will we go back to centralized computing?

[SpacemanSpliff]

I don't know if any of you have heard yet, but Chicago is looking to implement a city-wide network in the next ten years.
This combined with cheap dumb terminals could provide computability for the masses, as well as allowing for power
users who wish to have their own pc.
Sort of a both answer.
---
By the way, does anyone else think that answer should be spelled differently?

 

[supernova87a]

I know that people are reluctant to give up their own systems, so this is clearly a problem with any kind of deliberate/coordinated move towards the above situations. BUT...

what if people were essentially *forced* to do this? I.e. imagine if a few of the big software companies (say Microsoft) decided that they would only offer certain software over network connections to those remote terminals that they sold. This isn't so hard to imagine, is it? There are plenty of games out there right now that only work when you log into a central server to play with other people -- it's not possible to pirate the game and cost the company revenue that way. I think this is a real possibility, for companies to try this in order to counteract pirating of software.

Or, what if some company offering the service and hardware made it such an attractive deal that not getting one of these units would be silly. Then, if enough people caught on, the market for regular computers, or home built computers and parts could dry up. You could still say that you'd never buy into it, and you'd never give up your own computer, but you'd *have* to! Eventually, you'd need to get a new computer, and give in, because you'd have no choice.

Maybe this isn't a great example, but look at the phone company. You could build your own telecommunications network, but who has the ability, or has the parts? And they make you pay a subscription fee every month, and everyone does it. Is that parallel apt here?

 

[Elledan]

<< what if people were essentially *forced* to do this? I.e. imagine if a few of the big software companies (say Microsoft) decided that they would only offer certain software over network connections to those remote terminals that they sold. >>


Can you say '.NET'?

 

[Train]

i dont see how .NET is being "forced" on anyone, care to explain?

 

[Elledan]

<< i dont see how .NET is being "forced" on anyone, care to explain? >>


A Windows OS is installed on at least 95% of all PC's on this planet. If MSFT decides that it'll make certain kinds of software (e.g., Office) only available through .NET, people are slowly forced to use it, since the .NET version of Office offers some functionality older versions miss. Of course, quite some people are easily convinced that it's the next best thing after sliced bread by a couple of advertisments.

Of course, there's only one thing which yet keeps this plan from succeeding: Open Source Software. MSFT can crush any competing companies, yet can not do much about OSS, except by calling it things like 'un-American'.

 

[CTho9305]

I'd have to agree with elledan. each version of windows will add more and more .NET stuff - xp already has passport integration. I was at devhood, and XP kept trying to get me to add a passport account to my XP user account. It took a lot of hitting "cancel" buttons to get past it. I dont want my OS to know anything. Probably won't be able to prevent it in the next windows.

 

[Train]

i can understand the issue of privacy with OS-Login types of integration, my XP kinda scared me too when it asked me to get a MS Passport.

But i think user privacy and the topic of this thread - centralized computing, are seperate topics.

If you think about it, we are already moving torwards centralized computing, we are all using the AnandTech Database and webserver, all our clients do is render the HTML, nothing more. Most people spend most of thier time on computers these days using a web browser. A browser is basically a dummy terminal (or enhanced, depends how you define dummy and enhanced terminals) Some people have web-based email, do thier banking online, get all thier information online, etc. People like that, even though they may be home users, really dont need to pay $2000 for a nice computer. If a company offers them the same services for a tenth the cost, why not?

Things like games of course your gonna have to do a lot of client side processing, even though i play all my games online (way better to play real people than a cpu, imo) the information passed between the server and the clients is pretty basic, and the client renders all the 3D and do the sounds. I really cant see the 3D rendering of 100+ frames per second on the server side feasible for a LONG time.

But lets be real, why did the computer industry take such a huge leap in the late 90's? its because of the internet, people were basically buying computers to get online and surf and send emails, do online shopping, banking, nothing more. Those are the first people to be targeted by the movement back to centralized computing, it has nothing to do with wether MS wants it or not, its gonna happen because it will be cheaper, and whoever offers the cheapest product or service, wins the customers, and makes the money, it all goes back to the Bottom Line.

