Any Citrix/Thin Client experts in the house?

Need to ask some questions about Citrix and thin clients (I think it's WinTerm they're using)

Thanks

ask away, not sure that i can help.

I'm trying to help my dad out at work. They have a database system that is run from a main location. Their retail locations are connected via Citrix using some sort of thin client/dumb terminal(WinTerm is what he said). They only have 6 locations, but their consultant sold them on T-1's from each store. We're talking $4500 per month. With the exception of serving the thin clients, I can't imagine they need this kind of bandwidth.

So, my question is: Couldn't they use DSL? I mean, we're talking 4 or 5 clients at each location.

Any help is appreciated.

Especially if the ap has a lot of screen changes.

they're using 4D as the database engine, which has a built in webserver. Other than security issues, which can be fixed, why the hell wouldn't you use that? I mean a thin client costs, what, $1400, whereas a low-end costs $499?

Just doesn't make sense.

As for the pixels sent, they had DSL 2 years ago. No one complained about the speed.

I use Citrix as an application server and don't have any issues with bandwidth. I was able to work in a pinch, albeit V-E-R-Y slowly over 56K. If you have SDSL or HDSL then you shouldn't have any problems with Citrix or Citrix hosted aps. You would probably want to set up a series of VPNs between each satellite location and the server hosting the APs, but even that shouldn't be super expensive. The cost of T1 is in the dedicated line between the satellite location and the server. But today it's possible to get the same level of service via a packetized VPN using a WAN backbone like MPLS or Virtual Leased Line service over a Frame or ATM backbone.

None of those solutions should cost more an a couple of grand a month for full features, per satellite location. If you are using low bandwidth aps, like database programs, then you can pay for less bandwidth with higher Quality of Service and maybe save an additional couple of hundred bucks.

Hope this helps.

help at all should they run into a problem.

Add that these things rely on one big-ass server. If it goes down (especially if it's microsoft/macrobloat), EVERYBODY is SOL.) This scenario also requires a very powerful WAN backbone that is expensive to maintain.

Yes, having people in house costs a lot. But it's not always about one person's bottom line... IMHO. But what do I know, I'm as good as dead without my job, so I'm bound to speak up for the type of work lots of us in this country do. Especially when there's nothing else out there apart from piddling retail jobs...

And I will say again. High bandwidth availability is CRUCIAL. Otherwise you have a ton of pissed off users, and I mean pissed off royally. To say the very least.

Thin client is just not viable now. Maybe in a few years' time and when the end users get more savvy as well (they're too busy with their jobs to learn something unrelated, sorry).

it's a computer question. I thought it was a new weight-loss supplement.

:hi: