GB Backbone and Performance Increase?

I've had experience with both WYSE and Neoware thin client machines and I
can tell you both of these two vendors are very good. I myself prefer
Neoware equipment and their new "laptop" thin client is very cool.



Thanks,

Randy

_____

From: vantage@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
Bruce Butler
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 11:32 AM
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Vantage] Re: GB Backbone and Performance Increase?



It has been successful for us. Here are some bullet points;

Thin Clients;

- Great in a machine shop environment - no moving
parts (fans etc..)

- We use WYSE 1200 LEs for shop floor scanning.

- We use WYSE S30s for desktop replacement.

- Breakdowns are a cinch. Replace with another
box, start and go.

- With FTP any users is able to power up a 1200LE
system, type in a username (no password), and Data Collection auto
launches. Much better than the effort required for non-technical people
to get workstation up.

I chose WYSE mainly due to name recognition. Since this was a risk at
the time, I wanted to go with a reputable hardware platform. I believe
it was very successful. I get silly complaints like "I don't have
solitaire anymore." If deemed necessary, this could be added.

Terminal services / Citrix

- I would recommend it for only those office type
users.

- It is definitely not the solution for CAD/CAM
users as they need local horsepower for video & RAM.

- Citrix enabled us to use our antiquated desktops,
and 8.03 looks and feels like any other application running locally.

- Citrix virtually eliminates any network printing
headaches. I believe this is also handled well by Win 2K3.

Enabling our operators to get a scanning station to work was a huge
contributor to our 99% rate of shop floor scanning (94% rate of direct
labor scanning).

Bruce Butler

IT Manager

Knappe & Koester, Inc.

_____

From: vantage@yahoogroups <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> .com
[mailto:vantage@yahoogroups <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> .com] On
Behalf
Of j2v1f
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 8:55 AM
To: vantage@yahoogroups <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> .com
Subject: [Vantage] Re: GB Backbone and Performance Increase?

Do you have a recommended Thin Client platform? There are many
variations with a variety of different possible peripheral attachments
should we go barcode in the future. Any advice would be appreciated.

Thanks,

Joe

--- In vantage@yahoogroups <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> .com
<mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> ,
"Bruce Butler" <bbutler@...> wrote:
>
> By, using plain Terminal Server there will be an immediate cost
savings.
> We chose to use Citrix & Wyse thin clients, and found the cost /
client
> is about break even with purchasing individual PCs. Where we will
gain,
> is in the next major upgrade. We are looking forward to only having to
> replace the Server and not have to worry about the clients.
>
>
>
> Bruce Butler
>
> IT Manager
>
> Knappe & Koester, Inc.
>
> _____
>
> From: vantage@yahoogroups <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> .com
<mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:vantage@yahoogroups <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> .com
<mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> ] On
Behalf
> Of j2v1f
> Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 3:34 PM
> To: vantage@yahoogroups <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> .com
<mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [Vantage] Re: GB Backbone and Performance Increase?
>
>
>
> Thanks for the input. I've been contemplating moving some of my
> workstations over to Terminal Server as oppose to buying new
> workstations. The unfortunate thing is determining the cost savings
> on workstations over the cost of a server platform/TS CALs that would
> take the workstations place. Plus the cost for each Thin Client
> workstation. As it is, we only have a few workstations on or near the
> floor that would benefit moving over to TS.
>
> Additionally, we have approximately 30 workstations that are 750 Mhz
> to 950 Mhz that need replacing. Approximately three can be cut over
> to TS. Talk about a project nightmare.
>
> --- In vantage@yahoogroups <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> .com
<mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> ,
> "Gitzlaff, Christopher"
> <cgitzlaff@> wrote:
> >
> > Vantage 6.1: I don't have any formal data on the performance
> difference,
> > but there is a noticeable improvement going from 100Mb to 1GB. We
have
> > a terminal server on the same switch that Vantage is on (gigabit
> switch)
> > - both have gigabit Ethernet network cards. Vantage definitely loads
> > faster on the Terminal server than our standard workstations
(100Mb).
> > It is hard to say whether it runs faster once a user is logged in
(6.1
> > is pretty fast after getting logged in), but I would say there is
some
> > improvement.
> >
> >
> > Chris Gitzlaff
> > Major Industries
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: j2v1f [mailto:j2v1f@]
> > Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 9:59 AM
> > To: vantage@yahoogroups <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> .com
<mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Subject: [Vantage] GB Backbone and Performance Increase?
> >
> >
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > I was wondering if anyone has seen any major performance increase
when
> > going from 10/100 to 10/100/1000. I am currently putting a proposal
> > together and would like to see if there have been any notable
changes
> > in performance for those of you who have gone in this direction. I
am
> > putting together a proposal and there are many things that I would
> > like to have on the "wish" list but am limited by financial
> constraints.
> >
> >
> > Is it worth the upgrade? Any help would be appreciated.
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Joe
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Hello,

