DropBox was our first "cloud" service, mostly because it came with our Galaxy III phones and included 50GB of "bonus" space with the phones. Boy, that was a lot at the time.:)
We still have that space and keep some files there, but we moved on to Google Drive last year and then this past summer, to OneDrive when the 1TB offer came out.
We were still on Office 2010 at the time and I was going to skip 2013, but for $100 a year, I get a complete copy of Office 2013 including Publisher (which I didn't have for 2010, I was using a 2007 copy), and 1TB per user for 5 users.
That was a crazy good deal, so we did that, and now it is unlimited.
The client is fine... Still not great, but my hope is that they figure out that the client does matter and they work to improve it.
Where I live, yes, I get those speeds all the time.
We are fairly heavy users of the Internet. Between watching streaming shows on Amazon Instant Video, downloading games and apps on the PS3 and iPads, Steam games on the computer, Skype to video chat with family overseas, it works very well all the time.
I also use 6 different cloud services. For simple storage, iCloud, DropBox, Google Drive, and OneDrive. For backup, I use both Crashplan and Backblaze to backup all our computers in the house. I work from home, so I also VPN and remote desktop every day.
With 5 to 7 people using the Internet at the same time, both uploads and downloads, it works perfectly 99% of the time.
That is one reason why I pay extra for the 150/150 plan, gives me 18 megabytes up and down, and I really do see the full speed. It used to be 150 down, 65 up, but they just gave us a free upgrade to 150/150 this month, no complaints...
Other than perhaps the cost, but it is what it is... $105 a month for that speed...
But seriously, it'll be "unlimited" until disk space becomes an issue. Which is to say, it's unlimited until it isn't.
Fair point... Of course, with 8TB and 10TB drives starting to ship and larger tape solutions coming online, it is quite possible that the storage they can hold will continue to grow as fast, if not faster, than the demand.
Will people upload tons right away? Sure... but I don't think it will keep up from the initial surge, after all, does the average user really produce that much original content?
Home movies are probably the single largest source of "original content" and honestly the past 6 years of HD home video for us is only about half a TB. It is growing at maybe 100GB a year.
As for other "downloaded" content as you put it, don't you think that Microsoft is not just doing a "store once, mark for all" system, where they note that the same large files are being backed up by 10,000 users. They store a single copy and just put a pointer to that copy for everyone.
The move to 2GB will actually be "required", and thus matter, in 3 years.
Just like a lot of apps no longer run on the iPad 1 or 2 due to the lower amount of RAM, app devs aren't going to make apps require 2GB of RAM for awhile, but once enough iPads have it, then it becomes normal.
Do I REALLY have to spell that out on a tech site?
The original iPad is actually now really out of date, but then it was underpowered to start with.:)
It has a single core, 256MB of RAM, and frankly it is so far beyond even an iPad 4, much less an Air or Air 2, that it really is not useful for much beyond e-mail and very light web browsing.
It's not a high-end gaming platform - it certainly has a lot of games, but few of them are graphically demanding.
It is a chicken and egg problem...
If better CPU and GPU never arrive, then better games and applications won't either...
This will prompt software devs to move along in power and advancement, and make everything else out run smoother, while allowing more stuff to run in the background...
It won't happen tomorrow, and frankly we may need 3 more releases for this new power level to become "standard", but it has to start somewhere.
After all, the original iPad had, what... 256MB of RAM? The iPad 2 had 512MB, it wasn't until the iPad 3 that we had 1GB.
The move to 2GB will matter... in about 3 years.:) Or now, when you consider that having multiple web pages open can be a problem in 1GB.
I get the appeal of Linux, but the truth is, the day of the Linux desktop isn't here, isn't coming, and won't be... It had its chance 10 years ago, that ship has sailed...
You pick an apple, I pick an orange... there really is little difference...
So if we weren't using Windows, we'd be using OS/2, or GeOS, or OS X, or something else...
Same difference...
Linux has had 20 years to prove itself, clearly it is not the right solution, or it would have made some traction at this point...
You assume that we must all leave Windows at some point... Why? I don't see anything to push people off their desktops and laptops any time soon. Google has tried with Chrome OS, and that is a nice idea, but it hasn't sold enough to make a dent.
Tablets? Nice toys, great media consumption devices, but they aren't replacing computers, just adding to them.
