[Simon]

OK, I know their track record is terrible, but check this.

And then check this. Their record is a bit better I think.

Anyhow, these people are talking about the possibility of Apple launching a device that could act as a terminal to a normal Mac running 10.3.

Now IF this is actually true it would mean that Apple would have to include the multiple concurrent OS X login sessions feature in 10.3 so many readers (including myself ) have asked for (also on this board).

Actually, the UNIX underspinnings of the OS have already done this since PB (remote ssh login) and remote X11 sessions have also always worked since XFree86 came out for OS X. So the last part of the work Apple has to do is teach Quartz to work in a server/client scheme. It has been mentioned by others on this board that NeXTStep had this feature as well and Apple devs left it out when they ported NS to Darwin/OS X.

All in all it could mean that this feature could be implemented by Apple with a reasonable amount of effort and that they actually are putting it in 10.3 because their new hardware will rely on such capabilities.

I can't wait till I can just switch to another login screen and log in to another OS X session a different user without loging out anymore! Great. And think about being able to do remote OS X logins from one Mac to another without additional Software (like ARD) over broadband or LAN. Awesome.

[Mac Zealot]

Does this mean I can take two monitors, keyboards, and mice and 1 g4 tower and effectively have 2 computers?!?!?!

SAWEET!

[Simon]

Originally posted by Mac Zealot:
Does this mean I can take two monitors, keyboards, and mice and 1 g4 tower and effectively have 2 computers?!?!?!

SAWEET!

No.

First of all you still only have a single CPU, RAM, etc. You would just share the load. Run something that would saturate 100% CPU on each Mac and it will lag both clients since they would "share" the hardware. It is not like two Macs for the price of one.

And secondly, it's not that simple. You would need to have some way of telling your Mac that it has to send the screen data for each user session to a seperate monitor. Under X11 this works with
% set DISPLAY=0:0
but under OS X there is nothing similar (yet). And then your Mac still does not know which keyboard/mouse belongs to which user session. That would also require totally new software.

I'm not saying they couldn't do this, but I doubt they would. After all they earn 75% of their money by selling Macs.

[Geobunny]

Ooh, I wonder if that would leave an opportunity open for Apple to release a "dumb terminal" sort of thing for labs! That would be so cool!

1 XServe + 100 DumXTerms

[sniffer]

This sounds pretty promising. Perfect family solution. One g4 for you, and a terminal dummy for the rest of the family for typing stuff and surfe the net i.e.

BTW: That is sort of two in one depended on what ekstra needs a terminal can fill..

[Jan Van Boghout]

I heard this too, and my source seemed to be fairly certain

[Simon]

Originally posted by Jan Van Boghout:
I heard this too, and my source seemed to be fairly certain

Would you care to elaborate on that...

[absmiths]

I would be happy if my wife could login to check her email without having to log my account all the way out.

A thin client dumb terminal would certainly be nice, but I would want it after the above feature was implemented (even if I bought a dumb terminal I would probably end up having to upgrade the main system because of the strain of running two graphical logins.)

[brainchild2b]

Yes it will have this feature. It features almost exactly the same as the login features provided in Windows XP. You'll like it.

[Simon]

Originally posted by brainchild2b:
Yes it will have this feature. It features almost exactly the same as the login features provided in Windows XP. You'll like it.

God help Apple that it will be implemented in a much better way. If they do it like other UNIX', fine. If they do it like XP... OMG.

[dspaude]

Originally posted by Geobunny:
Ooh, I wonder if that would leave an opportunity open for Apple to release a "dumb terminal" sort of thing for labs! That would be so cool!

1 XServe + 100 DumXTerms

This DumXTerm could be the wireless tablet (as opposed to a box-like CRT of the past). Anyone within proximity to the main unit could have their wireless tablets logged in under different user accounts.

[diamondsw]

By the way, it's no secret Apple wants to offer this. A ways back ther bug tracking system (I think it's called RADAR) was partially open to outside developers, and one of the long-standing ones was to offer multiple instances of Quartz for this very feature. However, it ended up being one of those snaking dependencies - to do multiple instances of Quartz we need support from this, and they need support from them, etc, etc. So it'll come someday (hopefully sooner than later).

