years , and not far at all from the sub- $ 200 price point that you speak of .
If the cost of a full-blown PC is already dirt-cheap , there will naturally be little economic incentive for a separate genre of thin client PC 's .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You already included a link to $249 PC in your blurb, for example.
$249 is dirt cheap when you look at how far prices have fallen over the past several years, and not far at all from the sub-$200 price point that you speak of.
If the cost of a full-blown PC is already dirt-cheap, there will naturally be little economic incentive for a separate genre of thin client PC's.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30507034</id>
	<title>Re:I'm Confused</title>
	<author>fm6</author>
	<datestamp>1261307400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Another guy who can't be bothered to read the whole post. I was not arguing that thin clients are useless. I was arguing that thin clients have a specific use case, and this guy isn't it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Another guy who ca n't be bothered to read the whole post .
I was not arguing that thin clients are useless .
I was arguing that thin clients have a specific use case , and this guy is n't it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Another guy who can't be bothered to read the whole post.
I was not arguing that thin clients are useless.
I was arguing that thin clients have a specific use case, and this guy isn't it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503554</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503072</id>
	<title>What's missing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261309200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The bandwidth requires to drive multiple thin-clients at full resolution.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The bandwidth requires to drive multiple thin-clients at full resolution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The bandwidth requires to drive multiple thin-clients at full resolution.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503432</id>
	<title>Easy.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261318440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Am I missing something here?</p><p>Yes, a little thing called "mass production".</p><p>First, TCs are cheaper on the whole -- e.g. it's harder for a thief to steal a TC (because they suck without servers), replacing is basically zero-configuration etc. etc. The cost of the TC itself (the equipment) can be more expensive and yet the whole solution be more economical (there's a plethora of other economies not mentioned).</p><p>But, TCs are different -- which means they're not the commodity desktop PCs came to be.</p><p>If you want really cheap, buy mass-produced PCs (I believe we've seen them reach USD$200 in recent times). BTW, depending on a series of factors,  your current PCs might turn cheaper or not -- but surely they would avoid an initial investment.</p><p>BUT: TCs are worthy as much as the central maintenance team. If you can't manage it well, TCs will flop...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Am I missing something here ? Yes , a little thing called " mass production " .First , TCs are cheaper on the whole -- e.g .
it 's harder for a thief to steal a TC ( because they suck without servers ) , replacing is basically zero-configuration etc .
etc. The cost of the TC itself ( the equipment ) can be more expensive and yet the whole solution be more economical ( there 's a plethora of other economies not mentioned ) .But , TCs are different -- which means they 're not the commodity desktop PCs came to be.If you want really cheap , buy mass-produced PCs ( I believe we 've seen them reach USD $ 200 in recent times ) .
BTW , depending on a series of factors , your current PCs might turn cheaper or not -- but surely they would avoid an initial investment.BUT : TCs are worthy as much as the central maintenance team .
If you ca n't manage it well , TCs will flop.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Am I missing something here?Yes, a little thing called "mass production".First, TCs are cheaper on the whole -- e.g.
it's harder for a thief to steal a TC (because they suck without servers), replacing is basically zero-configuration etc.
etc. The cost of the TC itself (the equipment) can be more expensive and yet the whole solution be more economical (there's a plethora of other economies not mentioned).But, TCs are different -- which means they're not the commodity desktop PCs came to be.If you want really cheap, buy mass-produced PCs (I believe we've seen them reach USD$200 in recent times).
BTW, depending on a series of factors,  your current PCs might turn cheaper or not -- but surely they would avoid an initial investment.BUT: TCs are worthy as much as the central maintenance team.
If you can't manage it well, TCs will flop...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30507384</id>
	<title>Keep watching the netbooks</title>
	<author>gardel999</author>
	<datestamp>1261310280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think any thin client machines that take off would be an extension of the netbook idea. I could see iMac-like machines running something like Google Chromium OS. However, I think the computing world will evolve to "user" netbooks and "power user" thick client desktops.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think any thin client machines that take off would be an extension of the netbook idea .
I could see iMac-like machines running something like Google Chromium OS .
However , I think the computing world will evolve to " user " netbooks and " power user " thick client desktops .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think any thin client machines that take off would be an extension of the netbook idea.
I could see iMac-like machines running something like Google Chromium OS.
However, I think the computing world will evolve to "user" netbooks and "power user" thick client desktops.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30506470</id>
	<title>Re:1996 called,</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1261302420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1970 called, ditto for everything you've said.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1970 called , ditto for everything you 've said .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1970 called, ditto for everything you've said.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503024</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503418</id>
	<title>Not about cheap hardware</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261318380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The savings you can do with a thin client solution is not in the hardware, but in a more stable environment with less hassle for the user as well as support. I expect you to know this already, so what you need to do is to try to estimate total cost for a fat client solution compared to a thin client one and see if its profitable for you. The difference of a client for $200 or $90 every 4 year will not be what makes it viable or not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The savings you can do with a thin client solution is not in the hardware , but in a more stable environment with less hassle for the user as well as support .
I expect you to know this already , so what you need to do is to try to estimate total cost for a fat client solution compared to a thin client one and see if its profitable for you .
The difference of a client for $ 200 or $ 90 every 4 year will not be what makes it viable or not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The savings you can do with a thin client solution is not in the hardware, but in a more stable environment with less hassle for the user as well as support.
I expect you to know this already, so what you need to do is to try to estimate total cost for a fat client solution compared to a thin client one and see if its profitable for you.
The difference of a client for $200 or $90 every 4 year will not be what makes it viable or not.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30506884</id>
	<title>I am investigating thin clients...</title>
	<author>Hymer</author>
	<datestamp>1261306380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I am working on the same problem, we require min 1920x1200 in 32 bit color and max. 50W power consumption.
I've looked at following boxes:<ul>
<li>MSI WindBox2 (Atom n270, Intel graphics): OK</li>
<li>HP t5735 (AMD Turion, Radeon graphics): OK but no PXE-boot.</li>
<li>eBox-4860 (VIA Esther): OK</li>
<li>FitPC2 (Atom): Resolution only 1600x1200</li>
</ul><p>
All of those are capable of LTSP either as PXE-boot or disk-boot (HP only disk-boot).
The HP is quite nice but I can't get good sound quality out of it, none of them can deliver full screen video in good quality (HP is best due to the good GPU)
All uses std. PC keyboard and mouse, std. laptop RAM and got either 44-pin PATA (HP &amp; eBox) or SATA interface for flash/ssd/harddisk.
Right now we are using them as semi-thin clients, they got OpenSuSE 11.x with KDE but with all user applications removed except </p><ul>
<li>Citrix client</li>
<li>rdesktop</li>
<li>VMware OpenClient</li>
<li>VNC client</li>
<li>Firefox</li>
<li>VLC (We want people to be able to use the Internet directly from the thin client with full multimedia support.)</li>
</ul><p>
There are some funny features like: 10+ levels clipboard (from OpenSuSE), Alt-Tab changing between client task instead of server task, mounted USB-drives are not at the root of the drive on Citrix server, they are in a directory.
We do not have any graphic-heavy applications (we are a financial business) so it is woking quite well.
I've recently read that SAAB (no, not the almost killed by GM car company) are testing CAD/CAM on thin clients...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...and they are quite sure now that it will work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am working on the same problem , we require min 1920x1200 in 32 bit color and max .
50W power consumption .
I 've looked at following boxes : MSI WindBox2 ( Atom n270 , Intel graphics ) : OK HP t5735 ( AMD Turion , Radeon graphics ) : OK but no PXE-boot .
eBox-4860 ( VIA Esther ) : OK FitPC2 ( Atom ) : Resolution only 1600x1200 All of those are capable of LTSP either as PXE-boot or disk-boot ( HP only disk-boot ) .
The HP is quite nice but I ca n't get good sound quality out of it , none of them can deliver full screen video in good quality ( HP is best due to the good GPU ) All uses std .
PC keyboard and mouse , std .
laptop RAM and got either 44-pin PATA ( HP &amp; eBox ) or SATA interface for flash/ssd/harddisk .
Right now we are using them as semi-thin clients , they got OpenSuSE 11.x with KDE but with all user applications removed except Citrix client rdesktop VMware OpenClient VNC client Firefox VLC ( We want people to be able to use the Internet directly from the thin client with full multimedia support .
) There are some funny features like : 10 + levels clipboard ( from OpenSuSE ) , Alt-Tab changing between client task instead of server task , mounted USB-drives are not at the root of the drive on Citrix server , they are in a directory .
We do not have any graphic-heavy applications ( we are a financial business ) so it is woking quite well .
I 've recently read that SAAB ( no , not the almost killed by GM car company ) are testing CAD/CAM on thin clients... ...and they are quite sure now that it will work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am working on the same problem, we require min 1920x1200 in 32 bit color and max.
50W power consumption.
I've looked at following boxes:
MSI WindBox2 (Atom n270, Intel graphics): OK
HP t5735 (AMD Turion, Radeon graphics): OK but no PXE-boot.
eBox-4860 (VIA Esther): OK
FitPC2 (Atom): Resolution only 1600x1200

All of those are capable of LTSP either as PXE-boot or disk-boot (HP only disk-boot).
The HP is quite nice but I can't get good sound quality out of it, none of them can deliver full screen video in good quality (HP is best due to the good GPU)
All uses std.
PC keyboard and mouse, std.
laptop RAM and got either 44-pin PATA (HP &amp; eBox) or SATA interface for flash/ssd/harddisk.
Right now we are using them as semi-thin clients, they got OpenSuSE 11.x with KDE but with all user applications removed except 
Citrix client
rdesktop
VMware OpenClient
VNC client
Firefox
VLC (We want people to be able to use the Internet directly from the thin client with full multimedia support.
)

There are some funny features like: 10+ levels clipboard (from OpenSuSE), Alt-Tab changing between client task instead of server task, mounted USB-drives are not at the root of the drive on Citrix server, they are in a directory.
We do not have any graphic-heavy applications (we are a financial business) so it is woking quite well.
