Print this Window Close this Window
White Paper #0003
Benefits of a Thin-Client with no 
Embedded Browser
Last Update: 07/11/2005
The Axel terminal does not offer an embedded browser (ie Firefox, Mozilla. Explorer..). This may seem to oppose the requirement of web-enabled applications, but there several distinct disadvantages to an embedded browser, which are addressed buy using a browser on the central server.
  • The protocols for connecting the terminal to the server (RDP/ICA for Windows and VNC for Unix/Linux) provide the user with a very effective and familiar method to access all application residing on the server – including a browser – there is an effective alternative to an embedded browser.
      
  • There are many advantages in having a single browser on the server rather than many browsers embedded in each thin-client. The rest of this article will cover this subject.

More effective utilisation of resources

In terms of memory and CPU usage an Internet browser is a very demanding application, so to support the browser a highly spec’d thin-client is required. This will undermine one of the principle reasons for adopting thin-client technology – i.e. lower cost. The extra resources are ONLY used for the browser – they will have no impact on the actual connection performance (ICA/RDP etc), as these programs require extremely little computing resources

With a centralised solution, as all the memory is installed on the server and available for all users and all applications the system is far better balanced and efficient

No Embedded Operating System

An embedded browser requires an embedded operating system. The consequences of requiring an operating system are significant (lower performance, increased cost, susceptibility to virus attack, higher maintenance...). For more information on this subject please see technical article: WP0002:

With a centralised solution no local terminal operating system is required, as the connection protocol (RDP/ICA/telnet/VNC… etc) do not require an operating system.

Virus Proof

Almost all virus’s are contracted via the browser and attack the operating system. It stands to reason that a terminal without an operating system or browser will be virus proof. (From a viral perspective a terminal without an operating system bears more similarity to a dumb serial terminal (VT/ANSI type) than a PC/Windows based terminal)

With the centralised configuration only the server requires protection.

Use the browser of your choice

Certain thin-client models will only support certain browsers – therefore you may be forced to use a model of terminal because you require a specific type of browser. The most obvious division is between Linux and Windows based terminals. Most users will prefer Microsoft’s Internet Explorer – which is only available on Windows based terminals. Often Linux based terminals offer a better price/performance, but are only available with Linux type browsers (Firefox, Mozilla, Netscape…).

Often web-enabled applications are designed or optimised for a particular browser. With embedded browsers you cannot change to a different type of browser. For example you cannot install Explorer on a Linux based terminal.

With a centralised solution you choose the browser based on your server and personal preference. The thin-client does not impose any restriction on the choice.

Not all browsers are alike

Certain browser functions than are regarded as "standard" are not available in thin-client’s browsers. Often the browser will not be Java-enabled, or only one browser Window is available at a time.

For example "Internet Explorer" on a Windows CE based terminal provides a lot less functionality than “Internet Explorer” on a Windows XP based thin-client.

With a centralised solution everyone has a fully featured browser at their disposal.

Browser Upgradability

There are many issues to consider when it comes to upgrading and embedded browser.

If the network currently has terminals with different versions of browsers (ie terminals bought at different times). There is no guaranty all can be immediately upgraded to the same level in one step. The same applies for browser security patches

A new browser may require more CPU/memory resources – resulting in costly upgrades to each terminal.

A centralised solution elegantly avoids the issues detailed above.

Conclusion

An embedded browser has many incontestable disadvantages over a centralised browser in the central server:
   - Security
   - Upgradability (and usable/effective life of the terminal)
   - Browser performance
   - Maintenance
   - Compatibility

and undermines the basic premise for adopting thin-client technology – ie low cost of ownership and minimal support requirements