[CharlesS]

Originally posted by Geobunny:
Ooh, I wonder if that would leave an opportunity open for Apple to release a "dumb terminal" sort of thing for labs! That would be so cool!

1 XServe + 100 DumXTerms

Isn't this what NetBoot is for?

[JLL]

Originally posted by CharlesS:
Isn't this what NetBoot is for?

A thin client requires a much smaller bandwidth.

[andretan]

Erm, is this what WinXP has?

If so, I've been wanting this! Really nice to have

[mikemako]

Originally posted by Simon:
...If they do it like other UNIX', fine. If they do it like XP... OMG.

you're totally right. I have a great XP-Machine. It has an Athlon XP 2000 chip, 768Mb Memory, clean install of XP Pro. With Windows XP, Microsoft got a lot of things really right; it's a great system.

...but the "fast user switching" is a hack job that does work, but it feels like only barely. The screen flashes and flickers and freezes while switching to another user, among other strange UI anomalies. There are some driver problems, too (EZ-CD Creator is one), but that part isn't Microsoft's fault.

anyway, Apple will make OS X's implementation more elegant.

[Earth Mk. II]

If true, this is a Very Good Thing (tm)

For thin OS X client machines, I can see computer labs loving this.

And XP-style mutiple logins have obvious benefits as well.

I really hope we get both - or at least both in X server.

[JLL]

Originally posted by Earth Mk. II:
If true, this is a Very Good Thing (tm)

For thin OS X client machines, I can see computer labs loving this.

I can see my company loving that.

[Calli46]

Some of you write about thin OS X client as if there were other (thick??) kind of clients. Maybe a network guru could explain to me and a few others what a "thin" client is ?

[pat++]

Now, what would be really sweet :

Have a Quartz thin client software available for Intel (Darwin or even Windows) so that any PC can become a Terminal connected to OS X

[pat++]

Originally posted by Calli46:
Some of you write about thin OS X client as if there were other (thick??) kind of clients. Maybe a network guru could explain to me and a few others what a "thin" client is ?

What we mean by thin client is usually 'dumb'. It's basically capable of displaying a picture on a screen, and that's all. Applications are running on the server. No harddisk, no optical drive, no CPU.

[mitchell_pgh]

I can see the computer ads already.

"Two computers for the price of one!!!" (two kids working on one computer at the same time)

I think Apple would rather loose a few $$'s as compared to loosing a whole market.

[wataru]

Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:
I think Apple would rather loose a few $$'s as compared to loosing a whole market.

Yeah, the market is too loose already.

[ryarber]

This all sounds really great, but let me tell you about my impressions of using a feature like this on Win XP. In XP, you can have simultaneous logged in users like you are speaking of. The problems it causes is in using things such as palm's etc. When I log in under another name, I sometimes get an error message saying the device is already in use by another user.

There are also problems with trying to sync the palm devices. If my wife is logged in under her name and tries to sync her palm with outlook, then all goes well. If my account is active, and she tries to sync, you get an error message and it asks you to change your default sync with outlook. It can get really aggravating.

Also, when you install something on XP and it puts an icon on your desktop automatically (BTW, I really hate it when they do that), it puts icons on the desktops of all the registered users.

There are a lot of problems like this that Apple would need to have worked out before I would actually use it. I put up with it in windows because, well... its windows and you have to resign to the fact that you must put up with a certain amount of nonsense. The mac should just work like I want it to.

[ASIMO]

Originally posted by wataru:
Yeah, the market is too loose already.

People, people, people. If we are going to correct/humiliate someone (I say correct, some say humiliate, whatever), at least do it with humor. Or some semblance thereof.

Now back to the regularly scheduled good vibes surrounding Apple rumors.

[chabig]

Originally posted by wataru:
Yeah, the market is too loose already.

[Brass]

With multiple logins on a single machine, how does the system handle the possibility of having a "suspended" account with unsaved files open, and an active account in which the user chooses to shutdown/restart the machine?

What happens to the unsaved files in the other account? How does Windows XP handle this?

