Wyse's entry into the CE Windows-based terminal market is a solid but somewhat underpowered product. Based on a 486-class AMD processor, the Winterm 3315SE turned in performance numbers that were somewhat disappointing. And it wasn't a matter of misleading benchmark tests. During testing, scrolling through a 20-page Word document took nearly twice as long with the Winterm as it did with the ThinSTAR. We're not absolutely certain whether Wyse can tune this unit to improve performance; we didn't see much difference in performance with the latest software upgrade we applied at the end of the testing schedule. In the long run, its reliance on an x86 hardware architecture will probably let the vendor improve performance without dramatically increasing the price.

Speaking of software upgrades, Wyse's came to us on PC Card flash memory. While the existence of a PC Card slot provides some flexibility, we would have preferred to have been able to simply download a new version of the OS and apply it automatically, as we did with the ThinSTAR. Wyse understands the importance of thin-client management, and it recently announced a comprehensive management application suite for its terminal product line.

While we tested Wyse's modular upright product, the same technology is available in a form that integrates all CPU and I/O functions into the monitor housing. While such an approach is not quite as flexible as a component-oriented product, we think it is the way to go for many organizations wishing to minimize desktop clutter. If it addresses the performance issues, Wyse can reassert its position as market leader.

Send your comments on this article to Dave Molta at dmolta@nwc.com.

Windows-Based Terminals in Perspective
Windows-based terminals seem to have been delivered a bit before their time, though by no fault of the terminal vendors. Seeking to compete in a market that has been--until now--primarily focused on the success of Citrix's WinFrame, these products currently rely on a rough-around-the-edges version of Microsoft Corp.'s Windows CE operating system. As a result, product differentiation becomes the vendor's greatest challenge. But for now, these products are just getting off the ground.

Large-scale deployment is not the order of the day for these terminals. Factors like performance, price and a lack of substantial management tools keep these products from reaching their full potential. Vendors also attribute functional deficiencies to the immaturity of the current CE version. Neoware Systems and Boundless Technologies note CE's lack of a mechanism for securing client configuration changes--a basic thin-client capability that each vendor says it will add to its product before shipping.

The best of the bunch was NCD's ThinSTAR200, which we laud for its noteworthy performance and features at a reasonable price.

Most network budgets can't accommodate such pricey machines, especially since the machines sacrifice performance. Vendors can expect to hear the plea to cut prices to less than $500. And in terms of performance, again it's a game of quid pro quo: If IT managers are seeking enhanced manageability, they can expect compromised performance.

Our prediction? Once CE has become more refined, we'll expect Windows-based terminals to be gracing the networks of organizations large and small.