I was wondering if anyone has seen any major performance increase when
going from 10/100 to 10/100/1000. I am currently putting a proposal
together and would like to see if there have been any notable changes
in performance for those of you who have gone in this direction. I am
putting together a proposal and there are many things that I would
like to have on the "wish" list but am limited by financial constraints.

Is it worth the upgrade? Any help would be appreciated.

Best,

Joe
6.1 perspective...only peformance increase I saw was in backup time for data on other servers that are also on the Gb backbone. Setup is 1Gb NICs on all the servers and all attached to one managed 1Gb 24-port switch. Other swtiches on network attached with one 1Gb uplink port to the 1Gb backbone switch but most end runs to users still are at 100Mb. No difference in Vantage performance...even on my own PC with 10/100/1000 NIC directly on the 1Gb backbone switch. I have been told by Epicor 8.0 is optimized for lower speed connection anyway (direct VPN is supposed to work better they say) so it might make even less difference. But nightly backup time between other servers and the one with the tape drives was reduced by a couple hours.

FIWI - I still plan to slowly upgrade all switches to 100/1000 and since all PC NICs are now 10/100/1000 some users with heavy file transfer (CAD files, etc...) will benefit eventually. The trend is always in favor of "more is better" anyway, especially as prices come down. 1Gb is getting to be pretty standard.
-Todd C.


-----Original Message-----
From: vantage@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of j2v1f
Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 9:59 AM
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Vantage] GB Backbone and Performance Increase?



Hello,

I was wondering if anyone has seen any major performance increase when
going from 10/100 to 10/100/1000. I am currently putting a proposal
together and would like to see if there have been any notable changes
in performance for those of you who have gone in this direction. I am
putting together a proposal and there are many things that I would
like to have on the "wish" list but am limited by financial constraints.

Is it worth the upgrade? Any help would be appreciated.

Best,

Joe







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Vantage 6.1: I don't have any formal data on the performance difference,
but there is a noticeable improvement going from 100Mb to 1GB. We have
a terminal server on the same switch that Vantage is on (gigabit switch)
- both have gigabit Ethernet network cards. Vantage definitely loads
faster on the Terminal server than our standard workstations (100Mb).
It is hard to say whether it runs faster once a user is logged in (6.1
is pretty fast after getting logged in), but I would say there is some
improvement.


Chris Gitzlaff
Major Industries

-----Original Message-----
From: j2v1f [mailto:j2v1f@...]
Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 9:59 AM
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Vantage] GB Backbone and Performance Increase?



Hello,

I was wondering if anyone has seen any major performance increase when
going from 10/100 to 10/100/1000. I am currently putting a proposal
together and would like to see if there have been any notable changes
in performance for those of you who have gone in this direction. I am
putting together a proposal and there are many things that I would
like to have on the "wish" list but am limited by financial constraints.


Is it worth the upgrade? Any help would be appreciated.

Best,

Joe








[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
At 10:59 AM 1/11/2007, you wrote:
>I was wondering if anyone has seen any major performance increase when
>going from 10/100 to 10/100/1000. I am currently putting a proposal

Was wondering the same thing myself. 2/3 of the machines here have
gigabit, even back to the Dell Optiplexes purchased 4 years ago. So
I just bought a Dell 2724 web-managed gigabit switch and Intel NICs
for the slower machines.

I'm a little disappointed to find we only get around 33MB/sec between
servers and 19-25MB/sec to desktops. The servers are FreeBSD unix
boxes, and can hit 50 to 60 MB/sec from disk to /dev/null on
multi-gig files (too big to cache), so I figure that's a good
indicator of raw disk read speed. The 100Base-T stuff would easily
do 10-11MB/sec.

I guess I shouldn't complain, but I thought we might see more than
that. We don't run any apps that would benefit directly; was just
looking for more speed on backups and other large transfers.