The way I see it, the system would have to do one of the following:

- Dissallow suspension of an account unless all files are saved first

- Dissallow shutdown/restart in an active account if there are unsaved files in another suspended account

- Allow an active account to choose whether to save or discard changes to unsaved files in another suspended account (obvious security nightmare)

[Cincinnatus]

Brass,

Your first point:

- Dissallow suspension of an account unless all files are saved first

takes care of the two issues that follow it:

- Dissallow shutdown/restart in an active account if there are unsaved files in another suspended account

- Allow an active account to choose whether to save or discard changes to unsaved files in another suspended account (obvious security nightmare)

If an account can't be suspended until all files are saved, a suspended account cannot harbor any unsaved documents.

What this doesn't address is the situation where two user are logged in simultaneously - i.e. both accounts are active (one local, one remote). At one level, this is a user administration issue: Only administrators should be able to re-boot a machine (though physical access would trump this via a power switch). On another level, this is one of the classic perils of centrlized computing: Responsible administration. *NIXs handle this in a simple way: You specify a countdown before the shutdown takes place, giving end users a chance to save all of their work. This wouldn't prevent malicious admins from destroying hours of work - but then nothing can. I suppose that you could require all users be logged out before a shutdown/restart - but this might not always work (e.g. while logged in, my account entered a hung state - requireing a restart).

The question: Can Apple protect end users from themselves?

The answer:

Its a paradigm shift for your basic user, who associates physical access with exclusive use of the hardware. A bit of education would be required to retrain the Mac faithful.

/Cincinnatus

[coolmacdude]

Originally posted by CharlesS:
Isn't this what NetBoot is for?

While Netboot can do it, you still have to pay full price for a full featured computer to act as the client. If Apple introduced a dumb terminal, you could buy one Mac and a lot of terminal machines and the cost of setting up a Mac lab would drop significantly.

[theory]

All you guys are assuming apple will
actually do such a thing. MOSR is horribly
unreliable. So I wouldn't get too exited
yet

[Stratus Fear]

Originally posted by mikemako:
The screen flashes and flickers and freezes while switching to another user, among other strange UI anomalies.

This is usually because different users have different display preferences. When the framebuffer has to be re-initialized for a different resolution or bit depth, there's no way to get around it on ANY OS. When the users have the same display settings, this doesn't happen.

[moonmonkey]

Originally posted by Stratus Fear:
This is usually because different users have different display preferences. When the framebuffer has to be re-initialized for a different resolution or bit depth, there's no way to get around it on ANY OS. When the users have the same display settings, this doesn't happen.

This would not happen on OSX, All users always have the same display settings.

[Brass]

Originally posted by Cincinnatus:
Brass,

Your first point:



takes care of the two issues that follow it:



If an account can't be suspended until all files are saved, a suspended account cannot harbor any unsaved documents.

What this doesn't address is the situation where two user are logged in simultaneously - i.e. both accounts are active (one local, one remote). At one level, this is a user administration issue: Only administrators should be able to re-boot a machine (though physical access would trump this via a power switch). On another level, this is one of the classic perils of centrlized computing: Responsible administration. *NIXs handle this in a simple way: You specify a countdown before the shutdown takes place, giving end users a chance to save all of their work. This wouldn't prevent malicious admins from destroying hours of work - but then nothing can. I suppose that you could require all users be logged out before a shutdown/restart - but this might not always work (e.g. while logged in, my account entered a hung state - requireing a restart).

The question: Can Apple protect end users from themselves?

The answer:

Its a paradigm shift for your basic user, who associates physical access with exclusive use of the hardware. A bit of education would be required to retrain the Mac faithful.

/Cincinnatus

So my other question still remains: How does XP handle this?

[Simon]

Originally posted by ryarber:
This all sounds really great, but let me tell you about my impressions of using a feature like this on Win XP. In XP, you can have simultaneous logged in users like you are speaking of. The problems it causes is in using things such as palm's etc. When I log in under another name, I sometimes get an error message saying the device is already in use by another user.

There are also problems...

Guys, please stop being afraid that it would be implemented as bad as MS has. I have seen XP do it and I have seen how poorly it performs, but why should OS X be similar? The systems don't share their kernel nor there core APIs.