 

[Fozzie]

<antagonistic mode on>

This is nuts, you people are crazy! Your ignoring where and what technology is becoming and making possible. Network speed is a nominal cost? Are you insane? How many DSL companies have gone out of business? How fast is DSL/Cable again? Oh yeah, 32Kilobytes to 640Kilobytes a second? About as fast as my floppy drive?

Dumb terminals? What? Movies for everyone, let see, decode the movie at the central server and send the raw video information to the dumb terminal? Do you know how much bandwidth RAW video takes? But wait you say, I meant a MPEG2 stream. Oh so its not a dumb terminal anymore? Are you INSANE?

<antagonistic mode off>

Whats cheaper? Network bandwidth, deployed to every end user. Or local bandwidth and proccessing power? Duh? What is getting cheaper? How will this factor into the future? I'll respond to each original point that supernova87a brought up.

"1. Computers would be much less bulky and affordable for the individual user. Just a flat screen and a keyboard/mouse, and a network connection which you plug into your wall, linked to the main computer. No more fiddling with all the stupid cable connections, configuring the hardware, adding components. All the software you need is on the central server.

Why would this be less bulky? How big is a laptop, PDA, FlexATX system, iOpener? What takes to most room of a modern computer system? My GF's family for example has a tiny HP PIII system with a 19" monitor. What do you think takes up the most room? How much smaller will processing power get? What about when you can make a 100 million transistor chip for $5? What can you fit on it? How much does it cost to hook this little chip upto everything in your house? How much would it cost to make a network pipe to your house that could transmit the results of all this processing power?

Centralized PROCESSING is not or never will again be the solution.

"2. This would be attractive to software companies -- no more pirated software possible."

You think pirates won't find a way to duplicate the central server or store local copies of the software and trick it?

"Everyone uses a central service, which accounts for users and charges the fees. People who want to develop, write free software, whatever, it all goes on the central computer, and others can see/ use as they like."

You mean like the internet? Yeah I really want more control of my computer and data usage in the hands of companies. Spam? You ain't seen nothing yet.

"3. Hardware is more efficiently used. No more individual computers sitting around useless. Just enough resources to meet user loads, and upgrade the hardware at one location when you need."

And what? You have infinite bandwidth? Are people starting to use more local bandwidth or local processing power with more media oriented tasks? Whats the point of USB 2.0 again? How much bandwidth does USB 1 have compared with the fastest consumer available net connection?

"4. Storage is more efficiently used. Why does every person need their own copy of XYZ movie? Keep a few copies on the central disks, and allocate use as requested by users. Not everyone wants to watch at once... People will stop redundantly filling their disks with stuff that can be gotten at anytime from the server. "

Storage solutions are a two headed beast, holding the data and then getting it to where it needs to be. This is a whole issue that needs its own discussion. Because here we touch on centralized databases, content control and the rest. This is a seperate entity from centralized proccessing.

Think distributed proccessing.

 

[spidey07]

Maybe this needs to be divided into two sections. Will we have centralized computing for good sized businesses? YES, ALREADY HERE, ALREADY HAPPENING. Many organizations I consult for on network architecture are ridding themselves of PCs by the thousands because they just cost too much time and money.

Does it make sense for home computers? Probably not.

 

[CTho9305]

<< Whats cheaper? Network bandwidth, deployed to every end user. Or local bandwidth and proccessing power? Duh? What is getting cheaper? How will this factor into the future? I'll respond to each original point that supernova87a brought up. >>


you are correct. but we do not know that we won't soon have fiber to everyone's homes.



<< "1. Computers would be much less bulky and affordable for the individual user. Just a flat screen and a keyboard/mouse, and a network connection which you plug into your wall, linked to the main computer. No more fiddling with all the stupid cable connections, configuring the hardware, adding components. All the software you need is on the central server.

Why would this be less bulky? How big is a laptop, PDA, FlexATX system, iOpener? What takes to most room of a modern computer system? My GF's family for example has a tiny HP PIII system with a 19" monitor. What do you think takes up the most room? How much smaller will processing power get? What about when you can make a 100 million transistor chip for $5? What can you fit on it? How much does it cost to hook this little chip upto everything in your house? How much would it cost to make a network pipe to your house that could transmit the results of all this processing power? >>


none of the systems you listed can play 3d games. yet. see above (that bandwidth MAY become cheaper)




<< Centralized PROCESSING is not or never will again be the solution.