-Wayne Cox
Twenty Three, Inc. - Information Technology Consulting
828-685-2338
You must remember network speed, or bandwidth, is measured in Mbps (megabits
per second) and not MBps (megabytes per second). So that means that on a 100
Mbps network translates to 12.5 MBps. And 1000 Mbps translates to 125 MBps.
Of course then you have overhead (ip address, Mac Address, error checking,
etc...) for each packet traveling across the network so even the 12.5 or 125
MBps is not reality but hypothetical. Then there is latency in the switch or
switches you are using.

Scott Litzau, MCP
Olympus Flag & Banner
Information Systems Manager
scott.litzau@...
P: 414-365-9732
F: 414-355-1931


-----Original Message-----
From: vantage@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
wmc20@...
Sent: Friday, January 12, 2007 11:15 PM
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Vantage] GB Backbone and Performance Increase?


At 10:59 AM 1/11/2007, you wrote:
>I was wondering if anyone has seen any major performance increase when
>going from 10/100 to 10/100/1000. I am currently putting a proposal

Was wondering the same thing myself. 2/3 of the machines here have
gigabit, even back to the Dell Optiplexes purchased 4 years ago. So
I just bought a Dell 2724 web-managed gigabit switch and Intel NICs
for the slower machines.

I'm a little disappointed to find we only get around 33MB/sec between
servers and 19-25MB/sec to desktops. The servers are FreeBSD unix
boxes, and can hit 50 to 60 MB/sec from disk to /dev/null on
multi-gig files (too big to cache), so I figure that's a good
indicator of raw disk read speed. The 100Base-T stuff would easily
do 10-11MB/sec.

I guess I shouldn't complain, but I thought we might see more than
that. We don't run any apps that would benefit directly; was just
looking for more speed on backups and other large transfers.

-Wayne Cox
Twenty Three, Inc. - Information Technology Consulting
828-685-2338




Useful links for the Yahoo!Groups Vantage Board are: ( Note: You must have
already linked your email address to a yahoo id to enable access. )
(1) To access the Files Section of our Yahoo!Group for Report Builder and
Crystal Reports and other 'goodies', please goto:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vantage/files/.
(2) To search through old msg's goto:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vantage/messages
(3) To view links to Vendors that provide Vantage services goto:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vantage/links
Yahoo! Groups Links
Thanks for the input. I've been contemplating moving some of my
workstations over to Terminal Server as oppose to buying new
workstations. The unfortunate thing is determining the cost savings
on workstations over the cost of a server platform/TS CALs that would
take the workstations place. Plus the cost for each Thin Client
workstation. As it is, we only have a few workstations on or near the
floor that would benefit moving over to TS.

Additionally, we have approximately 30 workstations that are 750 Mhz
to 950 Mhz that need replacing. Approximately three can be cut over
to TS. Talk about a project nightmare.

--- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, "Gitzlaff, Christopher"
<cgitzlaff@...> wrote:
>
> Vantage 6.1: I don't have any formal data on the performance difference,
> but there is a noticeable improvement going from 100Mb to 1GB. We have
> a terminal server on the same switch that Vantage is on (gigabit switch)
> - both have gigabit Ethernet network cards. Vantage definitely loads
> faster on the Terminal server than our standard workstations (100Mb).
> It is hard to say whether it runs faster once a user is logged in (6.1
> is pretty fast after getting logged in), but I would say there is some
> improvement.
>
>
> Chris Gitzlaff
> Major Industries
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: j2v1f [mailto:j2v1f@...]
> Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 9:59 AM
> To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Vantage] GB Backbone and Performance Increase?
>
>
>
> Hello,
>
> I was wondering if anyone has seen any major performance increase when
> going from 10/100 to 10/100/1000. I am currently putting a proposal
> together and would like to see if there have been any notable changes
> in performance for those of you who have gone in this direction. I am
> putting together a proposal and there are many things that I would
> like to have on the "wish" list but am limited by financial constraints.
>
>
> Is it worth the upgrade? Any help would be appreciated.
>
> Best,
>
> Joe
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
By, using plain Terminal Server there will be an immediate cost savings.
We chose to use Citrix & Wyse thin clients, and found the cost / client
is about break even with purchasing individual PCs. Where we will gain,
is in the next major upgrade. We are looking forward to only having to
replace the Server and not have to worry about the clients.



