Microsoft revealed a software known as Windows Fundamentals for Legacy PCs, designed as a stopgap measure that turns older PCs that aren’t ready to replace into more modern and secure systems, but in the process also makes them less than full-fledged computers. Formerly known by its Eiger code name, Windows Fundamentals gives those PCs some of the security benefits of XP but essentially turns the machines into thin clients, able to run only a few programs locally, with most software needing to run remotely from a server.
Following the link to MS’s “Windows Fundamentals for Legacy PCs”, that nice table is a short but interesting read. examples:
– “Reduce the number of operating systems your organization must support” = Upgrade to OUR new OS even if most of your pc’s can’t handle it.
– “Reduce the attack surface of all of your computers” = Only 1 server needs to be infected by *whatever*, and all clients attached will be dealing with that.
Personally, i don’t see why turning perfectly good PC’s into thin clients just because they don’t have the specs to run vista is a good idea.
dont you know that whats good for microsoft is good for the users?
Windows Fundamentals will make some customers happy. And the article also mentions customers who use virtualized Windows Server get a better deal, and VMware is going to start giving away a $2800 product.
I just can’t help but think that having some excellent F/OSS competition has motivated these things.
“Windows Fundamentals will make some customers happy. And the article also mentions customers who use virtualized Windows Server get a better deal, and VMware is going to start giving away a $2800 product.
I just can’t help but think that having some excellent F/OSS competition has motivated these things.”
I agree, but i still think that linux thin clients connecting to a linux server (LTSP anywone?) using virtualized, partitioned guest OS’s is a whole lot better in terms of security and “manageability”.
I’d have to say That I really doubt that the linux server you are describing would be more “manageable” more secure, probably, but manageability is subjective, according to the admins knowledge and experience
“I’d have to say That I really doubt that the linux server you are describing would be more “manageable” more secure, probably, but manageability is subjective, according to the admins knowledge and experience”
Well, the server itself doesn’t need to be. i was referring to the virtualization part, where allocating and managing virtualized guest OS’s is a breeze using for example vmware products (yes, even the free server).
The Linux server just needs to be set up once, and then avaiable and secure. i don’t see anything difficult about that.
Edited 2006-07-13 11:29
“I just can’t help but think that having some excellent F/OSS competition has motivated these things.”
Without a doubt you’re correct. It’s simply good business sense. When WinXP came out a strange thing happened that surprised MSFT — people did NOT go and buy new pc’s or “upgrade” their new OS like they did from 95 to 98. This happend for two reasons: 1. They had no need to “upgrade”. Their current rig did what they needed it for. and 2. They were terrified to “upgrade” because of all the trouble they had with previous MSFT os “upgrades”.
…and get these clients onto *nix to stop this nonsense.
And have every user trying to run their programs with Wine. Yeah, that sounds good.
I wonder if the long term goal is to use MS servers over the internet. Kind of goes with their internet office suite we have all heard so much about. Of course, if you are turning your older PCs into MS zombies, it won’t run Google’s internet offerings. If you are old enough to remember the phrase “DOS isn’t done until lotus won’t run” you will understand what I mean.
I was wondering why they would bother, makes sense now. Wonder if the movie, “The Eiger Sanction”, had any role in the code name choice, as in they’re giving you more rope… or cutting it.
It’s actually a curious turn of events. It was Microsoft (DOS running on the new IBM PC) that liberated us from the tyranny of the centrally controlled computer. For the first time, computer users could cut the apron strings and do some practical, useful, company-approved work without the control of the priesthood of system admins.
Of course we’ve been headed back that way for years, but now Windows Fundamentals turns an autonomous PC into the modern equivalent of a VT100.
I know–it will be an excellent choice for some organizations, but I just can’t help but note the irony.
Hey, don’t diss the vt100!
Really, the most thrill with computing, I had back when I was working with mainframes, big jobqueues and lots and lots of concurrent customers. It was fun. There were even some ASCII games available :o)
Ahhh…. THOSE were the days!
Even more ironic, it was IBM (the company at the center of that “tyranny”) who created the PC. 🙂
Of course, some large data centers still use centralized server architectures. Why? Because centralized servers actually do make sense in some instances. It’s just not the only game in town anymore, that’s all…
I extended the life of my 2001 iMac by installing the latest greatest OS on it, not a crippleware reduced version.
Since it appears they are talking about computers currently running Windows 95/98, I’d be much more impressed by your statement if you’d managed to install OSX on a Mac from 1995-98. I can still install Windows XP SP2 – the latest released version from Microsoft – on any Intel-based PC from 2001, too.
Yes, but mine gets faster with each OS upgrade
This is no Win/Mac troll, but just pointing out that MS are the ones who are trolling by telling you your perfectly fine hardware is obsolete and only they can help you (on the eventual path to Vista).
In 2000 PCs hit 1 GHz. 1000 MHz is not slow by any imagination, Windows is just horribly inefficient. I used to run Windows 98 very well on 600 MHz, and even as low as 300 MHz, still with no speed issues besides games.
Microsoft are taking us all for a ride with Vista, might as well enjoy the scenery.
that their hardware is “obsolete”, especially in the article in question.
nothing can beat this
http://x3270.bgp.nu/
My dad has an old P266 Sharp laptop that can’t really handle anything newer than Win98. I’ve been thinking about putting the 9x RDP client on there, and apply the concurrent RDP users-hack to his desktop, so he can just use the laptop as a wireless thin client. Haven’t tried it yet though, so it could be painfully slow over wireless.
RDP isn’t that bad over wireless, I control a lot of windows computers using RDP over an 802.11B connection.
I also do a lot of RDP over wireless and its very acceptable performance wise.
From the article:
Turning PCs into thin clients is something new, Oldham said.
Yeah, sure…. Nobody ever thought about this before. Never. Not even once. Right.
/me rolls eyes*
“When WinXP came out a strange thing happened that surprised MSFT — people did NOT go and buy new pc’s or “upgrade” their new OS like they did from 95 to 98.”
XP has 85% of the market. 98 has 3%.
So … you are full of it.
what is the product mentioned errrrr!!!! netBSd fundamentals or Dragonfly BSD fundamentals? Let me check… BRB 🙂
Hey guys! … stop bitching about Vista requirements. It will drive hardware industry for the comming year – it’s a good thing right ? But then again, I am not the one who will be “driving” Vista
… always look on a bright sight of life …
I for one can not wait for Vista to ship – once vista starts being demanded – Computers 4 all will start getting better grade donations stuff that was just able to handle XP will start being donated because It won’t come close to working with Vista. Our present donated systems are all 1ghz or less – mostly less.
Note: Suse 10.1 gets adequate performance on a 450mzh PIII. I really have not tried it on slower equipment yet. Though I have set aside a 400mzh Celeron system for testing in the near future.