The Seismic Event would be Newell confirming Half-Life 3... and saying it's coming to Steam OS (Linux) first.
I know that is a popular idea, that if we just had some good games on Linux, people would start to embrace it.
I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but that isn't going to happen.
I don't use Windows because I'm "forced to", I use it because it works well, everything runs on it, it supports just about everything in the PC business, and its cost is so low, it might as well be free.
I have no compelling reason to move to Linux. I have no compelling reason to move anyone else to Linux. It doesn't offer me anything worth the trouble of moving.
------------
Note: I first installed Linux on a 486 back in the 90s, I've tried it a few more times since then. I'm not debating the technical benefits of Linux, they are indeed there. But they don't matter to the average user. Windows is "good enough" and it is missing some of Linux's rough edges.
It should be illegal if most people don't like it.
That alone shouldn't be enough...
After all, if "most people" want to discriminate against a minority group, that should be ok, right?
The idea is that the laws should protect everyone and not just turn into mob rule. Just because 51% of the people vote yes for something doesn't make it right.
We had slavery in the US once, it was "legal". That doesn't make it "right".
Why should it be criminal? You use your knowledge of the marketplace to get the best deal you can. In your example, the business is using its knowledge of the marketplace to get the best deal it can.
If you're suggesting that a business must sell at the same price to everyone, well, that has its own issues. Sounds simple, until you get into all the "what ifs".
If I was walking across an intersection, I would trust a Google SDC far more than someone late for an appointment, driving a Chevy Tahoe with a cellphone in one hand, a Starbucks latte in the other, and two screaming kids in the back seat.
^ This, times ten, times twenty... every day of the week and twice on Sunday...
The fact is, most humans WAY over rate their own abilities and underrate computer's abilities.
If you're reading this, odds are you are NOT as good a driver as you think you are.
some guy at the side of the road madly waving a hand-printed sign that says "BRIDGE IS OUT!"...
The irony is that is the sort of example that people give, but happens so rarely as to be almost not worth bringing up.
The fact is, self-driving cars don't have to be perfect. They only have to be better than humans. Since we kill 40,000 people on the roads every year, give or take, and injure many thousands (if not millions) more...
The truth is, they are already probably "good enough".
Fair enough... And I agree with you, until the loan is actually delinquent, the car should be yours to use peacefully.
So if they are taking action before it is legally delinquent, then that would be wrong.
The point I was trying to make is that 5 minutes AFTER it becomes delinquent, you can take the car. You CANNOT do that with a house. There are all sorts of notices you must send, you have to file with the court, provide time to the owner to catch up, etc. Then you have to file for foreclosure and that is something that the legal system does. If the owner doesn't take care of it, the house will be auctioned on the court house steps.
And they really do it that way, I've been to such auctions, right outside the front doors to the courthouse.
What they CANNOT do is just show up at your door and throw you out of the house.
Slashdot Mirror
I was thinking of that when I was typing it up...
DropBox was our first "cloud" service, mostly because it came with our Galaxy III phones and included 50GB of "bonus" space with the phones. Boy, that was a lot at the time. :)
We still have that space and keep some files there, but we moved on to Google Drive last year and then this past summer, to OneDrive when the 1TB offer came out.
We were still on Office 2010 at the time and I was going to skip 2013, but for $100 a year, I get a complete copy of Office 2013 including Publisher (which I didn't have for 2010, I was using a 2007 copy), and 1TB per user for 5 users.
That was a crazy good deal, so we did that, and now it is unlimited.
The client is fine... Still not great, but my hope is that they figure out that the client does matter and they work to improve it.
Where I live, yes, I get those speeds all the time.
We are fairly heavy users of the Internet. Between watching streaming shows on Amazon Instant Video, downloading games and apps on the PS3 and iPads, Steam games on the computer, Skype to video chat with family overseas, it works very well all the time.
I also use 6 different cloud services. For simple storage, iCloud, DropBox, Google Drive, and OneDrive. For backup, I use both Crashplan and Backblaze to backup all our computers in the house. I work from home, so I also VPN and remote desktop every day.
With 5 to 7 people using the Internet at the same time, both uploads and downloads, it works perfectly 99% of the time.