On the other hand I use this feature on RedHat Linux machines daily and it works like a charm. I would compare it with a remote X11 session only that I don't have to screw with display settings. In short: It just works!. OS X is a UNIX-like system, why shouldn't we get a similarly efficient and working implementation?

If Apple puts this into 10.3 (and this is a big if I guess) I think they will not rest with some half-assed approach a la XP. Why should they? It's all been done better before several times.

[goose]

Originally posted by Geobunny:
Ooh, I wonder if that would leave an opportunity open for Apple to release a "dumb terminal" sort of thing for labs! That would be so cool!

1 XServe + 100 DumXTerms

I would like to see something down the lines like Sun Microsystems' SunRays. Especially with the use of the smart cards.

[undotwa]

What I want is a proper way to manage sessions. Make it that new sessions can be launched even if the current session is locked (using the keychain menu thingy).

COMMAND 1: Goes to 1st session (startup session)
COMMAND 2-9: Launches new login screen to login.

Apple-Logout to exit a session. Automatically goes back to session used to launch the session. One of those fading messages (like the eject on screen picture) explaining which session you are in. Active sessions for switching closing are in the Apple menu.

And last feature request, a little checkbox in the Login screen to launch a console session. I find typing >console a little cumbersome, and I will like to simply go straight from the login screen to the console.

[Simon]

Originally posted by undotwa:
What I want is a proper way to manage sessions. Make it that new sessions can be launched even if the current session is locked (using the keychain menu thingy).

Don't know if it would make much sense in everyday work to have two sessions for the same account running side by side and I could imagine that you could run into some ugly problems if that is allowed.

COMMAND 1: Goes to 1st session (startup session)
COMMAND 2-9: Launches new login screen to login.

I doubt those are still free and don't get used by all kinds of programs. How about crtl-f1 to ctrl-f12. As soon as you press one of these combos your screen switches to a new login screen and you get that semi-transparent fading icon with a screen and a number inside telling you that this session number x. When you log out it would go back to the session you last came from like you described.

And last feature request, a little checkbox in the Login screen to launch a console session. I find typing >console a little cumbersome, and I will like to simply go straight from the login screen to the console.

I'd prefer them reserving lets say sessions 11 and 12 for this. As soon as you press ctrl-f11 or ctrl-f12 you get the console login by default. Of course the normal login screen will still let you get the console login, but it's easier to just press ctrl-f11 and be right there.

Maybe they could also include a session manager utility that works like a combination of ProcessViewer and VirtualDesktops. A little screen showing you which sessions are active, what user is logged in, what load the session is producing, etc. A little manager and overwiev thing.

Finally, how would they manage actions that are done in one session but immediately affect others. Let's say user joe in session 1 does a shutdown or a reboot. I have no idea what happens under XP, but if I do that with my Linux box the computer will shut down (with an optional time delay) without warning users in other sessions. Now, if Apple does this I'd expect something like as soon as joe says shut down he gets a dialog box telling him that session 2 and (as an example) session 5 are still running and that the computer will shut down when they are terminated. At the same time users in sessions 2 and 5 get a message that user joe in session 1 wants to shut down and that they should save there docs and log out. As soon as they are both logged out the computer shuts down. That's more Apple-like.

[sniffer]

Originally posted by absmiths:
I would be happy if my wife could login to check her email without having to log my account all the way out.

A thin client dumb terminal would certainly be nice, but I would want it after the above feature was implemented (even if I bought a dumb terminal I would probably end up having to upgrade the main system because of the strain of running two graphical logins.)

Theoreticly most of the graphical part might not drain at all. Aqua/quartz doesn't have to be runned of the main computer at all, in thory. Aqua is a standarizes sheld on top of mac os ten. The main computer can focus on the underlying processeses and the terminal can buffer the gui elements, and hardware accellerate it somehow.. If the main computer have to prosess everything, that could lead to a terrible drain on the cpu and the net.

Btw: I saw an article dated from the 10.0.x era way back, explaining this very good, but I don't know where I saw the article.