I've recently read that SAAB (no, not the almost killed by GM car company) are testing CAD/CAM on thin clients... ...and they are quite sure now that it will work.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503694</id>
	<title>We build ours</title>
	<author>markdavis</author>
	<datestamp>1261321740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We use over 150 "thin clients" on our network, all Linux based and all controlled by a single (large) Linux [xdm] server.  We used to use "real" thin clients (Xterminals) by Tektronix, but as their prices rose and the price of cheap, fanless, low power, small, VIA boards dropped 8-9 years ago, we decided to start making our own.</p><p>We have not regretted the decision.  Now we have complete control over the hardware and software.  We have the ability to run real local clients when necessary.</p><p>Right now, we are in the process of upgrading to fanless Atom 270 based motherboards from Jetway.  Total cost- about $250/ea.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We use over 150 " thin clients " on our network , all Linux based and all controlled by a single ( large ) Linux [ xdm ] server .
We used to use " real " thin clients ( Xterminals ) by Tektronix , but as their prices rose and the price of cheap , fanless , low power , small , VIA boards dropped 8-9 years ago , we decided to start making our own.We have not regretted the decision .
Now we have complete control over the hardware and software .
We have the ability to run real local clients when necessary.Right now , we are in the process of upgrading to fanless Atom 270 based motherboards from Jetway .
Total cost- about $ 250/ea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We use over 150 "thin clients" on our network, all Linux based and all controlled by a single (large) Linux [xdm] server.
We used to use "real" thin clients (Xterminals) by Tektronix, but as their prices rose and the price of cheap, fanless, low power, small, VIA boards dropped 8-9 years ago, we decided to start making our own.We have not regretted the decision.
Now we have complete control over the hardware and software.
We have the ability to run real local clients when necessary.Right now, we are in the process of upgrading to fanless Atom 270 based motherboards from Jetway.
Total cost- about $250/ea.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30504012</id>
	<title>Re:Market Segmentation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261325880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A sensible remark. Since the volume is relatively low, there are few suppliers which enables the manufacturers to charge higher prices than for a mass market item. In general the price of a manufactured item bears little relationship to its manufacturing costs unless the market has many suppliers and and consumers.</p><p>Its simple minded to think goods are priced at cost plus markup. Instead the equation is more like what is the price that maximizes revenue?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A sensible remark .
Since the volume is relatively low , there are few suppliers which enables the manufacturers to charge higher prices than for a mass market item .
In general the price of a manufactured item bears little relationship to its manufacturing costs unless the market has many suppliers and and consumers.Its simple minded to think goods are priced at cost plus markup .
Instead the equation is more like what is the price that maximizes revenue ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A sensible remark.
Since the volume is relatively low, there are few suppliers which enables the manufacturers to charge higher prices than for a mass market item.
In general the price of a manufactured item bears little relationship to its manufacturing costs unless the market has many suppliers and and consumers.Its simple minded to think goods are priced at cost plus markup.
Instead the equation is more like what is the price that maximizes revenue?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30504952</id>
	<title>Re:1996 called,</title>
	<author>Attila Dimedici</author>
	<datestamp>1261333260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If they are hooked up to the network there are several utilities available that can be used to automatically shut down all of the computers on the network at a pre-set time. <br>
I worked for a company that could have used thin clients instead of PC's. The problem was that the cost of setting up thin clients for all of our users cost more than buying and deploying the cheapest PC's we could find. The cheapest individual thin clients we could find cost about 25\% less than the cheapest PC's we could find, once we paid for the Server the total cost was about 50\% more than just buying a PC for each of the users. Now this was a small company, but it should theoretically be possible to do it for at least the same price as individual PC's</htmltext>
<tokenext>If they are hooked up to the network there are several utilities available that can be used to automatically shut down all of the computers on the network at a pre-set time .
I worked for a company that could have used thin clients instead of PC 's .
The problem was that the cost of setting up thin clients for all of our users cost more than buying and deploying the cheapest PC 's we could find .
The cheapest individual thin clients we could find cost about 25 \ % less than the cheapest PC 's we could find , once we paid for the Server the total cost was about 50 \ % more than just buying a PC for each of the users .
Now this was a small company , but it should theoretically be possible to do it for at least the same price as individual PC 's</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they are hooked up to the network there are several utilities available that can be used to automatically shut down all of the computers on the network at a pre-set time.
I worked for a company that could have used thin clients instead of PC's.
The problem was that the cost of setting up thin clients for all of our users cost more than buying and deploying the cheapest PC's we could find.
The cheapest individual thin clients we could find cost about 25\% less than the cheapest PC's we could find, once we paid for the Server the total cost was about 50\% more than just buying a PC for each of the users.
Now this was a small company, but it should theoretically be possible to do it for at least the same price as individual PC's</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503810</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503202</id>
	<title>Thinnish thick clients.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261313100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A minor computer firm is subcontracted to assemble cheapest PCs. They build normal self-contained PCs running the cheapest OEM Windows available. These are  $80(+OS) machines running on parts that are a storage surplus after they went out of sale. Then they install the "thin client" software which is some kind of Telnet or VNC or a web browser with intranet connection, pointed at a PHP web app.</p><p>So basically the employee boots up the computer normally, starts the app fullscreen and does most of the work remotely.</p><p>This has several advantages. The workstations can be troubleshooted locally. They can back up your work if network connection goes down. They allow for custom PC hardware (card readers, barcode scanners, webcams for teleconferencing and so on). They can be upgraded if the need arises, and fixed using off-the-shelf hardware (unless it went so obsolete it's unobtainable). And due to economy of scale, they are cheaper than dedicated thin clients despite being way overpowered.</p><p>I've seen quite a few markets and institutions running a system like this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A minor computer firm is subcontracted to assemble cheapest PCs .
They build normal self-contained PCs running the cheapest OEM Windows available .
These are $ 80 ( + OS ) machines running on parts that are a storage surplus after they went out of sale .
Then they install the " thin client " software which is some kind of Telnet or VNC or a web browser with intranet connection , pointed at a PHP web app.So basically the employee boots up the computer normally , starts the app fullscreen and does most of the work remotely.This has several advantages .
The workstations can be troubleshooted locally .
They can back up your work if network connection goes down .
They allow for custom PC hardware ( card readers , barcode scanners , webcams for teleconferencing and so on ) .
They can be upgraded if the need arises , and fixed using off-the-shelf hardware ( unless it went so obsolete it 's unobtainable ) .
And due to economy of scale , they are cheaper than dedicated thin clients despite being way overpowered.I 've seen quite a few markets and institutions running a system like this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A minor computer firm is subcontracted to assemble cheapest PCs.
They build normal self-contained PCs running the cheapest OEM Windows available.
These are  $80(+OS) machines running on parts that are a storage surplus after they went out of sale.
Then they install the "thin client" software which is some kind of Telnet or VNC or a web browser with intranet connection, pointed at a PHP web app.So basically the employee boots up the computer normally, starts the app fullscreen and does most of the work remotely.This has several advantages.
The workstations can be troubleshooted locally.
They can back up your work if network connection goes down.
They allow for custom PC hardware (card readers, barcode scanners, webcams for teleconferencing and so on).
They can be upgraded if the need arises, and fixed using off-the-shelf hardware (unless it went so obsolete it's unobtainable).
And due to economy of scale, they are cheaper than dedicated thin clients despite being way overpowered.I've seen quite a few markets and institutions running a system like this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30505366</id>
	<title>Why not this?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261336500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why not just buy used ex-corporate PC's that are already licensed for XP Pro and buy a couple of pallets of them for $40-$65 each? Add a couple of used laptops, say $100-$120 bucks, again licensed with XP.</p><p>And have them running RDP to the terminal server and lock down the OS, including USB ports, etc.</p><p>If one breaks, give it back to the computer recyclers and get another one from the pallet, clone the drive and away you go. Hire an admin for under 50k yr, and have him admin 150-200 PC's.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not just buy used ex-corporate PC 's that are already licensed for XP Pro and buy a couple of pallets of them for $ 40- $ 65 each ?
Add a couple of used laptops , say $ 100- $ 120 bucks , again licensed with XP.And have them running RDP to the terminal server and lock down the OS , including USB ports , etc.If one breaks , give it back to the computer recyclers and get another one from the pallet , clone the drive and away you go .
Hire an admin for under 50k yr , and have him admin 150-200 PC 's .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not just buy used ex-corporate PC's that are already licensed for XP Pro and buy a couple of pallets of them for $40-$65 each?
Add a couple of used laptops, say $100-$120 bucks, again licensed with XP.And have them running RDP to the terminal server and lock down the OS, including USB ports, etc.If one breaks, give it back to the computer recyclers and get another one from the pallet, clone the drive and away you go.
Hire an admin for under 50k yr, and have him admin 150-200 PC's.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30508420</id>
	<title>bullshit topic</title>
	<author>Werrismys</author>
	<datestamp>1261323180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>a working X11/RDP thin client costs under 200 euros.
<p>
A typical workstation costs 500-600 euros.
</p><p>
WTF was this about again?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>a working X11/RDP thin client costs under 200 euros .
A typical workstation costs 500-600 euros .
WTF was this about again ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>a working X11/RDP thin client costs under 200 euros.
A typical workstation costs 500-600 euros.