"2. This would be attractive to software companies -- no more pirated software possible."

You think pirates won't find a way to duplicate the central server or store local copies of the software and trick it? >>


yes. if the hardware capable of running server-side stuff is not readily available, you're stuck. for example, the server-side might be huge Sun machines. no matter what x86 powerhouse you get at home, you're screwed. no pirating for you. and software would be written differently to work with the fact that many instances will be running at once.



<< "Everyone uses a central service, which accounts for users and charges the fees. People who want to develop, write free software, whatever, it all goes on the central computer, and others can see/ use as they like."

You mean like the internet? Yeah I really want more control of my computer and data usage in the hands of companies. Spam? You ain't seen nothing yet. >>


we have established this is a problem.



<< "3. Hardware is more efficiently used. No more individual computers sitting around useless. Just enough resources to meet user loads, and upgrade the hardware at one location when you need."

And what? You have infinite bandwidth? Are people starting to use more local bandwidth or local processing power with more media oriented tasks? Whats the point of USB 2.0 again? How much bandwidth does USB 1 have compared with the fastest consumer available net connection? >>


see above. they're using more power right now. but if this power becomes more expensive, it will be done remotely.



<< "4. Storage is more efficiently used. Why does every person need their own copy of XYZ movie? Keep a few copies on the central disks, and allocate use as requested by users. Not everyone wants to watch at once... People will stop redundantly filling their disks with stuff that can be gotten at anytime from the server. "

Storage solutions are a two headed beast, holding the data and then getting it to where it needs to be. This is a whole issue that needs its own discussion. Because here we touch on centralized databases, content control and the rest. This is a seperate entity from centralized proccessing.

Think distributed proccessing. >>



companies get to do content control. that makes them happy, and gets them money.

 

[CTho9305]

consider spidey's point. lets say you're a business.

assuming the centralized system costs, say, 10% more initally, look at the support costs. now, instead of having to deal with 1000's of troubled PCs and having many points of failure, you have one server. people won't be downloading 3rd party apps that look pretty but break stuff. at the client side will be a very simple machine. say it dies. instead of needing to copy their hard drive to a new machine, you can just pull out the old machine and drop in a replacement - the data is serverside. if it is implemented properly, centralized computing can save lots of money.

also, in a business, you don't even need that much CPU power at the central server to run word, excel, and IE.

 

[Turkey]

<< assuming the centralized system costs, say, 10% more initally, look at the support costs. now, instead of having to deal with 1000's of troubled PCs and having many points of failure, you have one server. people won't be downloading 3rd party apps that look pretty but break stuff. at the client side will be a very simple machine. say it dies. instead of needing to copy their hard drive to a new machine, you can just pull out the old machine and drop in a replacement - the data is serverside. if it is implemented properly, centralized computing can save lots of money. >>



That's exactly the point... people will still want to download their pretty apps that break stuff, but now it'll be breaking the mainframe or they won't be allowed to at all. How would you react if your boss came in tomorrow and said "I'm sorry, but you can't use your graphical traceroute program anymore because it's not supported." "Well, I'll be needing a PC then."

Since there's fewer points of failure, service costs will be higher... it's that way with anything. Think about it for a little while. And why would 1000's of PCs be troubled but not the mainframe, especially when it's running the same apps: IE, Office, etc.



<< if the hardware capable of running server-side stuff is not readily available, you're stuck. for example, the server-side might be huge Sun machines. no matter what x86 powerhouse you get at home, you're screwed. no pirating for you. >>



If a user begins to require more processing power/person than exists right now, then why would centralized processing be good? The idea is to share the resources because people don't have the need for all the processing power they have at home. Plus, since people would want to use the apps they have been using for the past 5 years, all these services would start with Windows compatibility. So... pirating.



<< and software would be written differently to work with the fact that many instances will be running at once. >>


Actually the OS would be written differently, but that's a side point.

