Extremely dumb Thin Client

[Nigel Goodwin]

Do I already have a working prototype?, how do I know all this stuff?
hmmm.........

If you did why would you be asking here?.

 

[tonyp12]

Just playing with you geeks.

I'm not an engineer or even work in the electronic industry.
But that makes me to look outside the box and that's when
the magic happens.

I have contacted a company that do a product close to this idea
and see if they want to run with it.

 

[Nigel Goodwin]

Just playing with you geeks.

I'm not an engineer or even work in the electronic industry.
But that makes me to look outside the box and that's when
the magic happens.

We can all imagine things, but that doesn't mean it's possible - in this case it probably would require 'magic' to work?.

I have contacted a company that do a product close to this idea
and see if they want to run with it.

I wouldn't have thought so?, it's not a practical idea - your non-processor idea is a complete non-starter - far too expensive to do without at least one processor.

 

[tonyp12]

Your PIC fan so you like tiny and cheap CPUs.
But it think it would choke in trying to move 100MB/sec of data.

It will use DMA and with a very simple Blitter function.

 

[Nigel Goodwin]

Your PIC fan so you like tiny and cheap CPUs.
But it think it would choke in trying to move 100MB/sec of data.

Certainly would - I never suggested micro-controllers, I always specified 'processor' - perhaps even DSP?.

It will use DMA and with a very simple Blitter function.

Good luck to you - but I think you're dreaming!.

 

[fat-tony]

This feels very familiar to X Terminals: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X_Window_System#X_terminals

 

[Hero999]

You've already answered your own question PER USER, two users using the same program would need to pay twice - or the relative amounts based on a multi-user licence.

Exactly.

Not necessary, take windows XP for instance
have you notice that you can set up different username log-ins.

MS does not charge extra that 4 different people can use
the same Windows and Office at different times.

If you now switch these users 30/second, you are all using
the program one at time but it's seamless for the users.

Even though you can have several users logged on, it doesn't mean they're actually using the operating system at the same time. This is only possible by using several monitors, keyboards, and mouses in which case each user would require a separate licence.

I think this is stupid, whatever happend to fair use?

Providing you're not using the software commercially you should be able to install it on as many machines as you like providing it's only for personal use.

 

[djtaylor]

Exactly.
Even though you can have several users logged on, it doesn't mean they're actually using the operating system at the same time. This is only possible by using several monitors, keyboards, and mouses in which case each user would require a separate licence.

I think this is stupid, whatever happend to fair use?

Providing you're not using the software commercially you should be able to install it on as many machines as you like providing it's only for personal use.

MS licencing typically excludes any form of multiplexing and thus licences would be required for each user.

MS already has Terminal Server and specific licensing for this and the products that run under it and also covers what the OS licensing requirements are at the thin client. Simply put, if you get the "benefits" of say Windows XP at the thin client, you must purchase an XP licence for it.

Other's have already mentioned cheap PC's what about something like a Hauppauge Media MVP as a starting point? It's about $100, has ethernet interface, a processor, runs linux and has a video output although this is only composite video or RGB for PAL/NTSC but as a concept provides a price point for a processor based device. It boots the OS via tftp and defaults with support for a VNC like prototol.

Can it work for this project? Not as such but does suggest a price point for a simple but vaguely similar device.

David.