That is one reason why I pay extra for the 150/150 plan, gives me 18 megabytes up and down, and I really do see the full speed. It used to be 150 down, 65 up, but they just gave us a free upgrade to 150/150 this month, no complaints...
Other than perhaps the cost, but it is what it is... $105 a month for that speed...
It was SkyDrive, until they had to rename it due to a lawsuit from British broadcaster BSkyB
http://www.infoworld.com/artic...
But seriously, it'll be "unlimited" until disk space becomes an issue. Which is to say, it's unlimited until it isn't.
Fair point... Of course, with 8TB and 10TB drives starting to ship and larger tape solutions coming online, it is quite possible that the storage they can hold will continue to grow as fast, if not faster, than the demand.
Will people upload tons right away? Sure... but I don't think it will keep up from the initial surge, after all, does the average user really produce that much original content?
Home movies are probably the single largest source of "original content" and honestly the past 6 years of HD home video for us is only about half a TB. It is growing at maybe 100GB a year.
As for other "downloaded" content as you put it, don't you think that Microsoft is not just doing a "store once, mark for all" system, where they note that the same large files are being backed up by 10,000 users. They store a single copy and just put a pointer to that copy for everyone.
While that is a fair point... Those speeds will increase over time.
Just this month, Verizon FIOS upgraded our service with what they call "SpeedMatch":
http://campaign.verizon.com/fa...
So if you have 35 megabits down, now you have 35 megabits up. 75 down, 75 up, etc...
Granted, not everyone has FIOS, or can get it, but it may well provide pressure to others (Comcast we're looking at you) to match it.
^ this, thank you... you typed out what... frankly, I'm shocked has to be typed out on a web site with the tag "news for nerds" :)
This isn't even new, it has been going on in the general purpose computer world for a very long time. :)
Sigh... The point went right over your head...
The move to 2GB will actually be "required", and thus matter, in 3 years.
Just like a lot of apps no longer run on the iPad 1 or 2 due to the lower amount of RAM, app devs aren't going to make apps require 2GB of RAM for awhile, but once enough iPads have it, then it becomes normal.
Do I REALLY have to spell that out on a tech site?
The original iPad is actually now really out of date, but then it was underpowered to start with. :)
It has a single core, 256MB of RAM, and frankly it is so far beyond even an iPad 4, much less an Air or Air 2, that it really is not useful for much beyond e-mail and very light web browsing.
It's not a high-end gaming platform - it certainly has a lot of games, but few of them are graphically demanding.
It is a chicken and egg problem...
If better CPU and GPU never arrive, then better games and applications won't either...
This will prompt software devs to move along in power and advancement, and make everything else out run smoother, while allowing more stuff to run in the background...
It won't happen tomorrow, and frankly we may need 3 more releases for this new power level to become "standard", but it has to start somewhere.
After all, the original iPad had, what... 256MB of RAM? The iPad 2 had 512MB, it wasn't until the iPad 3 that we had 1GB.
The move to 2GB will matter... in about 3 years. :) Or now, when you consider that having multiple web pages open can be a problem in 1GB.
^ This, times ten...
Why tech nerds can't understand this is beyond me, when they are otherwise so smart...
The marketplace isn't clamoring for Linux desktops and it isn't clamoring for PCs without an OS at all.
It just isn't.
You were rated funny, but it is the truth...
I get the appeal of Linux, but the truth is, the day of the Linux desktop isn't here, isn't coming, and won't be... It had its chance 10 years ago, that ship has sailed...
No, because those were legally purchased Mac computers... That they no longer are in the hands of those who bought them may not matter...
The point is, you can't install OS X on a Dell machine, not legally anyway, because it isn't licensed for that...
The software is free for owners of legally purchased Mac computers. It isn't free for everyone.
It is licensed for use, not given away.
Yes . . . and it has.
Linux has about 1% of the overall desktop market...
It has held that number for a long time now...
It isn't growing...
Perhaps you just have a different viewpoint, or perhaps you view success differently, or... well I'm not sure what...
Linux is a success in the server market, but an abject failure in the desktop market. That is simply not likely to change.
You pick an apple, I pick an orange... there really is little difference...
So if we weren't using Windows, we'd be using OS/2, or GeOS, or OS X, or something else...
Same difference...
