At 11:06 AM 1/7/01 -0600, you wrote:

>The "old" definition of "Dumb terminal" could vary from
>an IBM 3270 terminal device (for "IBM mainframe") to
>any of a number of ascii terminal devices from myriad
>manufacturers (i.e. Lear Siegler ADM series, DEC VT52,
>VT100, VT220/320 etc).
>
>The "new" definition might conceivably apply to any
>number of "thin client" devices.
>
>I think you need to get more info from your client.
>What did they have in mind when they requested
>"dumb terminals"? Do they presently have
>"dumb terminals" configured on their systems?
>If not, why might they have felt that "dumb terminals"
>would be practical/cost-effective, etc.?


Hi David...

I think my clients "vision" of "dumb terminal" is indeed, the "old"
definition you referred to. They run a photography business, not
computerized as of yet, although they have one at home that they keep their
financial records on. In talking with them, I feel they are wishing to get
into the "vision" they have seen depicted in movies or at other
"old-school" depictions of the computerized work place... one "mainframe"
unit with several screens and keyboards scattered about the workplace to
enter information into the main unit. I believe they are using this
outdated vision to go with. I will be meeting with them early this week,
and will explain to them that getting 2-3 inexpensive complete systems and
network them together with say, Access or even Outlook, would be more cost
effective than what they are thinking.

Volkard Linke

         PCBUILD maintains hundreds of useful files for download
                     visit our download web page at:
                     http://nospin.com/pc/files.html