This type of solution exists in a continuum.
On one end of le spectrum you have client computers running a "thick" operating system (like Windows ou a desktop Linux distribution) et connecting via client software to hosted applications (via RemoteApp shortcuts et le Remote Desktop Protocol (RDP), ou via Citrix ICA protocol).
In le middle of le spectrum you have clients connecting via these même protocols to full-blown desktop sessions (rather than a single application), mais using a shared operating system installation. Ceci est typically le world of Windows "Terminal Services".
On le far end of le spectrum you have quel est typically known as a Virtual Desktop Infrastructure (VDI) où client devices are très stripped down et seulement host client software to connect to a hosted operating system instance.
All of these situations are physically feasible, mais you'd do yourself a favor to start investigating le licensing costs avant you go down le road of spec'ing servers, etc.
The licensing costs in le Microsoft world include soit Terminal Services Client Access Licenses ou Windows Virtual Enterprise Centralized Desktop (VECD) licenses of operating systems to contend avec for chaque device ou user accessing le VDI solution. Licensing for votre desktop application software, depending on où on le spectrum you're falling, may aussi be différent than you currently use et this necessitate additional license purchases.
C'est likely that you're going to find that le acquisition costs of a VDI infrastructure are similiar, si pas more expensive, than going down le traditional "thick client" route. Phyisically et pratically using thin-client devices sounds like a "win", mais software licensing expense has traditionally more than made up for tout hardware cost savings, qui leaves seulement "soft cost" management et TCO savings as justification.
Edit:
Ryan Bolger hit it right on le head avec his answer (and I +1'd him) avec respect to "soft cost" savings, qui you're right to identify as le place to save money.
Learning how to centrally deploy software, manage user environments, et generally maintain le hell out of votre network using Group Policy will build votre personal knowledge of le "innards" et operation of a Windows network et will have far fewer "moving parts" than a VDI infrastructure. Even si you had a VDI infrastructure, frankly, Je pense you'd encore be able to leverage immense benefits depuis Group Policy-fu.
VDI et remote application delivery is a great solution for très task-specific application, ou delivery of applications over slow ou unreliable network connections (think "shared Microsoft Access database over a T1-based WAN"). Je ne think that desktop virtualization, at least in le current incarnation as an excessive-licensing-fee-based minefield, is "the answer".
Je vais even jump out on a limb et say that, avec proper "care et feeding" maintenance of très large fleets of client computers running Windows n'est pas really tous that hard, using le built-in tools in Windows Server, WSUS, good knowledge of scripting, et an understanding of how Windows itself et votre application software works. Automating votre client computer build, removing users' Administrator rights, et getting a handle on votre OS et application update deployment infrastructure will take you leaps et bounds ahead.