Linux has had 20 years to prove itself, clearly it is not the right solution, or it would have made some traction at this point...
You assume that we must all leave Windows at some point... Why? I don't see anything to push people off their desktops and laptops any time soon. Google has tried with Chrome OS, and that is a nice idea, but it hasn't sold enough to make a dent.
Tablets? Nice toys, great media consumption devices, but they aren't replacing computers, just adding to them.
Let's be honest, SteamOS is done. Steam got exactly what they wanted from Microsoft and dropped it like a hot potato
I completely agree with you... Steam saw the threat, needed to create their own threat...
Microsoft saw that and countered...
Mission accomplished...
The Seismic Event would be Newell confirming Half-Life 3... and saying it's coming to Steam OS (Linux) first.
I know that is a popular idea, that if we just had some good games on Linux, people would start to embrace it.
I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but that isn't going to happen.
I don't use Windows because I'm "forced to", I use it because it works well, everything runs on it, it supports just about everything in the PC business, and its cost is so low, it might as well be free.
I have no compelling reason to move to Linux. I have no compelling reason to move anyone else to Linux. It doesn't offer me anything worth the trouble of moving.
------------
Note: I first installed Linux on a 486 back in the 90s, I've tried it a few more times since then. I'm not debating the technical benefits of Linux, they are indeed there. But they don't matter to the average user. Windows is "good enough" and it is missing some of Linux's rough edges.
It should be illegal if most people don't like it.
That alone shouldn't be enough...
After all, if "most people" want to discriminate against a minority group, that should be ok, right?
The idea is that the laws should protect everyone and not just turn into mob rule. Just because 51% of the people vote yes for something doesn't make it right.
We had slavery in the US once, it was "legal". That doesn't make it "right".
Ok... fair enough, but why?
Why should it be criminal? You use your knowledge of the marketplace to get the best deal you can. In your example, the business is using its knowledge of the marketplace to get the best deal it can.
If you're suggesting that a business must sell at the same price to everyone, well, that has its own issues. Sounds simple, until you get into all the "what ifs".
The world will *always* need ditch diggers....
So sure of that, are you?
We are approaching a time when the robots will do all that for us... Even the very basic work...
It will degrade until it has to stop... just like a human driver. I've been in rain that was coming down so hard that I pulled over until it was over.
This...
I've pulled over under a bridge before when the rain was so bad, you couldn't see the front of the car, much less the car in front of you.
Idiots on the road kept driving, watched two people have accidents that evening.
People are actually pretty crappy drivers on average. Yes, the good ones are good, but average drivers suck.
And I'm no expert, I fully believe a self-driving car is going to do a better job, overall, than I would.
If I was walking across an intersection, I would trust a Google SDC far more than someone late for an appointment, driving a Chevy Tahoe with a cellphone in one hand, a Starbucks latte in the other, and two screaming kids in the back seat.
^ This, times ten, times twenty... every day of the week and twice on Sunday...
The fact is, most humans WAY over rate their own abilities and underrate computer's abilities.
If you're reading this, odds are you are NOT as good a driver as you think you are.
Ahh, I get 150 Mb/s down, same speed up, today, on FIOS...
Expensive, at $105 per month, but it is here now...
I can get up to 500 down, 500 up, but it is expensive... :)
some guy at the side of the road madly waving a hand-printed sign that says "BRIDGE IS OUT!"...
The irony is that is the sort of example that people give, but happens so rarely as to be almost not worth bringing up.
The fact is, self-driving cars don't have to be perfect. They only have to be better than humans. Since we kill 40,000 people on the roads every year, give or take, and injure many thousands (if not millions) more...
The truth is, they are already probably "good enough".
Fair enough... And I agree with you, until the loan is actually delinquent, the car should be yours to use peacefully.
So if they are taking action before it is legally delinquent, then that would be wrong.
The point I was trying to make is that 5 minutes AFTER it becomes delinquent, you can take the car. You CANNOT do that with a house. There are all sorts of notices you must send, you have to file with the court, provide time to the owner to catch up, etc. Then you have to file for foreclosure and that is something that the legal system does. If the owner doesn't take care of it, the house will be auctioned on the court house steps.
And they really do it that way, I've been to such auctions, right outside the front doors to the courthouse.
What they CANNOT do is just show up at your door and throw you out of the house.