The thing about "all a person does on their computer" for beginning users of anything (advanced computer users wouldn't give up the flexibility of a PC) is not what they use, it's what they perceive they can do. Once a person perceives that they can't do something, regardless of whether or not they actually can or would, it's irrelevant. That's why companies put all these fancy useless doodads on their gadgets/coats whatever. Who really needs 11 cupholders in their minivan? No one, but people think "geez, what if one day I *do* need 11 cupholders? I'll be out of luck with this 96 Hyundai. I'll take the 97 for only $650 more." So when people start hearing that they can't use a mail client other than Outlook, even if they've never used another mail client in their life and probably wouldn't ever use a different one, they won't like the restriction.

 

[sitka]

Intranet apps at work, not to far a stretch to see a large portion of the employees using smart clients. Beats the heck out of rolling out version after version every time your humble developer starts getting a little to visionary. It's an incrementalist thing. One day the office folks will realize they haven't opened a spreadsheet or word doc in months. Simplistic, no? But our CAD guys have little to worry about for sometime, except the new task recorder/scheduler app. "Hey, what are you working on!" Cruel

 

[CTho9305]

<<

<< and software would be written differently to work with the fact that many instances will be running at once. >>


Actually the OS would be written differently, but that's a side point. >>


all the more reason normal apps wouldnt' run well if pirated!
edit: i'm not saying i like centralized computing, i'm just pointing out why corporations / isps / etc. might like it and (slowly) force it upon us.

 

[aka1nas]

Your idea of a dummy email and web browsing terminal has basically already been implemented in the Internet Appliances which have all failed to bring in any wins in the marketplace. People wan't somethign more upgradable.

 

[cyclones]

Is this question coming from the USA?.......Use a central distribution point for your software.
How about letting the Army have all the guns and you just borrow one when you need one?
I am not sure that the NRA and Charlton Heston would go for that option........
and neither will the individual freedom to access, what I want when I want It !
I would just love to be in the middle of a project when the central server went down
and some robo-voice tells me "not to worry, our engineers are working on the problem
and normal service will be resumed as soon as possible"...yeah.....sure they are!:frown:

 

[wyvrn]

For a corporation standpoint, this would be great. For instance, two of the companies I do support for are really moving in this direction. One has the user's pc so locked down they have only a few applications choices, limited user rights, and all of their data is stored on the network (they cannot write to their C: drives). It serves is purpose for the users, and prevents a lot of breakdowns by people installing their own software and deleting their windows directory. Plus updates are pushed out to the user at scheduled intervals, including program upgrades, requested software, and virus updates. They don't get a cdburner or to add their own program unless they have approval from very high sources, so that is very limited. They use Citrix for many of their applications too. That is very similar to centralized computing.

On another project I support, they have over 100 offices (janitorial firm). The previous IT department had no standards, and each office could have a different OS, pc specs, connection (most are long distance dial up to a single 72 line RAS server) but some are frame relay, and there were no IT personnel available to fix the connection. Think about it, you could not afford to have a dedicated IT person in every office because there might be only one or two computers, and the other alternative is to have a few IT people that fly around the country which is very costly. The new IT department is installing frame relay access and VPN in most of the offices, and they remote control the servers. They have also implemented Active Directory, as far as what packages can be installed and can be removed remotely. They are implementing Win2k on each computer with very limited user rights. They push updates across the network and remotely remove AOL type software from the machines. They are standardizing pc hardware. Mostly what they use are AS400 and the web, which are apps run off of a centralized server anyway. They are a perfect candidate for centralized computing as very few of their workforce use custom applications.

So many companies could benefit from centralized computing from a hardware costs and tech support perspective. Now I don't want to be forced to use this at home unless they could come up with an attractive, cheap plan that has everything I need. But that is probably years into the future.

 

[Shalmanese]

<< So when people start hearing that they can't use a mail client other than Outlook... >>



ARRGGHHHH!!!

Here come the virii

 

[spidey07]

All very good points above. But for most business networks it makes no sense to have a PC. A screen, mouse and keyboard are all you need. Less cost, less hastle, better performance, less support. WIN-WIN right there.