Bruce Butler

IT Manager

Knappe & Koester, Inc.

_____

From: vantage@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of j2v1f
Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 3:34 PM
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Vantage] Re: GB Backbone and Performance Increase?



Thanks for the input. I've been contemplating moving some of my
workstations over to Terminal Server as oppose to buying new
workstations. The unfortunate thing is determining the cost savings
on workstations over the cost of a server platform/TS CALs that would
take the workstations place. Plus the cost for each Thin Client
workstation. As it is, we only have a few workstations on or near the
floor that would benefit moving over to TS.

Additionally, we have approximately 30 workstations that are 750 Mhz
to 950 Mhz that need replacing. Approximately three can be cut over
to TS. Talk about a project nightmare.

--- In vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> ,
"Gitzlaff, Christopher"
<cgitzlaff@...> wrote:
>
> Vantage 6.1: I don't have any formal data on the performance
difference,
> but there is a noticeable improvement going from 100Mb to 1GB. We have
> a terminal server on the same switch that Vantage is on (gigabit
switch)
> - both have gigabit Ethernet network cards. Vantage definitely loads
> faster on the Terminal server than our standard workstations (100Mb).
> It is hard to say whether it runs faster once a user is logged in (6.1
> is pretty fast after getting logged in), but I would say there is some
> improvement.
>
>
> Chris Gitzlaff
> Major Industries
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: j2v1f [mailto:j2v1f@...]
> Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 9:59 AM
> To: vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [Vantage] GB Backbone and Performance Increase?
>
>
>
> Hello,
>
> I was wondering if anyone has seen any major performance increase when
> going from 10/100 to 10/100/1000. I am currently putting a proposal
> together and would like to see if there have been any notable changes
> in performance for those of you who have gone in this direction. I am
> putting together a proposal and there are many things that I would
> like to have on the "wish" list but am limited by financial
constraints.
>
>
> Is it worth the upgrade? Any help would be appreciated.
>
> Best,
>
> Joe
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Do you have a recommended Thin Client platform? There are many
variations with a variety of different possible peripheral attachments
should we go barcode in the future. Any advice would be appreciated.

Thanks,

Joe

--- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, "Bruce Butler" <bbutler@...> wrote:
>
> By, using plain Terminal Server there will be an immediate cost savings.
> We chose to use Citrix & Wyse thin clients, and found the cost / client
> is about break even with purchasing individual PCs. Where we will gain,
> is in the next major upgrade. We are looking forward to only having to
> replace the Server and not have to worry about the clients.
>
>
>
> Bruce Butler
>
> IT Manager
>
> Knappe & Koester, Inc.
>
> _____
>
> From: vantage@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
> Of j2v1f
> Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 3:34 PM
> To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Vantage] Re: GB Backbone and Performance Increase?
>
>
>
> Thanks for the input. I've been contemplating moving some of my
> workstations over to Terminal Server as oppose to buying new
> workstations. The unfortunate thing is determining the cost savings
> on workstations over the cost of a server platform/TS CALs that would
> take the workstations place. Plus the cost for each Thin Client
> workstation. As it is, we only have a few workstations on or near the
> floor that would benefit moving over to TS.
>
> Additionally, we have approximately 30 workstations that are 750 Mhz
> to 950 Mhz that need replacing. Approximately three can be cut over
> to TS. Talk about a project nightmare.
>
> --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> ,
> "Gitzlaff, Christopher"
> <cgitzlaff@> wrote:
> >
> > Vantage 6.1: I don't have any formal data on the performance
> difference,
> > but there is a noticeable improvement going from 100Mb to 1GB. We have
> > a terminal server on the same switch that Vantage is on (gigabit
> switch)
> > - both have gigabit Ethernet network cards. Vantage definitely loads
> > faster on the Terminal server than our standard workstations (100Mb).
> > It is hard to say whether it runs faster once a user is logged in (6.1
> > is pretty fast after getting logged in), but I would say there is some
> > improvement.
> >
> >
> > Chris Gitzlaff
> > Major Industries
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: j2v1f [mailto:j2v1f@]
> > Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 9:59 AM
> > To: vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Subject: [Vantage] GB Backbone and Performance Increase?
> >
> >
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > I was wondering if anyone has seen any major performance increase when
> > going from 10/100 to 10/100/1000. I am currently putting a proposal
> > together and would like to see if there have been any notable changes
> > in performance for those of you who have gone in this direction. I am
> > putting together a proposal and there are many things that I would
> > like to have on the "wish" list but am limited by financial
> constraints.
> >
> >
> > Is it worth the upgrade? Any help would be appreciated.
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Joe
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
It has been successful for us. Here are some bullet points;



Thin Clients;

- Great in a machine shop environment - no moving
parts (fans etc..)

