4. Station inter-changeability
6. Batery backup (UPS)
One big HTML document
X terminals appear as a cost effective compromise.
You save money, but you end up sharing one CPU (well
multi CPU machine are great application servers...). In practice
this does not work that way. In fact, X terminals solutions
often run circles around conventional solutions performance wise.
There are various reasons why. There are some technical and
some economical ones.
- Server caching
If an application is being used by another user, it is
already loaded in memory. Since all instance of a program
are shared (using the same memory), the startup time
The same applies to the data used by the application. Often
users working on the same project will find a huge
speed gain when using the X terminal solution, simply
because they benefit from each other prior usage of a
- No network bottleneck
If one share some resources on a file server, this one
is allowed to cache locally, but each client requesting
the resource will have to copy it over the network. X
terminals users access the resource right in the server
memory, which is order of magnitude faster than any
One may decide to duplicate various resource files and
programs on conventional workstation to avoid the network
bottleneck. This represents extra work and may cause
more problems if the workstation are not maintained
accuratly (out of date copies).
- No need to be cheap :-)
Keeping most of your current workstation means a huge saving.
(turning them into X terminals). You
had a limited budget, but this budget is more than you
need now. What about buying a dual CPU with plenty of
RAM and a very fast hard drive. Even after buying
such a server, you will be way under budget.
Your users will enjoy a performance level they would
never experienced with conventional workstation (since you
would be forced to cut corners ...).