Killing the Business Desktop PC Softly
by Johan De Gelas on July 19, 2007 3:00 AM EST- Posted in
- IT Computing
CCI, PC, or Workstation Blades: Does It Make Sense?
There is no question that both HP and IBM offer much more than hardware, and they focus on well-rounded solutions. Service and support, network and storage infrastructure, software deployment, and very low maintenance management: it's all there. That can save a lot of money. However, the most important question is: when does it make sense?
From a Total Cost of Acquisition (TCA) point of view, blade PCs and workstations blades are quite a bit more expensive than traditional desktops. We will ignore the cost of the central storage server, the software, and (most likely) the database server as these are necessary in both models. With traditional PCs you can also set a "roaming profile" that allows your PCs to be stateless as well, which helps to make sure that all (most?) data is saved to a central storage server. Let's first look at the blade PCs:
Next let's look at workstation blades. As IBM has the most interesting workstation blade for CAD engineers, we'll look at it.
TCO must save the CCI day of course. Both HP and IBM/Lenovo refer to the IDC TCO "The Tangible Benefits of Blade Clients" study. It describes the cost of each solution per year, over a period of 4 years.
The big problems with this IDC study are:
The profits that are reported here are probably a result of rethinking the system administration and software deployment process instead of being solely the virtue of blade PC technology. In other words, even if the company kept the desktop PCs, considerable savings would have appeared after the smarter system administration and software deployment processes were implemented.
Also note that the power consumption savings are nothing to write home about, even though this was recorded at a time when power hogging Pentium 4 reigned over the business desktop. So now that we have some insight into hard numbers, we can analyze things further.
There is no question that both HP and IBM offer much more than hardware, and they focus on well-rounded solutions. Service and support, network and storage infrastructure, software deployment, and very low maintenance management: it's all there. That can save a lot of money. However, the most important question is: when does it make sense?
From a Total Cost of Acquisition (TCA) point of view, blade PCs and workstations blades are quite a bit more expensive than traditional desktops. We will ignore the cost of the central storage server, the software, and (most likely) the database server as these are necessary in both models. With traditional PCs you can also set a "roaming profile" that allows your PCs to be stateless as well, which helps to make sure that all (most?) data is saved to a central storage server. Let's first look at the blade PCs:
- 20 blade PCs costs slightly less than $20000 (if you choose the HP bc2000 blade PC)
- One chassis (with switch) costs about $7000
- A thin client t5720 costs about $500-$600
Next let's look at workstation blades. As IBM has the most interesting workstation blade for CAD engineers, we'll look at it.
- An IBM HC10 with Core 2 Duo E6700 (2.66GHz 4MB L2), 2GB RAM, and NVIDIA FX1600M is a decent workstation and costs about $3000
- Workstation blades are bigger, so both IBM and HP require a full blown blade chassis. The chassis and switch cost about $7000 and provide housing for 14 blades
- A thin clients costs about $500-$600
TCO must save the CCI day of course. Both HP and IBM/Lenovo refer to the IDC TCO "The Tangible Benefits of Blade Clients" study. It describes the cost of each solution per year, over a period of 4 years.
The big problems with this IDC study are:
- It is sponsored by a vendor of blade PCs (Clearcube)
- It is based on the feedback of customers that have already implemented blade PCs
The profits that are reported here are probably a result of rethinking the system administration and software deployment process instead of being solely the virtue of blade PC technology. In other words, even if the company kept the desktop PCs, considerable savings would have appeared after the smarter system administration and software deployment processes were implemented.
Also note that the power consumption savings are nothing to write home about, even though this was recorded at a time when power hogging Pentium 4 reigned over the business desktop. So now that we have some insight into hard numbers, we can analyze things further.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
39 Comments
View All Comments
Pale Rider - Thursday, July 19, 2007 - link
I work for a fortune 500 company as a sys admin. We have 10,000 nodes (PCs and servers).Half of those are desktop business PCs and we use PCs on purpose - they fullfill the business need the best.
