--u/L2/WlOHZg+YGU4
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Jul 10, 2002 at 10:27:29AM -0700, Kamal Prasad wrote:
> Apple & their system integrators.

Again, I doubt it, but I don't know for sure.

> X is a heavy-duty GUI interface. it is sure to consume
> more network bandwidth than other GUI interfaces. IMO,
> thin clients are not popular because they expect a fat
> pipe architecture which is not feasible now.

It is? X is sure lighter-weight than, say, Windows terminal services
or VNC. I can't imagine that a remote login to the Mac OS X GUI
*could* be lighter-weight that X with a minimal window manager; it's
got way more googook to it.

> Im looking for a low cost alternative to a PC (unless
> you are referring to a netPC:-)).

$300 US will buy a cheap PC, and a couple hundred dollars more a 15"
VGA monitor and PS/2 keyboard and mouse. X Terminals would almost
definitely go for less, considering they lack any real local I/O
subsystems.

In any case, no, Apple's not offering any thin client of any sort,
near as I can tell. The eMac is probably about as close as you could
come.

--=20
gabriel rosenkoetter
gr@eclipsed.net

--u/L2/WlOHZg+YGU4
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (NetBSD)

iD8DBQE9LHKQ9ehacAz5CRoRAqe2AJ49oggN5LqX20NxHWjjXL6YcmSCUwCeIhYr
AQZPlNjwdnFpdEx+g5F5EUA=
=N2hk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--u/L2/WlOHZg+YGU4--