WTF was this about again?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503376</id>
	<title>Re:virtualised setup even</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261317360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>it does htdv quality?<br>you sure?<br>spice works mostly with lossless compression, but has algorithms to detect areas with lots of updates.<br>it compresses those updates with mpeg, so it's a lossy compression.<br>so you're not really having hdtv quality<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)<br>you need a gigabit for a 1440x900 video when using remote X connections.<br>add some lossless compression and differential algorithms if you want (basically: spice), but a 100mb will hardly support a full-screen hdtv video.<br>not to mention, full hdtv is 1980x1080, so even worse.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>it does htdv quality ? you sure ? spice works mostly with lossless compression , but has algorithms to detect areas with lots of updates.it compresses those updates with mpeg , so it 's a lossy compression.so you 're not really having hdtv quality : ) you need a gigabit for a 1440x900 video when using remote X connections.add some lossless compression and differential algorithms if you want ( basically : spice ) , but a 100mb will hardly support a full-screen hdtv video.not to mention , full hdtv is 1980x1080 , so even worse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it does htdv quality?you sure?spice works mostly with lossless compression, but has algorithms to detect areas with lots of updates.it compresses those updates with mpeg, so it's a lossy compression.so you're not really having hdtv quality :)you need a gigabit for a 1440x900 video when using remote X connections.add some lossless compression and differential algorithms if you want (basically: spice), but a 100mb will hardly support a full-screen hdtv video.not to mention, full hdtv is 1980x1080, so even worse.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503232</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503666</id>
	<title>Re:What's missing</title>
	<author>level\_headed\_midwest</author>
	<datestamp>1261321380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'll second that. I currently am doing a stint in a place that uses newer WYSE thin clients accessing a Citrix server, hooked up to 22" monitors for their computers. The maximum resolution the thin clients can handle is 1024x768, which is horribly limiting for those who have to use something even as mundane as a spreadsheet, let alone the complex electronic medical records system that is the real reason that the computers even exist there. EMR systems use a ton of screen real estate as they are generally full of tabs and sidebars and pack a LOT of information into each screen. Using one of those at 1024x768 is roughly analogous to viewing a typical optimized-for-1024x768-and-above website on an an average smartphone. You're looking out through a porthole and scroll and scroll and scroll just to view the entire page. I have used identical EMR systems (also running a remote instance over Citrix) at other places that have low-end PCs that can drive monitors at 1280x1024 or 1680x1050. I'd be willing to bet that the loss of productivity with people fighting with the low-resolution thin client screens is greater than the amount the place "saved" by using thin clients instead of the low-end PCs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll second that .
I currently am doing a stint in a place that uses newer WYSE thin clients accessing a Citrix server , hooked up to 22 " monitors for their computers .
The maximum resolution the thin clients can handle is 1024x768 , which is horribly limiting for those who have to use something even as mundane as a spreadsheet , let alone the complex electronic medical records system that is the real reason that the computers even exist there .
EMR systems use a ton of screen real estate as they are generally full of tabs and sidebars and pack a LOT of information into each screen .
Using one of those at 1024x768 is roughly analogous to viewing a typical optimized-for-1024x768-and-above website on an an average smartphone .
You 're looking out through a porthole and scroll and scroll and scroll just to view the entire page .
I have used identical EMR systems ( also running a remote instance over Citrix ) at other places that have low-end PCs that can drive monitors at 1280x1024 or 1680x1050 .
I 'd be willing to bet that the loss of productivity with people fighting with the low-resolution thin client screens is greater than the amount the place " saved " by using thin clients instead of the low-end PCs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll second that.
I currently am doing a stint in a place that uses newer WYSE thin clients accessing a Citrix server, hooked up to 22" monitors for their computers.
The maximum resolution the thin clients can handle is 1024x768, which is horribly limiting for those who have to use something even as mundane as a spreadsheet, let alone the complex electronic medical records system that is the real reason that the computers even exist there.
EMR systems use a ton of screen real estate as they are generally full of tabs and sidebars and pack a LOT of information into each screen.
Using one of those at 1024x768 is roughly analogous to viewing a typical optimized-for-1024x768-and-above website on an an average smartphone.
You're looking out through a porthole and scroll and scroll and scroll just to view the entire page.
I have used identical EMR systems (also running a remote instance over Citrix) at other places that have low-end PCs that can drive monitors at 1280x1024 or 1680x1050.
I'd be willing to bet that the loss of productivity with people fighting with the low-resolution thin client screens is greater than the amount the place "saved" by using thin clients instead of the low-end PCs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503072</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503914</id>
	<title>Why they never caught on... and what might change</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261324560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's little incentive for the traditional desktop makers to deliver cheap thin clients.  It further erodes their already thin margins for desktops, reduces revenues, and puts a whole support industry out of work.</p><p>There are a handful of companies making low-end computing devices based on highly integrated chipsets with some processing power.  Freescale has some that aren't bad, and TI's OMAP 3530 series (see <a href="http://beagleboard.org/" title="beagleboard.org" rel="nofollow">http://beagleboard.org/</a> [beagleboard.org]) is a good candidate.  The definition of thin client will need to change, too - it'll become a diskless device that can run a virtual desktop off a server *or* a centrally managed browser using web-based apps (where rendering, playback is local.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's little incentive for the traditional desktop makers to deliver cheap thin clients .
It further erodes their already thin margins for desktops , reduces revenues , and puts a whole support industry out of work.There are a handful of companies making low-end computing devices based on highly integrated chipsets with some processing power .
Freescale has some that are n't bad , and TI 's OMAP 3530 series ( see http : //beagleboard.org/ [ beagleboard.org ] ) is a good candidate .
The definition of thin client will need to change , too - it 'll become a diskless device that can run a virtual desktop off a server * or * a centrally managed browser using web-based apps ( where rendering , playback is local .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's little incentive for the traditional desktop makers to deliver cheap thin clients.
It further erodes their already thin margins for desktops, reduces revenues, and puts a whole support industry out of work.There are a handful of companies making low-end computing devices based on highly integrated chipsets with some processing power.
Freescale has some that aren't bad, and TI's OMAP 3530 series (see http://beagleboard.org/ [beagleboard.org]) is a good candidate.
The definition of thin client will need to change, too - it'll become a diskless device that can run a virtual desktop off a server *or* a centrally managed browser using web-based apps (where rendering, playback is local.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503552</id>
	<title>www.devonit.com ($129 thin clients)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261320240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I haven't seen anyone reference the firm we use.  Devon IT (www.devonit.com) sells thin clients for $129.  They aren't perfect, but they work well, they have no moving parts, and they can be centrally managed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have n't seen anyone reference the firm we use .
Devon IT ( www.devonit.com ) sells thin clients for $ 129 .
They are n't perfect , but they work well , they have no moving parts , and they can be centrally managed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I haven't seen anyone reference the firm we use.
Devon IT (www.devonit.com) sells thin clients for $129.
They aren't perfect, but they work well, they have no moving parts, and they can be centrally managed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503688</id>
	<title>We're building some</title>
	<author>AppComp</author>
	<datestamp>1261321620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>SoC parts that can deliver such high resolutions have become available only recently, thanks to the HDTV boom. Before that, ARM or MIPS graphics were usually limited to portable LCD or NTSC resolution.

We at Thinvent are building such thin clients, using ARM processors. Using the TI OMAP3505, we deliver up to 2048x2048 resolution. Using the TI OMAP L138, we can deliver up to 800x600 resolution, for screen sizes less than 10". Especially interesting is the market for all-in-one thin clients, where the thin client is built into the LCD monitor, allowing quick installation.</htmltext>
<tokenext>SoC parts that can deliver such high resolutions have become available only recently , thanks to the HDTV boom .
Before that , ARM or MIPS graphics were usually limited to portable LCD or NTSC resolution .
We at Thinvent are building such thin clients , using ARM processors .
Using the TI OMAP3505 , we deliver up to 2048x2048 resolution .
Using the TI OMAP L138 , we can deliver up to 800x600 resolution , for screen sizes less than 10 " .
Especially interesting is the market for all-in-one thin clients , where the thin client is built into the LCD monitor , allowing quick installation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>SoC parts that can deliver such high resolutions have become available only recently, thanks to the HDTV boom.
Before that, ARM or MIPS graphics were usually limited to portable LCD or NTSC resolution.
We at Thinvent are building such thin clients, using ARM processors.
Using the TI OMAP3505, we deliver up to 2048x2048 resolution.
Using the TI OMAP L138, we can deliver up to 800x600 resolution, for screen sizes less than 10".
Especially interesting is the market for all-in-one thin clients, where the thin client is built into the LCD monitor, allowing quick installation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30509552</id>
	<title>The economics of less-than-worthless trash...</title>
	<author>evilviper</author>
	<datestamp>1261337220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Want a thin client?  To hell with hardware variation!  A default Linux kernel, out of the box, can boot damn near anything, and access every network card I've come across in years, and X11's VESA driver can handle just about every display out there.  Keyboards and mice and a no-brainer.</p><p>Setup a working PXE net boot environment with all your thin-client apps, and go.  Drop in any old surplus PC, found in any dumpster, anywhere.  98\% chance it'll work.  If it doesn't, write it off as trash and spend $30 on the next forklift pallet of 'em, or in my case, point the supervisors to the pile...</p><p>Old PCs are hazardous waste.  Even if they work, companies actually have to pay people to take them away.  Every company that's been around more than a decade has them, and they're just warehoused somewhere.  Drop them in and go.  If you're a new or expanding fast enough that this won't work, you literally can find off-lease equipment in bulk for under $50/each.</p><p>Buying a thin client is akin to buying bottled water...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Want a thin client ?
To hell with hardware variation !
A default Linux kernel , out of the box , can boot damn near anything , and access every network card I 've come across in years , and X11 's VESA driver can handle just about every display out there .
Keyboards and mice and a no-brainer.Setup a working PXE net boot environment with all your thin-client apps , and go .
Drop in any old surplus PC , found in any dumpster , anywhere .
98 \ % chance it 'll work .
If it does n't , write it off as trash and spend $ 30 on the next forklift pallet of 'em , or in my case , point the supervisors to the pile...Old PCs are hazardous waste .
Even if they work , companies actually have to pay people to take them away .
Every company that 's been around more than a decade has them , and they 're just warehoused somewhere .
Drop them in and go .
If you 're a new or expanding fast enough that this wo n't work , you literally can find off-lease equipment in bulk for under $ 50/each.Buying a thin client is akin to buying bottled water.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Want a thin client?
To hell with hardware variation!
A default Linux kernel, out of the box, can boot damn near anything, and access every network card I've come across in years, and X11's VESA driver can handle just about every display out there.
Keyboards and mice and a no-brainer.Setup a working PXE net boot environment with all your thin-client apps, and go.
