In terms of memory and CPU usage an Internet browser is a very demanding
application, so to support the browser a highly spec’d thin-client is required.
This will undermine one of the principle reasons for adopting thin-client
technology – i.e. lower cost. The extra resources are ONLY used for the browser
– they will have no impact on the actual connection performance (ICA/RDP etc),
as these programs require extremely little computing resources
With a centralised solution, as all the
memory is installed on the server and available
for all users and all applications the system is
far better balanced and efficient
No Embedded Operating System
An embedded browser requires an embedded
operating system. The consequences of requiring
an operating system are significant (lower
performance, increased cost, susceptibility to
virus attack, higher maintenance...). For more
information on this subject please see technical
article: WP0002:
With a centralised solution no local terminal
operating system is required, as the connection
protocol (RDP/ICA/telnet/VNC… etc) do not
require an operating system.
Virus Proof
Almost all virus’s are contracted via the
browser and attack the operating system. It
stands to reason that a terminal without an
operating system or browser will be virus proof.
(From a viral perspective a terminal without an
operating system bears more similarity to a dumb
serial terminal (VT/ANSI type) than a PC/Windows
based terminal)
With the centralised configuration only the
server requires protection.
Use the browser of your
choice
Certain thin-client models will only support
certain browsers – therefore you may be forced
to use a model of terminal because you require a
specific type of browser. The most obvious
division is between Linux and Windows based
terminals. Most users will prefer Microsoft’s
Internet Explorer – which is only available on
Windows based terminals. Often Linux based
terminals offer a better price/performance, but
are only available with Linux type browsers (Firefox,
Mozilla, Netscape…).
Often web-enabled applications are designed
or optimised for a particular browser. With
embedded browsers you cannot change to a
different type of browser. For example you
cannot install Explorer on a Linux based
terminal.
With a centralised solution you choose the
browser based on your server and personal
preference. The thin-client does not impose any
restriction on the choice.
Not all browsers are alike
Certain browser functions than are regarded
as "standard" are not available in thin-client’s
browsers. Often the browser will not be
Java-enabled, or only one browser Window is
available at a time.
For example "Internet Explorer" on a Windows
CE based terminal provides a lot less
functionality than “Internet Explorer” on a
Windows XP based thin-client.
With a centralised solution everyone has a
fully featured browser at their disposal.
Browser Upgradability
There are many issues to consider when it
comes to upgrading and embedded browser.
If the network currently has terminals with
different versions of browsers (ie terminals
bought at different times). There is no guaranty
all can be immediately upgraded to the same
level in one step. The same applies for browser
security patches
A new browser may require more CPU/memory
resources – resulting in costly upgrades to each
terminal.
A centralised solution elegantly avoids the
issues detailed above.
Conclusion
An embedded browser has many incontestable
disadvantages over a centralised browser in the
central server:
- Security
- Upgradability (and usable/effective life of
the terminal)
- Browser performance
- Maintenance
- Compatibility
and undermines the basic premise for adopting
thin-client technology – ie low cost of
ownership and minimal support requirements