Yeah except the fact that thin clients have about twice the useful life, are less prone to failure by virtue of having no moving parts, and use a fraction of the power. There's still a TCO argument to be made, but the initial outlay argument is gone.
Andrew Fidel
| "Matt Hargraves"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/12/2006 04:46 PM
|
|
Not so sure I agree with that. Thin clients work just fine, require less maintenance and can be replaced in 5 minutes, vs. the 3 hour argument that you'll get if you try replacing someone's desktop because they saved 190000 items that have nothing to do with their job on the local hard drive.
Then again, desktops are about as expensive nowadays as thin clients, so the justification for thin clients isn't what it used to be.