Drop in any old surplus PC, found in any dumpster, anywhere.
98\% chance it'll work.
If it doesn't, write it off as trash and spend $30 on the next forklift pallet of 'em, or in my case, point the supervisors to the pile...Old PCs are hazardous waste.
Even if they work, companies actually have to pay people to take them away.
Every company that's been around more than a decade has them, and they're just warehoused somewhere.
Drop them in and go.
If you're a new or expanding fast enough that this won't work, you literally can find off-lease equipment in bulk for under $50/each.Buying a thin client is akin to buying bottled water...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503440</id>
	<title>Re:Thin clients, a dime a dozern</title>
	<author>shitzu</author>
	<datestamp>1261318620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And that will very efficiently render all positive aspects of thin clients to ashes. Almost all of the reasons (in the way of TCO savings) of deploying thin clients in the first place rely on *the same hardware* running same configuration and system image. Running 200 broken laptops from ebay would be a fun sight, but would probably increase the cost ten times over traditional desktops, let alone thin clients.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And that will very efficiently render all positive aspects of thin clients to ashes .
Almost all of the reasons ( in the way of TCO savings ) of deploying thin clients in the first place rely on * the same hardware * running same configuration and system image .
Running 200 broken laptops from ebay would be a fun sight , but would probably increase the cost ten times over traditional desktops , let alone thin clients .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And that will very efficiently render all positive aspects of thin clients to ashes.
Almost all of the reasons (in the way of TCO savings) of deploying thin clients in the first place rely on *the same hardware* running same configuration and system image.
Running 200 broken laptops from ebay would be a fun sight, but would probably increase the cost ten times over traditional desktops, let alone thin clients.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503286</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503636</id>
	<title>You're looking at the wrong cost</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261320960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>While there are some sub-$200 products out there, they all seem to cut corners (give me non-vaporware that will drive a 22" LCD at full resolution). I can PXE boot a homebrew Atom-based thin client for $130, but I'd prefer to be able to buy something assembled. Am I missing something here?"</i> </p><p>With thin clients, the biggest savings isn't in the cost to acquire.  It's in the cost to operate and maintain.  Compare a thin client to even a low-spec PC with a full OS that can have apps/viruses/spyware/etc installed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While there are some sub- $ 200 products out there , they all seem to cut corners ( give me non-vaporware that will drive a 22 " LCD at full resolution ) .
I can PXE boot a homebrew Atom-based thin client for $ 130 , but I 'd prefer to be able to buy something assembled .
Am I missing something here ?
" With thin clients , the biggest savings is n't in the cost to acquire .
It 's in the cost to operate and maintain .
Compare a thin client to even a low-spec PC with a full OS that can have apps/viruses/spyware/etc installed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While there are some sub-$200 products out there, they all seem to cut corners (give me non-vaporware that will drive a 22" LCD at full resolution).
I can PXE boot a homebrew Atom-based thin client for $130, but I'd prefer to be able to buy something assembled.
Am I missing something here?
" With thin clients, the biggest savings isn't in the cost to acquire.
It's in the cost to operate and maintain.
Compare a thin client to even a low-spec PC with a full OS that can have apps/viruses/spyware/etc installed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30521286</id>
	<title>Re:Thinnish thick clients.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261513800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Until a virus or internet worm spiders through the LAN making a random set of the PCs inaccessable over the network and causing other random problems.  A Ghost DVD kept on site helps with this.</p><p>Your idea has a lot of merit - in fact that's basically what most banks and similiar businesses use, PCs with just the OS, a broswer and telnet or OS/390 clients and maybe some Java Web Start apps.</p><p>But the security of Windows is the weak link.  It can be secured if you try, but it doesn't take much to leave it wide open to attack.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Until a virus or internet worm spiders through the LAN making a random set of the PCs inaccessable over the network and causing other random problems .
A Ghost DVD kept on site helps with this.Your idea has a lot of merit - in fact that 's basically what most banks and similiar businesses use , PCs with just the OS , a broswer and telnet or OS/390 clients and maybe some Java Web Start apps.But the security of Windows is the weak link .
It can be secured if you try , but it does n't take much to leave it wide open to attack .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Until a virus or internet worm spiders through the LAN making a random set of the PCs inaccessable over the network and causing other random problems.
A Ghost DVD kept on site helps with this.Your idea has a lot of merit - in fact that's basically what most banks and similiar businesses use, PCs with just the OS, a broswer and telnet or OS/390 clients and maybe some Java Web Start apps.But the security of Windows is the weak link.
It can be secured if you try, but it doesn't take much to leave it wide open to attack.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503202</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30509482</id>
	<title>Re:1996 called,</title>
	<author>westyvw</author>
	<datestamp>1261336140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh it will. Companies that dont use a thin client model are just burning money. I cant work without a network connection (for file storage, email, or the licenses my software requires from a server). And we loathe our users saving anything on a local machine both for backups and for accountability.</p><p>Besides, I like having true roaming profiles and 3D desktops, dont you?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh it will .
Companies that dont use a thin client model are just burning money .
I cant work without a network connection ( for file storage , email , or the licenses my software requires from a server ) .
And we loathe our users saving anything on a local machine both for backups and for accountability.Besides , I like having true roaming profiles and 3D desktops , dont you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh it will.
Companies that dont use a thin client model are just burning money.
I cant work without a network connection (for file storage, email, or the licenses my software requires from a server).
And we loathe our users saving anything on a local machine both for backups and for accountability.Besides, I like having true roaming profiles and 3D desktops, dont you?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503024</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503430</id>
	<title>Re:We've been here before...</title>
	<author>cyber-vandal</author>
	<datestamp>1261318440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In 1993 there weren't several virtualisation solutions that the thin client can use.  We use thin clients at work connecting to VMWare servers and they're just as good for the average employee as a desktop without all the aggravation that goes with having several hundred corporate PCs to maintain.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In 1993 there were n't several virtualisation solutions that the thin client can use .
We use thin clients at work connecting to VMWare servers and they 're just as good for the average employee as a desktop without all the aggravation that goes with having several hundred corporate PCs to maintain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In 1993 there weren't several virtualisation solutions that the thin client can use.
We use thin clients at work connecting to VMWare servers and they're just as good for the average employee as a desktop without all the aggravation that goes with having several hundred corporate PCs to maintain.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503192</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30507360</id>
	<title>Yes, you are.</title>
	<author>ogl\_codemonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1261310100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Am I missing something here?</p></div><p>Perhaps the 'sort by price' option in the link you provided?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Am I missing something here ? Perhaps the 'sort by price ' option in the link you provided ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Am I missing something here?Perhaps the 'sort by price' option in the link you provided?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30535120</id>
	<title>Re:What's missing</title>
	<author>pnutjam</author>
	<datestamp>1259769060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>ROTFLMAO, you are hilarious.  I've supported a think client infrastructure and everything you say about higher resolution is correct, however, at least 70\% of my users insisted on 800X600 (not a typo).  It drove me insane, I guarantee my eyes are worse then every one of them and I work with a higher resolution, but they insisted the could not see the screen.<br>Never mind that the monitor is pushed back to the far corner of the desk (why do people do that?).</htmltext>
<tokenext>ROTFLMAO , you are hilarious .
I 've supported a think client infrastructure and everything you say about higher resolution is correct , however , at least 70 \ % of my users insisted on 800X600 ( not a typo ) .
It drove me insane , I guarantee my eyes are worse then every one of them and I work with a higher resolution , but they insisted the could not see the screen.Never mind that the monitor is pushed back to the far corner of the desk ( why do people do that ?
) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ROTFLMAO, you are hilarious.
I've supported a think client infrastructure and everything you say about higher resolution is correct, however, at least 70\% of my users insisted on 800X600 (not a typo).
It drove me insane, I guarantee my eyes are worse then every one of them and I work with a higher resolution, but they insisted the could not see the screen.Never mind that the monitor is pushed back to the far corner of the desk (why do people do that?
).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503666</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503810</id>
	<title>Re:1996 called,</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261323540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The organisation I work at (it's a university) spends about a million quid a year because people fail to turn off PCs overnight. The running costs of your cheap Dell POS are much higher; the power consumption too.</p><p>For clerical and administrative staff, we can put 7-14 virtualised desktops onto a single box/blade - more with non-whole-stack virtualisation or terminal services. We put our heat generation in a few places, we do get better utilisation. We also export pictures of our data to users, not the data itself, which is quite a bonus.</p><p>The downsides are what you'd expect: mostly, we have fewer spindles to deliver storage to the desktops (this is the biggest issue we face, I think); multimedia is okay-ish; for heavy computational users there aren't really gains to be had.</p><p>It's certainly got its place. Anyone selling you a "one size fits all" for your organisation probably doesn't understand your organisation, but this isn't not a completely incredible approach.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The organisation I work at ( it 's a university ) spends about a million quid a year because people fail to turn off PCs overnight .
The running costs of your cheap Dell POS are much higher ; the power consumption too.For clerical and administrative staff , we can put 7-14 virtualised desktops onto a single box/blade - more with non-whole-stack virtualisation or terminal services .
We put our heat generation in a few places , we do get better utilisation .
We also export pictures of our data to users , not the data itself , which is quite a bonus.The downsides are what you 'd expect : mostly , we have fewer spindles to deliver storage to the desktops ( this is the biggest issue we face , I think ) ; multimedia is okay-ish ; for heavy computational users there are n't really gains to be had.It 's certainly got its place .
Anyone selling you a " one size fits all " for your organisation probably does n't understand your organisation , but this is n't not a completely incredible approach .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The organisation I work at (it's a university) spends about a million quid a year because people fail to turn off PCs overnight.
The running costs of your cheap Dell POS are much higher; the power consumption too.For clerical and administrative staff, we can put 7-14 virtualised desktops onto a single box/blade - more with non-whole-stack virtualisation or terminal services.
We put our heat generation in a few places, we do get better utilisation.
