Killing the Business Desktop PC Softly
by Johan De Gelas on July 19, 2007 3:00 AM EST- Posted in
- IT Computing
Conclusion
In many scenarios is the Blade PC a rather complex way of solving the TCO problem of the traditional desktop PC. It seems to be a case of throwing out the child with the bath water. There is a lot that can be done to lower the TCO of the PC:
Right now, VDI is not really a competitor, as you can only run a limited number of desktops on one server if you want the same guaranteed performance and RAM space as with blade PCs. As a result the licensing cost of the virtualization software per desktop quickly increases. That is why current implementations of VDI mostly target light loads that are not compatible with SBC. When you run 20 or more desktops from one server, the (e.g. VMWare ESX/infrastructure) licensing costs start to become significant.
CCI and blade PCs do have a window opportunity. As long as VDI licensing cost are relatively high and as long as most business PCs are not (fully) optimized for TCO, blade PCs make a lot of sense in an enterprise with many small remote offices. In that case, if something goes wrong with something like a software deployment, it is good to be able to administer it locally, keeping the infrastructure close to where the system administrators are located.
The business PC is not going away (at least not yet), but as virtualization gets more mature and flexible (and as graphics cards get virtualized too), and as competition heats up, the most promising technology is still VDI. VDI might even prove to be an alternative to blade PCs. For now, SBC and Terminal Services are the only alternatives to desktop PCs that have a proven track record of lowering TCO. At least that is our analysis; what do you think? Let us know!
We'd like to thank Koen Slechten, De Witte Pierre (HP Belgium) and Carine Goris (IBM Belgium) for their help.
In many scenarios is the Blade PC a rather complex way of solving the TCO problem of the traditional desktop PC. It seems to be a case of throwing out the child with the bath water. There is a lot that can be done to lower the TCO of the PC:
- Use energy efficient components; PCs that use one or more mobile components are already available
- Avoid using moving parts, such as CPU fans or hard disks; this will soon be possible, as Solid State devices get cheaper and low voltage CPUs are available
- Make the PC a stateless device by using roaming profiles
- Use (semi) automated management of images (Altiris or similar)
- Store all data and profile information on network storage
- Downtime is minimized: you can swap one PC for another one
- Good 3D graphics performance does not require high amount of continuous bandwidth
- As you have only one computer instead of two (thin client + blade PC), energy bills will be lower
- TCA is much lower
- Most of the administration and management costs are reduced, making the difference with a blade PC very small
Right now, VDI is not really a competitor, as you can only run a limited number of desktops on one server if you want the same guaranteed performance and RAM space as with blade PCs. As a result the licensing cost of the virtualization software per desktop quickly increases. That is why current implementations of VDI mostly target light loads that are not compatible with SBC. When you run 20 or more desktops from one server, the (e.g. VMWare ESX/infrastructure) licensing costs start to become significant.
CCI and blade PCs do have a window opportunity. As long as VDI licensing cost are relatively high and as long as most business PCs are not (fully) optimized for TCO, blade PCs make a lot of sense in an enterprise with many small remote offices. In that case, if something goes wrong with something like a software deployment, it is good to be able to administer it locally, keeping the infrastructure close to where the system administrators are located.
The business PC is not going away (at least not yet), but as virtualization gets more mature and flexible (and as graphics cards get virtualized too), and as competition heats up, the most promising technology is still VDI. VDI might even prove to be an alternative to blade PCs. For now, SBC and Terminal Services are the only alternatives to desktop PCs that have a proven track record of lowering TCO. At least that is our analysis; what do you think? Let us know!
We'd like to thank Koen Slechten, De Witte Pierre (HP Belgium) and Carine Goris (IBM Belgium) for their help.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
39 Comments
View All Comments
Pale Rider - Thursday, July 19, 2007 - link
I work for a fortune 500 company as a sys admin. We have 10,000 nodes (PCs and servers).Half of those are desktop business PCs and we use PCs on purpose - they fullfill the business need the best.
