🚀 go-pugleaf

Dave,

The firm does not own any Microsoft Licensing - rather they have a service
level agreement with a related firm. That related firm is no longer legally
related (besides the SLA) so they are in a position where a completely new
solution (either Microsoft, Linux, or another) will have to be bought and
paid for. They are also leasing server hardware which is unsatisfactory from
a legal point of view.

The difference between a thin-client and a fat-client in my mind is one of
hardware upgrade paths. The question is rather, should the firm buy a
powerful server (the thin client route) or upgrade the workstations (the fat
client route). Every other man and his dog seems to be developing a linux
thin-client solution. Unfortunately the client is tied to MS Excel for
certain mission critical parts of their workflow (OpenOffice and StarOffice
do not support VB due to their opensource and Java allegiances) - so
whatever solution is chosen, be it, CrossOver Office, Lindows, Win4Lin, or
Citrix - it will need to be able to run MS Excel satisfactory.

Technology/Legal Consultant
Oliver Bannatyne.

Dave Green wrote in message <3DED2248.7080806@nospam.winpulp.co.nz>...
>Oliver Bannatyne wrote:

> From what you've said, the firm is already running standalone
workstations.
>
>In your mind, what is the difference between a standalone workstation
>and a thin-client ?

>What actual problem(s) is the firm experiencing that makes them want to
>change from what they have now ?

>No disrespect intended, but I'm not sure that you understand the
>difference between thick, thin client, standalone and client/server
>implementations.
>
>Dave
>
>