Thin Clients, VMware

In theory, thin clients are more cost effective, but because fewer are manufactured, maybe they end up costing more than mass-produced computers that are not as “thin” but offer more capabilities, flexibility, ports, should you ever need those options?

For example, Lenovo has a thin client, the IdeaCentre Q110 that screws into the back of a freestanding LCD, which means you would barely notice it–and nearly silent too. Looks like a repackaging of the “Wyse” machines they sell. But after some research, I found it doesn’t have a wireless antenna. Little shortcomings like that, makes you wonder what else is missing that could catch you off guard.

Do you think it’s possible to accomplish “thin” computing without buying the device advertised as thin? Or are thin clients more attractive precisely because they only do what is necessary, with less electricity than their feature-laden cousins?

Thin Software

I follow Red Hat’s stock and I think it’s a good bet to own it, and up and up it goes. But what I noticed, when this stock is mentioned by enthusiastic stock analysts, VMware ($VMW) is typically mentioned somewhere in the next paragraph. I could be wrong, but seems to me VMware rides Red Hat’s coattails when it comes to stock hype.

Granted, I never had to set up a large network for a large organization, but I reduce it down to bits, bytes, lines of code. Why introduce yet another layer of complexity to “virtualize” an entire computer at a time when everyone is moving to web apps?