- We use WYSE 1200 LEs for shop floor scanning.

- We use WYSE S30s for desktop replacement.

- Breakdowns are a cinch. Replace with another
box, start and go.

- With FTP any users is able to power up a 1200LE
system, type in a username (no password), and Data Collection auto
launches. Much better than the effort required for non-technical people
to get workstation up.



I chose WYSE mainly due to name recognition. Since this was a risk at
the time, I wanted to go with a reputable hardware platform. I believe
it was very successful. I get silly complaints like "I don't have
solitaire anymore." If deemed necessary, this could be added.



Terminal services / Citrix

- I would recommend it for only those office type
users.

- It is definitely not the solution for CAD/CAM
users as they need local horsepower for video & RAM.

- Citrix enabled us to use our antiquated desktops,
and 8.03 looks and feels like any other application running locally.

- Citrix virtually eliminates any network printing
headaches. I believe this is also handled well by Win 2K3.



Enabling our operators to get a scanning station to work was a huge
contributor to our 99% rate of shop floor scanning (94% rate of direct
labor scanning).





Bruce Butler

IT Manager

Knappe & Koester, Inc.

_____

From: vantage@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of j2v1f
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 8:55 AM
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Vantage] Re: GB Backbone and Performance Increase?



Do you have a recommended Thin Client platform? There are many
variations with a variety of different possible peripheral attachments
should we go barcode in the future. Any advice would be appreciated.

Thanks,

Joe

--- In vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> ,
"Bruce Butler" <bbutler@...> wrote:
>
> By, using plain Terminal Server there will be an immediate cost
savings.
> We chose to use Citrix & Wyse thin clients, and found the cost /
client
> is about break even with purchasing individual PCs. Where we will
gain,
> is in the next major upgrade. We are looking forward to only having to
> replace the Server and not have to worry about the clients.
>
>
>
> Bruce Butler
>
> IT Manager
>
> Knappe & Koester, Inc.
>
> _____
>
> From: vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> ] On
Behalf
> Of j2v1f
> Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 3:34 PM
> To: vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [Vantage] Re: GB Backbone and Performance Increase?
>
>
>
> Thanks for the input. I've been contemplating moving some of my
> workstations over to Terminal Server as oppose to buying new
> workstations. The unfortunate thing is determining the cost savings
> on workstations over the cost of a server platform/TS CALs that would
> take the workstations place. Plus the cost for each Thin Client
> workstation. As it is, we only have a few workstations on or near the
> floor that would benefit moving over to TS.
>
> Additionally, we have approximately 30 workstations that are 750 Mhz
> to 950 Mhz that need replacing. Approximately three can be cut over
> to TS. Talk about a project nightmare.
>
> --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> ,
> "Gitzlaff, Christopher"
> <cgitzlaff@> wrote:
> >
> > Vantage 6.1: I don't have any formal data on the performance
> difference,
> > but there is a noticeable improvement going from 100Mb to 1GB. We
have
> > a terminal server on the same switch that Vantage is on (gigabit
> switch)
> > - both have gigabit Ethernet network cards. Vantage definitely loads
> > faster on the Terminal server than our standard workstations
(100Mb).
> > It is hard to say whether it runs faster once a user is logged in
(6.1
> > is pretty fast after getting logged in), but I would say there is
some
> > improvement.
> >
> >
> > Chris Gitzlaff
> > Major Industries
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: j2v1f [mailto:j2v1f@]
> > Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 9:59 AM
> > To: vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Subject: [Vantage] GB Backbone and Performance Increase?
> >
> >
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > I was wondering if anyone has seen any major performance increase
when
> > going from 10/100 to 10/100/1000. I am currently putting a proposal
> > together and would like to see if there have been any notable
changes
> > in performance for those of you who have gone in this direction. I
am
> > putting together a proposal and there are many things that I would
> > like to have on the "wish" list but am limited by financial
> constraints.
> >
> >
> > Is it worth the upgrade? Any help would be appreciated.
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Joe
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Thanks for the info!! I'll definitely take your detailed notes into consideration when I put together my proposal! Vantage Support sent me information that was mediocre at best.

