Slashdot Mirror
Gmail Users Get A Storage Boost [updated]
Faies writes "As reported by ZDNet: Not to be outdone by Lycos, Google just upped its 1,000 megabyte accounts to 1,000,000 MB. I just recently checked my inbox, and the number at the bottom confirms this. "You are currently using 12 MB (0%) of your 1000000 MB." That's more than my hard drive...and plus, Google clearly wants to hold the title of being best, so who knows what will happen if someone else tries to compete with a terabyte." Now how much would you pay? Update: 05/19 13:34 GMT by T : Several comments to this thread indicate that the listed mailbox size limit has returned to the previous 1GB level, so this apparent change may be nothing more than the result of a misplaced decimal point.
Strange.
I still see 1GB in my account, which it still says in the FAQ.
The faq also says a maximum of 10MB per message.
After clicking on 'Compose Mail,' just click on 'Attach a file.' At that point, you'll be able to browse the files on your computer and add your attachment. Once you've selected a file to attach, click the 'Open' button and that file will be added to your message. You will see the path of your file listed just below the subject field. If you'd like to get rid of the attachment, just click 'remove.' With Gmail, you can send and receive messages with a maximum total size of 10MB.
If you follow the links in the article to the blog pages who first reported it, you will see that everyone's limit has went back to 1GB.
b yte-1000-gb-of-gmail-storage
Remember its still in testing, i think this was a one off bug.
www.intelliot.com/blog/archives/2004/05/18/1-tera
For the price they want, I could still run my own server. It costs probably 100 a year for a server that can hold easily more than One Gigabyte in email\storage. There is no practical use for the account anyway that there isn't already a cheaper solution for.
While I haven't seen additional confirmation either way, Mike Masnick at Techdirt checked with a friend at Google who stated the the apparent increase to 1TB was a mistake, not a storage upgrade.
* * *
It is a dada story -- it has no moral.
Not long after I submitted this article, my account (and those of 4 others I know) reverted back to 1,000 MB. Since the article does mention that Google had no official comment, it's quite possible that this was all a fluke. I had observed the changes earlier in the evening, but waited to see if there was official confirmation from a large new source (i.e. ZDnet) before thinking this was for reals. As it turns out, it may not have been so.
For reference, my friends and I noticed the size reductions around 1:45 AM PST. They did not occur all at once; mine was one of the last ones to get set to 1,000 MB. Another small detail is that not all gmail accounts I knew of got set to a terabyte- there was one user who was feeling quite left out in the gigabyte pool.
Even though everybody seems to be talking about Lycos offering 1GB, I've seen very few people mention that Lycos' offer is not free.
To get the 1GB account you will need to cough up 3.49GBP a month.
Still a good offer though, if you don't have the option of running your own server, but definately not as good as Google's free version.
In God We Trust, Others We Monitor
The article mentions that so far only a few users are testing the 1,000,000 MB limit.
It never hurts to read the actual article.
Data backup, with a 1 gig of storage available Gmail makes for an excellent offsite backup. I even found a script to help automate the process
it would take me almost a year of receiving email (24x7) or 2.5 year of sending email to reach 1 Tb.
Net sa best, mar it koe minder
I recall reading that gmail doesnt give you 1Gb or 1Tb of disk space, but compresses your data so it feels like you have that much disk space, and because text compresses rather well, you can stick 1Gb of text into a relitively tiny space.
I'm not sure where you read this, but I just mailed my gmail account a ~10 Mb zip file. I had under 1 Mb of mail currently up there and after receiving the zipped file the amount of used disk space reported to me was 11 Mb (or 1% of the 1000 Mb). Now, if you theory was correct my usage should have been reported as much higher (probably something on the order of %15-%25 percent). It wasn't.