Five Windows-Based Terminals

ENT, Nov 18, 1998 by Kenneth I. MacLeish

The first defined desktop alternative came along in August 1996 when Apple Computer Corp., IBM Corp., Netscape Communications Corp., Oracle Corp. and Sun Microsystems Computer Co. introduced the NC Reference Profile, which defined the network computer (NC). This was taken to be as much a challenge to Microsoft as it was a computing advance. But the savings potential of centralized administration stimulated enough interest to create other entrants in the broadening thin-client arena. The combatants now include a Microsoft-backed variant -- the Windows-based terminal -- in addition to NCs and NetPCs.

Thin clients are generally considered to be diskless workstations connected to a network. Windows-based terminals, on the other hand, enjoy the clearest defining characteristics of all the sub-classes of thin clients. To be a Windows-based terminal, the device must be able to display Windows applications running on a server, using either the Remote Desktop Protocol (RDP) or Citrix Systems Inc.'s Independent Computing Architecture (ICA). NCs incorporate a browser and the Java Virtual Machine. The more important distinction, however, is that NCs typically download data and applications and process them locally. The Windows-based terminal passes keyboard and mouse input one way and displays information the other, with all processing taking place on the server. NetPCs are a catchall category for stripped-down PCs, typically with tamper-proofed chassis, that might employ local or remote processing, depending on the operating environment.

As a follow-up to our recent review of Windows NT Server 4.0, Terminal Server Edition, we obtained samples of five Windows-based terminals to see how the hardware side of this operating protocol was being brought to market. All of our test terminals are very new creations: A sixth possible participant, the Visara from Affinity Systems (Lansdale, Pa., www.affinitysystems.com), missed our testing deadline due to unexpected delays in its certification process. A definite variety exists in the offerings, although in operation they are, as could be expected, virtual clones of each other.

Viewpoint TC 320

Boundless Technologies Inc.

Hauppague, N.Y.

(516) 342-7400 www.boundless.com Price: $649 with ICA, keyboard and mouse CPU: 5x86, 133 MHz

RAM: 16 MB

Boundless Technologies positions the Viewpoint TC 300 series as the upper-range of their lineup, which also includes the Model 100 text terminal and the Model 200 for ICA applications. The 300 models include Windows CE and built-in support for the RDP protocol, along with the capability to accept additional software modules. Our test unit used Windows CE and had connection-type options for RDP and ICA. Pericom terminal emulation is available as an option for $99.

Boundless aimed high in its design goals. At $649, the Viewpoint had the lowest cost in our group and offered some nice extras. For example, it was the only member of our test group to include a Smart Card slot, which could be an attractive option for companies that already use Smart Card employee IDs. It also was one of two machines to offer resolution up to 1,280x1,024 and link-indicating LEDs on the network connection.

The back panel carried an almost PC-like array of connections and slots, with two serial and one parallel port connector, along with the unique availability of one PCI and one ISA expansion slot. With all this, it was mildly surprising that there were no audio connections.

The 5x86, 133-MHz CPU was the fastest unit in the group. Interestingly, even though Boundless makes a point of mentioning that it has the fastest processor of any WBT on the market, all of the participating companies seem to agree that CPU speed and RAM are less of a concern than in a PC. We tried a few basic stopwatch tests to see if we could find any difference between the Viewpoint and the Neostation from Neoware, which has the slowest processor -- a 50-MHz RISC chip -- and only 8 MB of RAM. It was no great surprise to find that the time lapse between an "Open" command and the disappearance of the Windows hourglass on our test spreadsheet was affected far more by the amount of network traffic than by the hardware of the terminal in use. In fact, since it was the Windows Terminal server that was performing all of the actual processing, disk I/O and caching, this result was to be expected.

The Viewpoint we tested was an early beta unit that had a few foibles that struck a slightly sour note with our testers. The main area of operation in these terminals where differences existed was in Terminal Properties, a hotkey-selected window that shows various configuration options. All of our machines showed tabs for General, Input, Display and Network properties. All but the Viewpoint added one or more additional tabs with extra options. The Viewpoint not only had the fewest tabs, but also had the fewest selectable options. For example, the Display tab offered choices for different screen resolutions, with some units including a choice for "best available using DDC." The Viewpoint's only choice was "best available," which could be annoying for any user whose vision might dictate a different choice. There was also no keyboard language option, although there was a drop-down box for it on the Input tab.