The facst are, most applictions do not run correctly in a terminal server or think client enviroment. Until the software developers change this and the cost of this clients come down consideranly we have no plans to move to think clients - this is true for the majority of IT departments as well.
rowcroft - Thursday, July 19, 2007 - link
It's been out there for years, but I have deployed Sun's SunRay systems and they worked great. Granted, the environment had limited Windows requirements (ran Mozilla for web and e-mail, used custom apps for business use) but those were satisfied with a Citrix deployment.If you're looking for a stable, cost effective environment (both from a productivity and hard cost savings PoV) then you should consider something like that as well.
yacoub - Thursday, July 19, 2007 - link
I'd feel horrible for anyone working in that type of locked-down environment... no freedom, no ability to use software beyond what is installed by the default image (obviously I'm talking about winamp, AIM, and other useful items, not trojans or malware), all of your programs and processing power are at the mercy of whoever dictates how much your share of the server's horsepower you're allowed to consume and what software you have access to. Ugh. What a death sentence of a work environment.And for the IT department, what a dream come true! ;)
rowcroft - Thursday, July 19, 2007 - link
Problem is, who gets to determine what's OK and what isn't? Try managing that in an enterprise environment. This isn't meant for a shop with 200 computers and one admin.yacoub - Thursday, July 19, 2007 - link
Why the preview lure text for articles that is posted on the homepage below the article title always cuts off and yet the exact sentence never seems to be found in the actual article:nobody less than who? Please finish the sentence of the preview text on the homepage, instead of burying parts of it amongst several sentences later in the article.
strikeback03 - Thursday, July 19, 2007 - link
If you go to the "IT Computing" tab at the top of the page (or whatever section the article is in) you get the whole intro blurb. they just display a portion on the homepage.punko - Thursday, July 19, 2007 - link
As a heavy guy, I resent the term "fat client".The biggest improvement in cost of ownership lately has been the change to LCD monitors. The effect is real in power savings.
The biggest headache is the licensing model change by Microsoft, AutoDesk and Adobe. This may lead to a massive shift in software to open source alternatives.
In our firm, most have PC's with a large number of laptops. Thin clients can't replace laptops, and most of us with PC's tend to push them hard, so there isn't any advantage over PC's.
Chunga29 - Thursday, July 19, 2007 - link
Give me a break - take the PC (political correctness) somewhere else, please! If you're so offended, get off your duff and get some exercise, drop the fast food, don't drink sodas or juice or alcohol, and you'll be amazed at what that can do for your obesity.And yes, you probably are clinically obese, as are 65% (and rising) Americans. I was one of them until a year ago, when I kicked my ass into shape doing the above. Dropped from 240 pounds and 31% body fat down to 190 pounds and 16% body fat, where I have been happily resting for the past six months.
Or, you can be like so many others and blame the problem on genetics, your job, etc. because weight issues certainly can't be caused by personal behavior!
NT78stonewobble - Saturday, September 15, 2007 - link
I read it as a joke.Still I WOULD blame my doctor on gaining around 30 % body weight in one year when I was twelve by giving me hormones.
Hormones that in the end wouldn't have had any effect on me. Hormones would help eg. 60 % of cases and in the rest surgery was necessary. However the initial exam of everyone with this particular problem was cut due to costs and thus everyone was given one or even two halfyear treatsments of hormones instead.
So unless you really know the guy dont ditch him.
P.S. Yes I've lost the weight since then. I am however still suffering from depressions going on the 10 th year and have an allmost anorectic relationship to food.
JohanAnandtech - Thursday, July 19, 2007 - link
Thin portables do exist, and could be a reality once Wimax and/or 3G are ubiquitous.But I do agree that the licensing models of the bige Software guys add a lot to TCO. Is it just me or is IDC always trying minimize those by grossly overestimating administration costs? :-)