The facst are, most applictions do not run correctly in a terminal server or think client enviroment. Until the software developers change this and the cost of this clients come down consideranly we have no plans to move to think clients - this is true for the majority of IT departments as well.
rowcroft - Thursday, July 19, 2007 - link
It's been out there for years, but I have deployed Sun's SunRay systems and they worked great. Granted, the environment had limited Windows requirements (ran Mozilla for web and e-mail, used custom apps for business use) but those were satisfied with a Citrix deployment.If you're looking for a stable, cost effective environment (both from a productivity and hard cost savings PoV) then you should consider something like that as well.
yacoub - Thursday, July 19, 2007 - link
I'd feel horrible for anyone working in that type of locked-down environment... no freedom, no ability to use software beyond what is installed by the default image (obviously I'm talking about winamp, AIM, and other useful items, not trojans or malware), all of your programs and processing power are at the mercy of whoever dictates how much your share of the server's horsepower you're allowed to consume and what software you have access to. Ugh. What a death sentence of a work environment.And for the IT department, what a dream come true! ;)
rowcroft - Thursday, July 19, 2007 - link
Problem is, who gets to determine what's OK and what isn't? Try managing that in an enterprise environment. This isn't meant for a shop with 200 computers and one admin.yacoub - Thursday, July 19, 2007 - link
Why the preview lure text for articles that is posted on the homepage below the article title always cuts off and yet the exact sentence never seems to be found in the actual article:nobody less than who? Please finish the sentence of the preview text on the homepage, instead of burying parts of it amongst several sentences later in the article.
strikeback03 - Thursday, July 19, 2007 - link
If you go to the "IT Computing" tab at the top of the page (or whatever section the article is in) you get the whole intro blurb. they just display a portion on the homepage.punko - Thursday, July 19, 2007 - link
As a heavy guy, I resent the term "fat client".The biggest improvement in cost of ownership lately has been the change to LCD monitors. The effect is real in power savings.
The biggest headache is the licensing model change by Microsoft, AutoDesk and Adobe. This may lead to a massive shift in software to open source alternatives.
In our firm, most have PC's with a large number of laptops. Thin clients can't replace laptops, and most of us with PC's tend to push them hard, so there isn't any advantage over PC's.
Chunga29 - Thursday, July 19, 2007 - link
Give me a break - take the PC (political correctness) somewhere else, please! If you're so offended, get off your duff and get some exercise, drop the fast food, don't drink sodas or juice or alcohol, and you'll be amazed at what that can do for your obesity.And yes, you probably are clinically obese, as are 65% (and rising) Americans. I was one of them until a year ago, when I kicked my ass into shape doing the above. Dropped from 240 pounds and 31% body fat down to 190 pounds and 16% body fat, where I have been happily resting for the past six months.
Or, you can be like so many others and blame the problem on genetics, your job, etc. because weight issues certainly can't be caused by personal behavior!
NT78stonewobble - Saturday, September 15, 2007 - link
I read it as a joke.Still I WOULD blame my doctor on gaining around 30 % body weight in one year when I was twelve by giving me hormones.
Hormones that in the end wouldn't have had any effect on me. Hormones would help eg. 60 % of cases and in the rest surgery was necessary. However the initial exam of everyone with this particular problem was cut due to costs and thus everyone was given one or even two halfyear treatsments of hormones instead.
So unless you really know the guy dont ditch him.
P.S. Yes I've lost the weight since then. I am however still suffering from depressions going on the 10 th year and have an allmost anorectic relationship to food.
JohanAnandtech - Thursday, July 19, 2007 - link
Thin portables do exist, and could be a reality once Wimax and/or 3G are ubiquitous.But I do agree that the licensing models of the bige Software guys add a lot to TCO. Is it just me or is IDC always trying minimize those by grossly overestimating administration costs? :-)