[PrettyBoyClone]

Originally posted by pat++:
Now, what would be really sweet :

Have a Quartz thin client software available for Intel (Darwin or even Windows) so that any PC can become a Terminal connected to OS X

..Now just imagine if this client was part of Quicktime for windows...

Think trojan!

[Simon]

Originally posted by sniffer:
Theoreticly most of the graphical part might not drain at all. Aqua/quartz doesn't have to be runned of the main computer at all, in thory. Aqua is a standarizes sheld on top of mac os ten. The main computer can focus on the underlying processeses and the terminal can buffer the gui elements, and hardware accellerate it somehow.. If the main computer have to prosess everything, that could lead to a terrible drain on the cpu and the net.

Now, if this works imagine how many little client boxes Apple could sell. Basically all they need to make is a box with a USB plug for a keyboard/mouse, an Ethernet card and a AGP slot for the graphics card.

Wow, one Xserve and a dozen of these = lots of fun.

[Simon]

Originally posted by Simon:
Now, if this works imagine how many little client boxes Apple could sell. Basically all they need to make is a box with a USB plug for a keyboard/mouse, an Ethernet card and a AGP slot for the graphics card.

But now, come to think of it, why in the world should they? Right now nobody but them can build and sell Macs because of the proprietary boot ROM. The only competition is some guy buying Apple replacement boards and selling them in his own box. Not exactly a huge competition.

Now why should they make these thin clients possible? Any company could build the thin client since no proprietary hardware would be needed I suppose. Now instead of my lab buying two iMacs for two secretaries they would just buy one iMac plus one thin client, because they simply don't need the CPU power of two iMacs to run Word twice. So finally it would mean that Apple loses money.

Well, back to the drawing board, why should Apple make thin clients possible if it will steal Mac sales from them?

[LightWaver-67]

Originally posted by Stratus Fear:
This is usually because different users have different display preferences. When the framebuffer has to be re-initialized for a different resolution or bit depth, there's no way to get around it on ANY OS. When the users have the same display settings, this doesn't happen.

Oooohhh... that would be in the "Not-So-Good" category for me. I have a 3-monitor setup and have taken MUCH time to 'position' all of my application palletts from PShop, InDesign, Illustrator, Final Cut Pro, Dreamweaver, etc... in one of my monitors for better screen real-estate management.

It seems like ANY time the resolution is messed-with... even if it is just for a second and the applications are NOT open when I do so... upon relaunch of the apps... they go back to their 'Default' locations on the main screen.

Unless Apple and/or Adobe (the biggest offender) can fix this resolution-switching issue... I would HATE to see different logged-on users have the ability to switch on-the-fly.

*ugh*

[PrettyBoyClone]

Now why should they make these thin clients possible? Any company could build the thin client since no proprietary hardware would be needed I suppose. Now instead of my lab buying two iMacs for two secretaries they would just buy one iMac plus one thin client, because they simply don't need the CPU power of two iMacs to run Word twice. So finally it would mean that Apple loses money.

Well because it would enable them to provide devices at a very low cost. -Not as substitutes for a full computer, but as new class of digital appliances.

Imagine having such a terminal next to your bed at home: clock, music, video, browser, email, a few simple apps, perhaps phone functionality (dare I mention video iChat?).

..Or as a box that mixes with you home a/v setup

..Or as a recipe / phone / timer / browser thingy in the kitchen.

There's plenty of ideas and some limitations to consider, but the most important is price. How cheap could it be? say 9" LCD, Airport, processor, speakers, power supply etc. Get this thing below 300USD, and you'll have a huge hit.

A home terminal like this would seriously add value to any homebased mac running OSX.

This could never replace a full workstation. -Just add multiple entrypoints to an existing one.

Btw: How does this fit with current rumors about tablet and iDevices ?

[hudson1]

I can see how this might be a product concept where the full benefits of multi-processing can be finally realized.

[ryarber]

Originally posted by Brass:
[B... and an active account in which the user chooses to shutdown/restart the machine?

What happens to the unsaved files in the other account? How does Windows XP handle this?

