<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 TRANSITIONAL//EN"> <HTML> <HEAD> <META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; CHARSET=UTF-8"> <META NAME="GENERATOR" CONTENT="GtkHTML/3.12.1"> </HEAD> <BODY> "The only down side is power consumption as compared to real thin clients." I think there are other downsides: <UL> <LI>capital cost per seat is almost $100 more than a fanless thin client like NTAVO 6040 <LI>there will be power supply and cpu fans wearing out and making noise <LI>power consumption will likely be double or triple that of compact thin client <LI>the network has to load 100 megabytes or so into each client at the start of classes as compared to a thin client loading only a few. Caching may help from a warm login but that means you have to leave the things running, increasing the energy consumption again. </UL> Still it is a neat solution if you are going to do lots of multimedia or heavy CPU load. I would only use it in a multimedia development lab. All of my classroom and lab experiences with the curriculums I have do not need it. I think most of the downsides would be mitigated with a slightly more powerful processor and Multi-seat X. Then, the power is averaged over 5-10 users. One upside not listed is that the server becomes a straight file server so it might be able to service more clients this way. I still think straight LTSP is the best solution in most cases. I could see one such client per classroom and possibly a bunch in a multimedia lab. Robert Pogson <TABLE CELLSPACING="0" CELLPADDING="0" WIDTH="100%"> <TR> <TD> <PRE> -- A problem is an opportunity. </PRE> </TD> </TR> </TABLE> </BODY> </HTML>