We also export pictures of our data to users, not the data itself, which is quite a bonus.The downsides are what you'd expect: mostly, we have fewer spindles to deliver storage to the desktops (this is the biggest issue we face, I think); multimedia is okay-ish; for heavy computational users there aren't really gains to be had.It's certainly got its place.
Anyone selling you a "one size fits all" for your organisation probably doesn't understand your organisation, but this isn't not a completely incredible approach.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503024</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30506596</id>
	<title>Re:I'm Confused</title>
	<author>CAIMLAS</author>
	<datestamp>1261303680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>#<br># Patching/maintenance. Would you rather maintain patches on 1000 desktops or 10 big boxes in the data centre?</p></div><p>This, and it's corollary, is what I always come back to as the main/biggest weakness to thin clients. That corollary is: would you rather have 1 user down due to his malware stupidity, or 50 users?</p><p>I'm all for thin clients, and i think the other disadvantages of thinclients are easily avoidable/marginalized by the benefits (given most environments).</p><p>I'm not saying it's a red flag for me, but it does give me pause. When Norton will hose a system (it it won't allow any logins, normally or in safe mode) infected with Internet Security 2010 or similar, I question how much 'system recovery' I'd end up having to do, vs. simply wipe-and-recover.</p><p>Now, if your infrastructure is large/organized enough that you've got all storage on a SAN, FC host, or similar, you've got another environment variable which aides the ease of a thinclient migration.</p><p>From what I've seen, hospitals are probably the organization type which could benefit the most from thinclients, both short and long term. The environmental factors alone should be enough to sell them even at an increase in cost, but there are a bunch of other reasons as well.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext># # Patching/maintenance .
Would you rather maintain patches on 1000 desktops or 10 big boxes in the data centre ? This , and it 's corollary , is what I always come back to as the main/biggest weakness to thin clients .
That corollary is : would you rather have 1 user down due to his malware stupidity , or 50 users ? I 'm all for thin clients , and i think the other disadvantages of thinclients are easily avoidable/marginalized by the benefits ( given most environments ) .I 'm not saying it 's a red flag for me , but it does give me pause .
When Norton will hose a system ( it it wo n't allow any logins , normally or in safe mode ) infected with Internet Security 2010 or similar , I question how much 'system recovery ' I 'd end up having to do , vs. simply wipe-and-recover.Now , if your infrastructure is large/organized enough that you 've got all storage on a SAN , FC host , or similar , you 've got another environment variable which aides the ease of a thinclient migration.From what I 've seen , hospitals are probably the organization type which could benefit the most from thinclients , both short and long term .
The environmental factors alone should be enough to sell them even at an increase in cost , but there are a bunch of other reasons as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>## Patching/maintenance.
Would you rather maintain patches on 1000 desktops or 10 big boxes in the data centre?This, and it's corollary, is what I always come back to as the main/biggest weakness to thin clients.
That corollary is: would you rather have 1 user down due to his malware stupidity, or 50 users?I'm all for thin clients, and i think the other disadvantages of thinclients are easily avoidable/marginalized by the benefits (given most environments).I'm not saying it's a red flag for me, but it does give me pause.
When Norton will hose a system (it it won't allow any logins, normally or in safe mode) infected with Internet Security 2010 or similar, I question how much 'system recovery' I'd end up having to do, vs. simply wipe-and-recover.Now, if your infrastructure is large/organized enough that you've got all storage on a SAN, FC host, or similar, you've got another environment variable which aides the ease of a thinclient migration.From what I've seen, hospitals are probably the organization type which could benefit the most from thinclients, both short and long term.
The environmental factors alone should be enough to sell them even at an increase in cost, but there are a bunch of other reasons as well.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503554</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503626</id>
	<title>See: "Network Computer" "Web TV"</title>
	<author>DoninIN</author>
	<datestamp>1261320900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As others have pointed out, the volume, among other factors have conspired to make the whole thin client network terminal a dead horse in the race for the last, what? 20 years? More like 30 probably. Not that there aren't applications for them, or that they don't have their own virtues. Just that since they remain a niche product for whatever reason, they remain more expensive in terms of bang for buck, than a traditional PC, which helps keep them a niche product. Rinse Repeat.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As others have pointed out , the volume , among other factors have conspired to make the whole thin client network terminal a dead horse in the race for the last , what ?
20 years ?
More like 30 probably .
Not that there are n't applications for them , or that they do n't have their own virtues .
Just that since they remain a niche product for whatever reason , they remain more expensive in terms of bang for buck , than a traditional PC , which helps keep them a niche product .
Rinse Repeat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As others have pointed out, the volume, among other factors have conspired to make the whole thin client network terminal a dead horse in the race for the last, what?
20 years?
More like 30 probably.
Not that there aren't applications for them, or that they don't have their own virtues.
Just that since they remain a niche product for whatever reason, they remain more expensive in terms of bang for buck, than a traditional PC, which helps keep them a niche product.
Rinse Repeat.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503142</id>
	<title>32x32</title>
	<author>WGFCrafty</author>
	<datestamp>1261311120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>(give me non-vaporware that will drive a 22" LCD at full resolution)</p></div><p>K.
<br>
<br>
Will <b>32x32</b> (1024) pixels be enough? We can use a TI-83, not even silver, to accomplish this!
<br> <br>
Oh, you mean you wanted a non-stupid resolution. As far as I'm concerned "full resolution" means the maximum native resolution a monitor can output.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>( give me non-vaporware that will drive a 22 " LCD at full resolution ) K . Will 32x32 ( 1024 ) pixels be enough ?
We can use a TI-83 , not even silver , to accomplish this !
Oh , you mean you wanted a non-stupid resolution .
As far as I 'm concerned " full resolution " means the maximum native resolution a monitor can output .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(give me non-vaporware that will drive a 22" LCD at full resolution)K.


Will 32x32 (1024) pixels be enough?
We can use a TI-83, not even silver, to accomplish this!
Oh, you mean you wanted a non-stupid resolution.
As far as I'm concerned "full resolution" means the maximum native resolution a monitor can output.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30564798</id>
	<title>the point</title>
	<author>itzdandy</author>
	<datestamp>1261946520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think you are missing the point on thin clients.  A PC for a basic client has a pretty limited lifespan and tends to require in-the-field support.  It also requires antivirus software, some level of routine maintenance, and has a substantial failure rate in either software or hardware.  A thin client lasts a very long time and needs basically zero in-the-field support, no antivirus(server side A/V instead), etc etc.</p><p>When you licenses office or terminal services use, you tend to get better pricing than standalone versions and with software assurance you can stay with the most up-to-date versions for a reasonable price.</p><p>The Thin client costs as much as a PC up front but will last 2-3 times as long, which in a big picture thought process means they cost 1/2-1/3.  Less IT guys in the field saves money in wages.</p><p>Thin clients typically burn 20-30W where a PC will typically burn 180-220W.  A single PC can cost $160-200 per year in electricity and a thin client just  $13-15.  if you have 200 stations thats a difference of $32,000 vs $2600.  If you design to have servers run desktops and separate server run apps then you can likely get 200 users into maybe 4 servers (An RDP server and 3 Application servers) and have a nice thin-client system with web and office.</p><p>Other benefits are that every user runs the same version of software.  Every user has access to the same storage for documents.  much more confidence in security settings being applied as there is no local PC to hack on.  Have a user with special software needs?  You can assign a user to a Hyper-V instance running the OS and software they need.  Need to help a user to do something?  RDP allows you to share there desktop easily without another package and at reasonable performance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you are missing the point on thin clients .
A PC for a basic client has a pretty limited lifespan and tends to require in-the-field support .
It also requires antivirus software , some level of routine maintenance , and has a substantial failure rate in either software or hardware .
A thin client lasts a very long time and needs basically zero in-the-field support , no antivirus ( server side A/V instead ) , etc etc.When you licenses office or terminal services use , you tend to get better pricing than standalone versions and with software assurance you can stay with the most up-to-date versions for a reasonable price.The Thin client costs as much as a PC up front but will last 2-3 times as long , which in a big picture thought process means they cost 1/2-1/3 .
Less IT guys in the field saves money in wages.Thin clients typically burn 20-30W where a PC will typically burn 180-220W .
A single PC can cost $ 160-200 per year in electricity and a thin client just $ 13-15 .
if you have 200 stations thats a difference of $ 32,000 vs $ 2600 .
If you design to have servers run desktops and separate server run apps then you can likely get 200 users into maybe 4 servers ( An RDP server and 3 Application servers ) and have a nice thin-client system with web and office.Other benefits are that every user runs the same version of software .
Every user has access to the same storage for documents .
much more confidence in security settings being applied as there is no local PC to hack on .
Have a user with special software needs ?
You can assign a user to a Hyper-V instance running the OS and software they need .
Need to help a user to do something ?
RDP allows you to share there desktop easily without another package and at reasonable performance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you are missing the point on thin clients.
A PC for a basic client has a pretty limited lifespan and tends to require in-the-field support.
It also requires antivirus software, some level of routine maintenance, and has a substantial failure rate in either software or hardware.
A thin client lasts a very long time and needs basically zero in-the-field support, no antivirus(server side A/V instead), etc etc.When you licenses office or terminal services use, you tend to get better pricing than standalone versions and with software assurance you can stay with the most up-to-date versions for a reasonable price.The Thin client costs as much as a PC up front but will last 2-3 times as long, which in a big picture thought process means they cost 1/2-1/3.
Less IT guys in the field saves money in wages.Thin clients typically burn 20-30W where a PC will typically burn 180-220W.
A single PC can cost $160-200 per year in electricity and a thin client just  $13-15.
if you have 200 stations thats a difference of $32,000 vs $2600.
If you design to have servers run desktops and separate server run apps then you can likely get 200 users into maybe 4 servers (An RDP server and 3 Application servers) and have a nice thin-client system with web and office.Other benefits are that every user runs the same version of software.
Every user has access to the same storage for documents.
much more confidence in security settings being applied as there is no local PC to hack on.
Have a user with special software needs?
You can assign a user to a Hyper-V instance running the OS and software they need.
Need to help a user to do something?