This model doesn't work for all enterprises, but it does work for most.

 

[Turkey]

All I've seen in this thread to support the mainframe argument are instances of corporations saving money... which is dubious when they are replacing all of their current hardware with >$500k mainframes and either retraining all their support staff or hiring new employees. If you hire new employees that know mainframes at the same level of knowledge as your old client-server people, then you pay big $$ because there aren't that many of them. Maybe total operating expenses go down, but total IT expenses for at least the next year would be much higher than in previous years.

The thing is that mainframe computing didn't go the way of the dinosaur just because it became cheaper to give everyone their own box. There's huge momentum against that kind of thing... just think what a CS education back the mainframe computing's heyday was. You learn how to program mainframes, IT people learned how to maintain mainframes... and there wasn't the "Internet" like it exists today. So an IT person's main source of knowledge was from magazines, books, and other people. You couldn't say "hey, this client-server thing looks promising, what's the details?" go to yahoo.com and search for client-server to read all the pros and cons of it. When all your senior people are trained in "the old way" it takes a lot of time and effort for the new people to convince them to go to a new architecture, especially when it has limited support and limited software. And despite all these problems, client-server computing replaced mainframes in many businesses for many tasks.

It's also important to note that through the whole shift from mainframe-dummy to client-server, mainframes have always been more reliable, robust, and manageable than even the biggest, most refined servers. It's not like there's anything new that mainframes have to offer that they haven't always offered... mainframe companies (IBM) didn't stop making mainframes 10 years ago and start again last year. They've always been there, "lower total cost" and all.

You can't take your dummy terminal home like you can a laptop.

And my final point: these mainframes wouldn't run Windows. So to run all the applications "you really need" like Office, you would have to emulate Windows. Windows can hardly run stable outside of an emulator.

I'm not saying mainframe computing is bad, or it doesn't make sense for anyone, or trying to say it's somehow wholly inferior... I definitely think there's a place for it and it will coexist with the client-server architecture. I'm just saying it won't come back en masse and replace the client-server architecture that is widely used.

 

[CTho9305]

<<

<< So when people start hearing that they can't use a mail client other than Outlook... >>



ARRGGHHHH!!!

Here come the virii >>



if the outlook is on a centralized server, it can be patched by responsible admins immediately. and user apps wouldn't have privileges to critical files (in theory). a smart design (if it must be windoze-based) would be to give only partial write access to the registry - so users can have MRU lists (most-recently used, like if you go to start->run, or the 4 latest things you did in word, paint, etc) but not screw with important data.

 

[Train]

Most the people here dont seem to be very forward thinking, moving to centralized computing is, imo, definetly going to happen. ALL of the problems with centralized computing suggested in this thread will be overcome when the time comes, because the money factor is always going to be the #1 driving force.


edit: spelling

 

[Demon-Xanth]

This may be a recap, but I think it won't because of the severe decline in the cost of computing. When computers ran in the $5k+ range having one for every user wasn't feasable. However I was able to spec in a system that was quite good for $780 ($850 w/ DVD)+the cost of software.

We're talking about a full blown PC with good components, 17" monitor, and CD-rw drive. Not a stripped down model.

To make centralized computing with only dumb terminals successful the terminals would have to have a vast cost improvement over the PCs. Meaning the terminals would have to be in the $100 range (less than the cost of the 17" monitor that I speced in)

Server reliability would be a major issue. As far as I've seen MS doesn't have enough stability to handle the high requirements. I don't even think MS can DO multiple concurrent users. (much less remote users). *nix systems have been born and bred to do just that and quite often do use a centralized computing scenrio.

Often what occurs is a distributed power-centralized storage scenario allowing the user to tailor the system to thier needs yet keep the important files in a central location w/ scheduled backups.

 

[spidey07]

Strange, I already thought we had established that graphical terminals were already used in good sized business networks. Already being done, those who haven't are investigating doing so.

You think those are PCs on the NYSE floor? Any transaction heavy busniness or business unit has a great need for GUI terminals.

PS - $500,000 for a mainframe is cheap. Now they're called $1.5 mil "servers".