[/B]

The way XP handles the shutdown is that it gives you a message when you choose to logout. The message says that there are other users logged on and your actions may cause them to loose any unsaved work. I don't see why that has to be the case. It looks like they could tell the system to temporarily save their work in a cache file and reopen it in their workspace when the machine reboots and have it running just like it was left. I'm no programmer, but it sounds doable to me. I could see where you would loose clipboards and have trouble using "undo" function after the reboot. May make folks have to rewrite their software to take advantage of it.

Another thing.... It would be cool if you could open another person's protected files by entering their userid and pass without having to switch users during your work. eg. say I was doing something and my wife came in and wanted to check her email. If she could just log in to her email from my account without having to log me off and log herself in first, that would save a few steps and some time. Say the kids were playing a game and I needed to look at my quicken file briefly. You get my drift. Can you do that in Linux?

It would follow, then, that when I wanted to sync my palm, I might be able to do that in my workspace regardless of who is currently the active user on the system. The active user wouldn't even have to know the sync was taking place because they couldn't see it as it is in my workspace.

[absmiths]

I really don't like the dumb terminal concept. As a server administrator I can tell you that even a 4 processor server gets strecthed thin with very little effort. The 1 XServe with 100 dumb terminals would be great for maintenance but terrible for performance. Imagine when class starts, "OK students, everyone turn on your systems and we will go on a field trip and hopefully they will be booted when we return."

Why can't we seem to get distributed computing to take root? A better scenario would be for each client to have ethernet, lots of RAM (that's not THAT expensive), ethernet, USB, a video card and a CPU. It should have enough RAM that swapping is not necessary, and the local CPU should handle most of the local user's needs.

Sure, the cost of the client goes up, but then again you don't need to maintain a 40 CPU server with 256 TB of RAM to run 100 clients effectively.

BTW, the difference between a thin client and a dumb terminal is basically in capabilities. A dumb terminal can only connect to the server and maintain a display and not much else. A thin client, OTOH, is usually characterized by 0 maintenance. It retains processing power and minimal resources (RAM, video, etc), but relies on the server to provide OS and applications.

As an example, if you develop web pages then web browsers are generally considered thin clients since they require no maintenance from you and download what they need when they get there. From your perspective the client is thin even though it executes code (Java/Flash/JavaScript) and is certainly a non-trivial piece of software.

[Coxy]

I don't see why people think that dumb terminals running *Quartz* over the network are a good idea.

A lab full of slow-ass terminals running off the one server isn't going to sell; especially to the education market.

[absmiths]

Originally posted by hudson1:
I can see how this might be a product concept where the full benefits of multi-processing can be finally realized.

Why is that? Mainframes and mini computers have been doing this since the beginning of time (in computer years). There is nothing at all new here except that now consumer OS's might do it.

BTW, if I had a DP machine I would certainly realize the benefits of the extra CPU(s).

BTW^2, The Amiga and the Commodore 64 (among others) did a wonderful job of utilizing mutliple processors tailored for different tasks (As do SUN/SG machines now). I don't understand why this monolithic architecture doesn't just go away (other than the fact that MS and Apple have had difficulty getting it right).

[Stratus Fear]

Originally posted by moonmonkey:
This would not happen on OSX, All users always have the same display settings.

Well, that's fine and dandy, but I'd see it as a drawback that I couldn't have my own display preference

[Stratus Fear]

Originally posted by LightWaver-67:
Oooohhh... that would be in the "Not-So-Good" category for me. I have a 3-monitor setup and have taken MUCH time to 'position' all of my application palletts from PShop, InDesign, Illustrator, Final Cut Pro, Dreamweaver, etc... in one of my monitors for better screen real-estate management.

It seems like ANY time the resolution is messed-with... even if it is just for a second and the applications are NOT open when I do so... upon relaunch of the apps... they go back to their 'Default' locations on the main screen.

Unless Apple and/or Adobe (the biggest offender) can fix this resolution-switching issue... I would HATE to see different logged-on users have the ability to switch on-the-fly.

*ugh*

I don't think this would be a problem...I don't use multiple users on my Mac, but I know in Windows at least, each user's window settings for programs are saved separately of other users. A change in resolution upon a change in user shouldn't change your window settings.