RDP allows you to share there desktop easily without another package and at reasonable performance.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503006</id>
	<title>Nettops?</title>
	<author>sznupi</author>
	<datestamp>1261307340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nettop" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nettop</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>Comes assembled, quite cheap, can drive usual resolutions, often Atom/x86 compatibility...typically has few redundant things though, like HDD; but that might be useful, together with x86, in case you change your mind.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nettop [ wikipedia.org ] Comes assembled , quite cheap , can drive usual resolutions , often Atom/x86 compatibility...typically has few redundant things though , like HDD ; but that might be useful , together with x86 , in case you change your mind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nettop [wikipedia.org]Comes assembled, quite cheap, can drive usual resolutions, often Atom/x86 compatibility...typically has few redundant things though, like HDD; but that might be useful, together with x86, in case you change your mind.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503192</id>
	<title>We've been here before...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261312440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The "thin client" meme goes back to well before 1993 (when the phrase was coined), and has never caught on. All the reasons why it did not catch on still apply. Mostly, the saving on hardware cost gets lost in the overall cost of the project, plus, the flexibility of conventional PCs (tuning the client installation to the needs of the specific department, and retuning every time the business need changes) has a value that massively outweighs the saving in hardware cost.

Those who do not understand history are condemned to repeat the mistakes of the past (yes, I know it's a paraphrase).</htmltext>
<tokenext>The " thin client " meme goes back to well before 1993 ( when the phrase was coined ) , and has never caught on .
All the reasons why it did not catch on still apply .
Mostly , the saving on hardware cost gets lost in the overall cost of the project , plus , the flexibility of conventional PCs ( tuning the client installation to the needs of the specific department , and retuning every time the business need changes ) has a value that massively outweighs the saving in hardware cost .
Those who do not understand history are condemned to repeat the mistakes of the past ( yes , I know it 's a paraphrase ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The "thin client" meme goes back to well before 1993 (when the phrase was coined), and has never caught on.
All the reasons why it did not catch on still apply.
Mostly, the saving on hardware cost gets lost in the overall cost of the project, plus, the flexibility of conventional PCs (tuning the client installation to the needs of the specific department, and retuning every time the business need changes) has a value that massively outweighs the saving in hardware cost.
Those who do not understand history are condemned to repeat the mistakes of the past (yes, I know it's a paraphrase).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503438</id>
	<title>Elementary, my dear Watson</title>
	<author>Ullteppe</author>
	<datestamp>1261318620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Basically, the basis for thin clients making sense is the supposition that computing power is expensive (just as in the old mainframe days, when the premise was that making lots of terminals and then one big machine made economic sense). Guess what? That doesn't hold true anymore. Computing power is cheap. The "nicities" of good graphics support, decent I/O etc is more expensive than the processor. So why not include some decent processing power in the "thin client". In this case, it is just a regular low-end PC (stationary equivalent of a netbook) running terminal software.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Basically , the basis for thin clients making sense is the supposition that computing power is expensive ( just as in the old mainframe days , when the premise was that making lots of terminals and then one big machine made economic sense ) .
Guess what ?
That does n't hold true anymore .
Computing power is cheap .
The " nicities " of good graphics support , decent I/O etc is more expensive than the processor .
So why not include some decent processing power in the " thin client " .
In this case , it is just a regular low-end PC ( stationary equivalent of a netbook ) running terminal software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Basically, the basis for thin clients making sense is the supposition that computing power is expensive (just as in the old mainframe days, when the premise was that making lots of terminals and then one big machine made economic sense).
Guess what?
That doesn't hold true anymore.
Computing power is cheap.
The "nicities" of good graphics support, decent I/O etc is more expensive than the processor.
So why not include some decent processing power in the "thin client".
In this case, it is just a regular low-end PC (stationary equivalent of a netbook) running terminal software.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503800</id>
	<title>HP Thinclients</title>
	<author>nukem996</author>
	<datestamp>1261323420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>HP has their own Debian Linux based client client OS called ThinPro. If you want to add more packages all you have to do is add the standard Debian repo's to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/etc/apt/sources.list and your good to go. They're pretty flexible if you know some basic Linux. The best part is they have a much fuller Linux base then many other Linux thin clients. They support even more advanced features such as multimedia redirection(video and USB) as well as the basic XDM, ICA, RDP connections. All of them can drive almost any monitor from a standard 17" LCD to dual 30" LCDs.  The cheapest model is ARM based. Its basically a Marvell OpenRD or Netplug with a video card and smaller disk space. All the others are x86 based and vary in speed and price.</htmltext>
<tokenext>HP has their own Debian Linux based client client OS called ThinPro .
If you want to add more packages all you have to do is add the standard Debian repo 's to /etc/apt/sources.list and your good to go .
They 're pretty flexible if you know some basic Linux .
The best part is they have a much fuller Linux base then many other Linux thin clients .
They support even more advanced features such as multimedia redirection ( video and USB ) as well as the basic XDM , ICA , RDP connections .
All of them can drive almost any monitor from a standard 17 " LCD to dual 30 " LCDs .
The cheapest model is ARM based .
Its basically a Marvell OpenRD or Netplug with a video card and smaller disk space .
All the others are x86 based and vary in speed and price .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>HP has their own Debian Linux based client client OS called ThinPro.
If you want to add more packages all you have to do is add the standard Debian repo's to /etc/apt/sources.list and your good to go.
They're pretty flexible if you know some basic Linux.
The best part is they have a much fuller Linux base then many other Linux thin clients.
They support even more advanced features such as multimedia redirection(video and USB) as well as the basic XDM, ICA, RDP connections.
All of them can drive almost any monitor from a standard 17" LCD to dual 30" LCDs.
The cheapest model is ARM based.
Its basically a Marvell OpenRD or Netplug with a video card and smaller disk space.
All the others are x86 based and vary in speed and price.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503528</id>
	<title>Acer Aspire Revo AR1600-U910H</title>
	<author>\_LORAX\_</author>
	<datestamp>1261320000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16883103228" title="newegg.com">http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16883103228</a> [newegg.com]</p><p>$200 and should drive a 22" monitor no problems, can't confirm PXE bootable, but with 160GB HD it should be easy enough to load up a netboot stack.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx ? Item = N82E16883103228 [ newegg.com ] $ 200 and should drive a 22 " monitor no problems , ca n't confirm PXE bootable , but with 160GB HD it should be easy enough to load up a netboot stack .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16883103228 [newegg.com]$200 and should drive a 22" monitor no problems, can't confirm PXE bootable, but with 160GB HD it should be easy enough to load up a netboot stack.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503496</id>
	<title>Re:Slow news day?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261319700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thanks but no thanks. That is the equivalent of a Hummer: Big, ugly, slow, loud and consumes energy like no tomorrow. It will cost more in electricity in one year than you paid for the hardware.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thanks but no thanks .
That is the equivalent of a Hummer : Big , ugly , slow , loud and consumes energy like no tomorrow .
It will cost more in electricity in one year than you paid for the hardware .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thanks but no thanks.
That is the equivalent of a Hummer: Big, ugly, slow, loud and consumes energy like no tomorrow.
It will cost more in electricity in one year than you paid for the hardware.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503058</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503268</id>
	<title>Refurbished?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261314300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>P4/512megs/XPpro/20gighhds business class refurbs for $60 plus a $60 15" lcd monitor and strip out what you don't like.  I looked around and got an off lease IBM full of bells and whistles for $120.  But I could have pulled all the excess parts, closed the holes and been left with a P4 3.0 with HT, 1gig memory, 10/100/1000 LAN, ATI graphics and onboard sound, four usb 2.0 ports, front mounted mic and headphone ports.  That would be more than enough to boot a image off the network and use it for light duty.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>P4/512megs/XPpro/20gighhds business class refurbs for $ 60 plus a $ 60 15 " lcd monitor and strip out what you do n't like .
I looked around and got an off lease IBM full of bells and whistles for $ 120 .
But I could have pulled all the excess parts , closed the holes and been left with a P4 3.0 with HT , 1gig memory , 10/100/1000 LAN , ATI graphics and onboard sound , four usb 2.0 ports , front mounted mic and headphone ports .
That would be more than enough to boot a image off the network and use it for light duty .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>P4/512megs/XPpro/20gighhds business class refurbs for $60 plus a $60 15" lcd monitor and strip out what you don't like.
I looked around and got an off lease IBM full of bells and whistles for $120.
But I could have pulled all the excess parts, closed the holes and been left with a P4 3.0 with HT, 1gig memory, 10/100/1000 LAN, ATI graphics and onboard sound, four usb 2.0 ports, front mounted mic and headphone ports.
That would be more than enough to boot a image off the network and use it for light duty.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503218</id>
	<title>I know where they are</title>
	<author>Josh04</author>
	<datestamp>1261313580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In the bin behind somewhere which realised how useless they are. That's where I got my three SunRay 1's<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P</htmltext>
<tokenext>In the bin behind somewhere which realised how useless they are .
That 's where I got my three SunRay 1 's : P</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the bin behind somewhere which realised how useless they are.
That's where I got my three SunRay 1's :P</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30504164</id>
	<title>Re:Market Segmentation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261327500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Thin clients are aimed at large organizations, where a few hundred dollars for a machine is chump change. They will happily buy greatly overpriced thin clients, because even the cost of an overpriced thin client on a desk is still dwarfed by the cost of the employee at the desk.</p></div><p>I don't think I believe this.  A large organization, rolling out (say) 1000-10,000 "desktops" would seem to have strong motivation to minimize the cost of each desktop.  If they can get a thin client for anywhere close to the actual value of hardware - say $150 - instead of the boutique TCs currently on the market for $300-$400, they could save upwards of $1M.  That's not chump change.Even going to diskless thick clients ought to save $50 * 1000 = one employee salary. Plus centralized administration.</p><p>There's zero motivation for a home user to consider TC, because they'd have to get a high(er) powered server to host and learn to set the whole thing up.  Even somebody looking his, hers, &amp; kids terminals would be looking at $1200 of TCs + $5k server, vs $2000 of PCs.  Why bother?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thin clients are aimed at large organizations , where a few hundred dollars for a machine is chump change .