Bruce Butler <bbutler@...> wrote: It has been successful for us. Here are some bullet points;

Thin Clients;

- Great in a machine shop environment - no moving
parts (fans etc..)

- We use WYSE 1200 LEs for shop floor scanning.

- We use WYSE S30s for desktop replacement.

- Breakdowns are a cinch. Replace with another
box, start and go.

- With FTP any users is able to power up a 1200LE
system, type in a username (no password), and Data Collection auto
launches. Much better than the effort required for non-technical people
to get workstation up.

I chose WYSE mainly due to name recognition. Since this was a risk at
the time, I wanted to go with a reputable hardware platform. I believe
it was very successful. I get silly complaints like "I don't have
solitaire anymore." If deemed necessary, this could be added.

Terminal services / Citrix

- I would recommend it for only those office type
users.

- It is definitely not the solution for CAD/CAM
users as they need local horsepower for video & RAM.

- Citrix enabled us to use our antiquated desktops,
and 8.03 looks and feels like any other application running locally.

- Citrix virtually eliminates any network printing
headaches. I believe this is also handled well by Win 2K3.

Enabling our operators to get a scanning station to work was a huge
contributor to our 99% rate of shop floor scanning (94% rate of direct
labor scanning).

Bruce Butler

IT Manager

Knappe & Koester, Inc.

_____

From: vantage@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of j2v1f
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 8:55 AM
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Vantage] Re: GB Backbone and Performance Increase?

Do you have a recommended Thin Client platform? There are many
variations with a variety of different possible peripheral attachments
should we go barcode in the future. Any advice would be appreciated.

Thanks,

Joe

--- In vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> ,
"Bruce Butler" <bbutler@...> wrote:
>
> By, using plain Terminal Server there will be an immediate cost
savings.
> We chose to use Citrix & Wyse thin clients, and found the cost /
client
> is about break even with purchasing individual PCs. Where we will
gain,
> is in the next major upgrade. We are looking forward to only having to
> replace the Server and not have to worry about the clients.
>
>
>
> Bruce Butler
>
> IT Manager
>
> Knappe & Koester, Inc.
>
> _____
>
> From: vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> ] On
Behalf
> Of j2v1f
> Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 3:34 PM
> To: vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [Vantage] Re: GB Backbone and Performance Increase?
>
>
>
> Thanks for the input. I've been contemplating moving some of my
> workstations over to Terminal Server as oppose to buying new
> workstations. The unfortunate thing is determining the cost savings
> on workstations over the cost of a server platform/TS CALs that would
> take the workstations place. Plus the cost for each Thin Client
> workstation. As it is, we only have a few workstations on or near the
> floor that would benefit moving over to TS.
>
> Additionally, we have approximately 30 workstations that are 750 Mhz
> to 950 Mhz that need replacing. Approximately three can be cut over
> to TS. Talk about a project nightmare.
>
> --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> ,
> "Gitzlaff, Christopher"
> <cgitzlaff@> wrote:
> >
> > Vantage 6.1: I don't have any formal data on the performance
> difference,
> > but there is a noticeable improvement going from 100Mb to 1GB. We
have
> > a terminal server on the same switch that Vantage is on (gigabit
> switch)
> > - both have gigabit Ethernet network cards. Vantage definitely loads
> > faster on the Terminal server than our standard workstations
(100Mb).
> > It is hard to say whether it runs faster once a user is logged in
(6.1
> > is pretty fast after getting logged in), but I would say there is
some
> > improvement.
> >
> >
> > Chris Gitzlaff
> > Major Industries
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: j2v1f [mailto:j2v1f@]
> > Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 9:59 AM
> > To: vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Subject: [Vantage] GB Backbone and Performance Increase?
> >
> >
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > I was wondering if anyone has seen any major performance increase
when
> > going from 10/100 to 10/100/1000. I am currently putting a proposal
> > together and would like to see if there have been any notable
changes
> > in performance for those of you who have gone in this direction. I
am
> > putting together a proposal and there are many things that I would
> > like to have on the "wish" list but am limited by financial
> constraints.
> >
> >
> > Is it worth the upgrade? Any help would be appreciated.
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Joe
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






---------------------------------
Check out the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta - Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]