They will happily buy greatly overpriced thin clients , because even the cost of an overpriced thin client on a desk is still dwarfed by the cost of the employee at the desk.I do n't think I believe this .
A large organization , rolling out ( say ) 1000-10,000 " desktops " would seem to have strong motivation to minimize the cost of each desktop .
If they can get a thin client for anywhere close to the actual value of hardware - say $ 150 - instead of the boutique TCs currently on the market for $ 300- $ 400 , they could save upwards of $ 1M .
That 's not chump change.Even going to diskless thick clients ought to save $ 50 * 1000 = one employee salary .
Plus centralized administration.There 's zero motivation for a home user to consider TC , because they 'd have to get a high ( er ) powered server to host and learn to set the whole thing up .
Even somebody looking his , hers , &amp; kids terminals would be looking at $ 1200 of TCs + $ 5k server , vs $ 2000 of PCs .
Why bother ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thin clients are aimed at large organizations, where a few hundred dollars for a machine is chump change.
They will happily buy greatly overpriced thin clients, because even the cost of an overpriced thin client on a desk is still dwarfed by the cost of the employee at the desk.I don't think I believe this.
A large organization, rolling out (say) 1000-10,000 "desktops" would seem to have strong motivation to minimize the cost of each desktop.
If they can get a thin client for anywhere close to the actual value of hardware - say $150 - instead of the boutique TCs currently on the market for $300-$400, they could save upwards of $1M.
That's not chump change.Even going to diskless thick clients ought to save $50 * 1000 = one employee salary.
Plus centralized administration.There's zero motivation for a home user to consider TC, because they'd have to get a high(er) powered server to host and learn to set the whole thing up.
Even somebody looking his, hers, &amp; kids terminals would be looking at $1200 of TCs + $5k server, vs $2000 of PCs.
Why bother?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30561070</id>
	<title>Re:Nettops?</title>
	<author>jvin248</author>
	<datestamp>1261854540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Best options for most companies using less than a hundred thin clients is to just get auctioned-off pc boxes and strip them down to basic thin clients (remove all drives).  A few years ago I got a pallet of 7 year old pcs for $5 each.

Another option is to go to gumstix.com and grab their basic computer on a stick - $130-$160.  Enough to run LTSP clients (with some Ram increase to 128MB).  Probably better for larger deployments to get OEM large lot pricing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Best options for most companies using less than a hundred thin clients is to just get auctioned-off pc boxes and strip them down to basic thin clients ( remove all drives ) .
A few years ago I got a pallet of 7 year old pcs for $ 5 each .
Another option is to go to gumstix.com and grab their basic computer on a stick - $ 130- $ 160 .
Enough to run LTSP clients ( with some Ram increase to 128MB ) .
Probably better for larger deployments to get OEM large lot pricing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Best options for most companies using less than a hundred thin clients is to just get auctioned-off pc boxes and strip them down to basic thin clients (remove all drives).
A few years ago I got a pallet of 7 year old pcs for $5 each.
Another option is to go to gumstix.com and grab their basic computer on a stick - $130-$160.
Enough to run LTSP clients (with some Ram increase to 128MB).
Probably better for larger deployments to get OEM large lot pricing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503006</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503058</id>
	<title>Slow news day?</title>
	<author>hairyfeet</author>
	<datestamp>1261308840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well here you <a href="http://www.surpluscomputers.com/347718/compaq-p4-1.7ghz-512mb-20gb.html" title="surpluscomputers.com">go</a> [surpluscomputers.com] a 1.7GHz off lease Compaq desktop for a whole $75 with shipping. That is pretty much the only choice if you don't want to DIY, because thin clients are a niche that will cost you $$$ that it doesn't sound like you are willing to spend. This is small, can fit under a monitor, and has 20Gb of local storage. Perfect for a thin client.</p><p>


The simple fact is that is as cheap as you're gonna get, because PCs have economies of scale and thin clients don't. If you just <em>have to</em> have an OEM thin client be prepared to shell out the $$$ buddy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well here you go [ surpluscomputers.com ] a 1.7GHz off lease Compaq desktop for a whole $ 75 with shipping .
That is pretty much the only choice if you do n't want to DIY , because thin clients are a niche that will cost you $ $ $ that it does n't sound like you are willing to spend .
This is small , can fit under a monitor , and has 20Gb of local storage .
Perfect for a thin client .
The simple fact is that is as cheap as you 're gon na get , because PCs have economies of scale and thin clients do n't .
If you just have to have an OEM thin client be prepared to shell out the $ $ $ buddy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well here you go [surpluscomputers.com] a 1.7GHz off lease Compaq desktop for a whole $75 with shipping.
That is pretty much the only choice if you don't want to DIY, because thin clients are a niche that will cost you $$$ that it doesn't sound like you are willing to spend.
This is small, can fit under a monitor, and has 20Gb of local storage.
Perfect for a thin client.
The simple fact is that is as cheap as you're gonna get, because PCs have economies of scale and thin clients don't.
If you just have to have an OEM thin client be prepared to shell out the $$$ buddy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30522970</id>
	<title>HP t series</title>
	<author>jantman</author>
	<datestamp>1261493040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The HP T-series thin clients are quite nice. I have one in production driving a wall-mounted display. It's a t5000 series, specifically the t5735. It has DVI, VGA, parallel and serial, audio, USB, everything that a normal desktop has, AMD Sempron 2100+, 512MB RAM, 1 GB internal flash, and runs Debian Linux 4.0. By default, it has a stripped down Debian install, but has Gnome and gives you root access - I just added the packages that I needed and was ready to go (though it also has software for Citrix and RDP, etc.

HP lists it for around $500, I got an open box demo, with full warranty, for $130.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The HP T-series thin clients are quite nice .
I have one in production driving a wall-mounted display .
It 's a t5000 series , specifically the t5735 .
It has DVI , VGA , parallel and serial , audio , USB , everything that a normal desktop has , AMD Sempron 2100 + , 512MB RAM , 1 GB internal flash , and runs Debian Linux 4.0 .
By default , it has a stripped down Debian install , but has Gnome and gives you root access - I just added the packages that I needed and was ready to go ( though it also has software for Citrix and RDP , etc .
HP lists it for around $ 500 , I got an open box demo , with full warranty , for $ 130 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The HP T-series thin clients are quite nice.
I have one in production driving a wall-mounted display.
It's a t5000 series, specifically the t5735.
It has DVI, VGA, parallel and serial, audio, USB, everything that a normal desktop has, AMD Sempron 2100+, 512MB RAM, 1 GB internal flash, and runs Debian Linux 4.0.
By default, it has a stripped down Debian install, but has Gnome and gives you root access - I just added the packages that I needed and was ready to go (though it also has software for Citrix and RDP, etc.
HP lists it for around $500, I got an open box demo, with full warranty, for $130.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30504730</id>
	<title>Re:other costs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261331640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Go with clientless thinclients depending on how large your install base is.</p><p>Multiseat linux setups are rather easy to setup. There are even a few commercial applications. (My local library has one).</p><p>If they don't need DVI, there are some  solutions which you just run a single USB cable and it carries sound, USB &amp; VGA. If your work environment is setup so people are relatively close together, give each desk cluster a quad or octocore CPU and everyone their own X session.</p><p>I have a friend with a few kids (3-4) and the oldests are now starting to both want to use the computer. You can either 1) Buy 2 separate computers 2) Get 1 decent computer (dual core should be plenty for a 5 year old) and just setup 2 monitors side by side.</p><p><a href="http://linuxgazette.net/124/smith.html" title="linuxgazette.net">http://linuxgazette.net/124/smith.html</a> [linuxgazette.net]<br><a href="http://www.oreillynet.com/onlamp/blog/2005/12/multiseat\_x\_under\_linux.html" title="oreillynet.com">http://www.oreillynet.com/onlamp/blog/2005/12/multiseat\_x\_under\_linux.html</a> [oreillynet.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Go with clientless thinclients depending on how large your install base is.Multiseat linux setups are rather easy to setup .
There are even a few commercial applications .
( My local library has one ) .If they do n't need DVI , there are some solutions which you just run a single USB cable and it carries sound , USB &amp; VGA .
If your work environment is setup so people are relatively close together , give each desk cluster a quad or octocore CPU and everyone their own X session.I have a friend with a few kids ( 3-4 ) and the oldests are now starting to both want to use the computer .
You can either 1 ) Buy 2 separate computers 2 ) Get 1 decent computer ( dual core should be plenty for a 5 year old ) and just setup 2 monitors side by side.http : //linuxgazette.net/124/smith.html [ linuxgazette.net ] http : //www.oreillynet.com/onlamp/blog/2005/12/multiseat \ _x \ _under \ _linux.html [ oreillynet.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Go with clientless thinclients depending on how large your install base is.Multiseat linux setups are rather easy to setup.
There are even a few commercial applications.
(My local library has one).If they don't need DVI, there are some  solutions which you just run a single USB cable and it carries sound, USB &amp; VGA.
If your work environment is setup so people are relatively close together, give each desk cluster a quad or octocore CPU and everyone their own X session.I have a friend with a few kids (3-4) and the oldests are now starting to both want to use the computer.
You can either 1) Buy 2 separate computers 2) Get 1 decent computer (dual core should be plenty for a 5 year old) and just setup 2 monitors side by side.http://linuxgazette.net/124/smith.html [linuxgazette.net]http://www.oreillynet.com/onlamp/blog/2005/12/multiseat\_x\_under\_linux.html [oreillynet.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30502994</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30505390</id>
	<title>Desktop virtualization is just dumb.</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1261336680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why are you adding a layer of overhead?</p><p>Really, why?  Every 'feature' of VDI can be done without VDI, equally as well.  VMware and the like didn't invent net booting, drive imaging or anything else like that, they just add an extra layer.</p><p>There isn't anything you can do with VDI that I can't do with out it, equally as well, assuming that I buy standardized hardware, which is pretty much what you're doing if you're buying a bunch of prebuilt 'thin clients' anyway.</p><p>Your thin clients for VDI have to have EVERYTHING that a full PC has, except a disk if you don't want to cache locally, its kinda hard to save a bunch of money on hardware when you are essentially using the same hardware, minus a $50 hard disk.</p><p>You use the same processor, the same memory, the same mobos, mice, keyboards, video, sound, all of that is still there and is still standardized  in your thin client.  The difference is you're paying more for it being a 'thin client' for no apparent reason.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why are you adding a layer of overhead ? Really , why ?
Every 'feature ' of VDI can be done without VDI , equally as well .
VMware and the like did n't invent net booting , drive imaging or anything else like that , they just add an extra layer.There is n't anything you can do with VDI that I ca n't do with out it , equally as well , assuming that I buy standardized hardware , which is pretty much what you 're doing if you 're buying a bunch of prebuilt 'thin clients ' anyway.Your thin clients for VDI have to have EVERYTHING that a full PC has , except a disk if you do n't want to cache locally , its kinda hard to save a bunch of money on hardware when you are essentially using the same hardware , minus a $ 50 hard disk.You use the same processor , the same memory , the same mobos , mice , keyboards , video , sound , all of that is still there and is still standardized in your thin client .
The difference is you 're paying more for it being a 'thin client ' for no apparent reason .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why are you adding a layer of overhead?Really, why?
Every 'feature' of VDI can be done without VDI, equally as well.
VMware and the like didn't invent net booting, drive imaging or anything else like that, they just add an extra layer.There isn't anything you can do with VDI that I can't do with out it, equally as well, assuming that I buy standardized hardware, which is pretty much what you're doing if you're buying a bunch of prebuilt 'thin clients' anyway.Your thin clients for VDI have to have EVERYTHING that a full PC has, except a disk if you don't want to cache locally, its kinda hard to save a bunch of money on hardware when you are essentially using the same hardware, minus a $50 hard disk.You use the same processor, the same memory, the same mobos, mice, keyboards, video, sound, all of that is still there and is still standardized  in your thin client.
The difference is you're paying more for it being a 'thin client' for no apparent reason.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503010</id>
	<title>Cart before the horse? Use a PC if its cheaper!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261307400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To me the compelling aspect of virtualisation for the desktop is to be able to use a standard computer to access specialised systems, such as CAD (check out RHEV with SPICE), legacy software or test environments. At work our conference room PC's are actually normal PC's that connect to a 'conference' room virtual machine, it allows instant display of said specialised systems without effort.</p><p>AB</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To me the compelling aspect of virtualisation for the desktop is to be able to use a standard computer to access specialised systems , such as CAD ( check out RHEV with SPICE ) , legacy software or test environments .
At work our conference room PC 's are actually normal PC 's that connect to a 'conference ' room virtual machine , it allows instant display of said specialised systems without effort.AB</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To me the compelling aspect of virtualisation for the desktop is to be able to use a standard computer to access specialised systems, such as CAD (check out RHEV with SPICE), legacy software or test environments.
At work our conference room PC's are actually normal PC's that connect to a 'conference' room virtual machine, it allows instant display of said specialised systems without effort.AB</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503248</id>
	<title>Re:It's like bicycles...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261314060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The more you pay for a bicycle the less you get? What on Earth are you talking about?</p><p>The only way that makes sense is if you are only referring to weight, but that is an undesired quality, and something the engineers try to reduce.</p><p>It is like saying that the more you spend on a computer, the less slowness you get.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The more you pay for a bicycle the less you get ?
What on Earth are you talking about ? The only way that makes sense is if you are only referring to weight , but that is an undesired quality , and something the engineers try to reduce.It is like saying that the more you spend on a computer , the less slowness you get .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The more you pay for a bicycle the less you get?
What on Earth are you talking about?The only way that makes sense is if you are only referring to weight, but that is an undesired quality, and something the engineers try to reduce.It is like saying that the more you spend on a computer, the less slowness you get.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30502998</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30504532</id>
	<title>Re:I'm Confused</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261330200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You missed one additional benefit: durability.  Power requirements, durability, and centralized maintenance were the big factors that drove my company to buy 500 thin clients at $125 each ($200 retail) three years ago.  In the intervening time we've only had four machines fail, one of which got dropped down a concrete staircase, and all of those were replaced under the three year warranty.  The thin clients draw only 10 Watts compared to the average 80 Watts of the desktops we replaced.  In New England, where power is expensive, we calculate that saves us $35/device/year.  And yes, our data center power costs went up, but by much less than the 40 kilowatts those 500 desktops drew.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You missed one additional benefit : durability .
Power requirements , durability , and centralized maintenance were the big factors that drove my company to buy 500 thin clients at $ 125 each ( $ 200 retail ) three years ago .
In the intervening time we 've only had four machines fail , one of which got dropped down a concrete staircase , and all of those were replaced under the three year warranty .
The thin clients draw only 10 Watts compared to the average 80 Watts of the desktops we replaced .
In New England , where power is expensive , we calculate that saves us $ 35/device/year .
And yes , our data center power costs went up , but by much less than the 40 kilowatts those 500 desktops drew .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You missed one additional benefit: durability.
Power requirements, durability, and centralized maintenance were the big factors that drove my company to buy 500 thin clients at $125 each ($200 retail) three years ago.
In the intervening time we've only had four machines fail, one of which got dropped down a concrete staircase, and all of those were replaced under the three year warranty.
The thin clients draw only 10 Watts compared to the average 80 Watts of the desktops we replaced.
In New England, where power is expensive, we calculate that saves us $35/device/year.
And yes, our data center power costs went up, but by much less than the 40 kilowatts those 500 desktops drew.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503554</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503024</id>
	<title>1996 called,</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261308000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>they want their "future of desktop computing" back.<br>Seriously, I remember talking with some IBM engineers back in high-school and they were so certain that thin clients were the hot new thing that would change the face of computing.</p><p>You want to know where to buy thin clients? Goto www.dell.com and buy the cheapest POS they have with a fast network card. Thin clients will always be a more expensive niche player to the PC. After all what is a thin client? A PC with no local storage that can only work if it has a network connection.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>they want their " future of desktop computing " back.Seriously , I remember talking with some IBM engineers back in high-school and they were so certain that thin clients were the hot new thing that would change the face of computing.You want to know where to buy thin clients ?
Goto www.dell.com and buy the cheapest POS they have with a fast network card .
Thin clients will always be a more expensive niche player to the PC .
After all what is a thin client ?
A PC with no local storage that can only work if it has a network connection .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>they want their "future of desktop computing" back.Seriously, I remember talking with some IBM engineers back in high-school and they were so certain that thin clients were the hot new thing that would change the face of computing.You want to know where to buy thin clients?
Goto www.dell.com and buy the cheapest POS they have with a fast network card.
Thin clients will always be a more expensive niche player to the PC.
After all what is a thin client?
A PC with no local storage that can only work if it has a network connection.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_19_237241_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503232
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503252
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_19_237241_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503810
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30504952
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_19_237241_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30502996
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30507306
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_19_237241_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30507258
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_19_237241_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503554
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30506554
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_19_237241_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30561070
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_19_237241_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30502996
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30505686
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_19_237241_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503430
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_19_237241_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30502996
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30505832
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_19_237241_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30509482
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_19_237241_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503090
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30504854
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_19_237241_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503810
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30505022
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30506236
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_19_237241_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503554
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30507034
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_19_237241_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503286
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503440
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_19_237241_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503202
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503336
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_19_237241_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503554
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30504532
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_19_237241_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503232
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503376
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_19_237241_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503554
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30504466
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_19_237241_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30506470
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_19_237241_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30523852
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_19_237241_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30502998
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30506424
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_19_237241_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503496
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_19_237241_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30502998
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503248
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30513962
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_19_237241_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30502996
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30504214
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30505740
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_19_237241_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503202
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30508248
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_19_237241_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503294
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30507132
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_19_237241_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30511962
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_19_237241_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30504012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_19_237241_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503202
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30521286
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_19_237241_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503810
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30527756
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_19_237241_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30502996
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30507386
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_19_237241_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30508758
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_19_237241_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30509272
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_19_237241_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30505390
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30517298
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_19_237241_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503554
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30506596
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_19_237241_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30504164
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30505776
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_19_237241_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503232
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503520
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_19_237241_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503382
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_19_237241_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30502998
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503248
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30505102
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_19_237241_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503810
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30505022
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30514088
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_19_237241_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30502994
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30504730
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_19_237241_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503072
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503666
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30535120
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_19_237241.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503286
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503440
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_19_237241.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503058
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30507258
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503496
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_19_237241.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30502994
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30504730
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_19_237241.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30502998
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503248
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30505102
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503452
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30513962
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30506424
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_19_237241.30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503006
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30508758
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30561070
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30523852
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_19_237241.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503000
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_19_237241.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503142
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_19_237241.29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503388
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_19_237241.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503232
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503520
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503376
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503252
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_19_237241.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30508420
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_19_237241.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503076
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503382
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503554
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30504532
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30507034
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30504466
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30506596
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30506554
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503294
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30507132
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_19_237241.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503354
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_19_237241.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30505390
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30517298
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_19_237241.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503024
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503810
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30504952
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30505022
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30514088
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30506236
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30527756
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30506470
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30509482
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_19_237241.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503122
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30504012
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30504164
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30505776
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_19_237241.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30502996
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503788
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30507386
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30507306
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30505686
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30504214
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30505740
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30505832
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_19_237241.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503786
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_19_237241.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30509552
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_19_237241.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30507896
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_19_237241.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503476
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_19_237241.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503284
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_19_237241.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503800
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_19_237241.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503010
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_19_237241.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503768
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_19_237241.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503992
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30511962
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_19_237241.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503192
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503430
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_19_237241.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503072
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503666
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30535120
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_19_237241.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503090
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30504854
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_19_237241.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503202
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30521286
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30508248
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503336
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_19_237241.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503128
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_19_237241.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30503240
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_19_237241.30509272
</commentlist>
</conversation>
