This USB-Size Cloud Computer From Dell Is A Total Game Changer

reply to post by prysmatyk


To each their own, as it is said.

As for me, I love not being tied down to a desk or clunky pc.

My android replaced my old vaio laptop, and now I actually like being wireless anywhere. Even found a spot where can get a solid 1G in the national forest when camping. I know horrible right, but try that with your pc while two tracking!

LoL



Besides with laptops now, people can run Arma 3 and tweet and watch a movie all at same time.
So there is no point. Especially with external hard drives, lap top never slows down. I'm waiting for a tough tablet for gaming.

Then I will upgrade.

Thin clients have been around for a long time. Sure, that's tiny. But underpowered. I set up a computer today for our marketing department that is about 6 inches long and across - has a full working Windows 7 OS, 20GB of ssd hard drive space, 4 gigs of memory, three USB plugs, HDMI - they use a wireless keyboard and mouse with it. I'd rather have a slightly larger device that actually has a working OS on it. I love Android.. on my phone.. where it belongs.

Also, you can install Windows on a USB stick. Doesn't work on a TV, but lets you have custom OS builds you can boot with anywhere. Kinda nice.

I do like this, I just don't think it's everything people make it out to be. I'd rather just use an iPad to be honest.

Here is where I am at with it, visualize where it is going to evolve to next.

Like a PS into the PS3 it evolved.

This is going to be beautiful in another year, once the concept catches on.
I can only imagine where it will be in say, 5 years.

reply to post by PhoenixOD


I think, for those of us who enjoy power cumputing, either for fun, hobby, or work, this cloud garbage basically means we either will have to step down in technology, or pay much, much higher prices for leading-edge PC components. All cloud is, is renting hardware usage from sommeone else, and accessing that hardware via the internet. It will never, ever be as powerful as a desktop unit could be, simply because that's all it is - someone else's hardware, which you pay to use. Personally, not interested, but I realize it will eventually mean the price of actual in-house hardware components will increase as the general population market will no longer be supporting the production of leading-edge consumer PC hardware. Sad, really. Racing to the LCD (that's Lowest Common Denominator.)

please for the love of everything free,

do not embrace cloud computing.

I'm not as optimistic as you above me posting... I fear that eventually devs will only develop for cloud based systems. Sure there will be small developers holding things down, but not much.

Originally posted by Tardacus
so it`s not really a computer, right?
all the actual computing tasks will be done somewhere else on a computer and then the results will be sent to this "receiver" and it will display the results on your monitor.
I assume that there will be a monthly fee for using this thing?

ETA: so, everything you do will be stored on a computer somewhere for the government to rummage through at their pleasure.

edit on 17-1-2013 by Tardacus because: (no reason given)

This is exactly what it is. An access device to use a computer elsewhere, paying usage fees to do so. Again, for many reasons, from computing power to privacy to security, i'll keep my hardware in-house, and far beyond the puny power these things will grant one access to. Just like the tablet phenomenon, I do not understand the allure of taking drastic steps backward in computing power. My 7 year old PC outperforms any tablet on the market, with far greater storage capacity. My new PC is far beyond that.

There is a place for tablets, and there is even a place for cloud computing. I personally have no use for it as I have a PC at home and at work. Nevertheless, millions will soon be paying to access weak "apps" via the cloud, and paying a monthly fee for someone else to store their data on their hard drive. Come to think of it, I may start offering my own "cloud" service. Feels like thievery, but I guess give the people what they want, cake and strychnine.

reply to post by dogstar23

Originally posted by dogstar23
Come to think of it, I may start offering my own "cloud" service.

I'm not interested in the strychnine, but I do like a mean cake.

Any way, if you do go down that road, u2u me. I may be interested in an off the grid server node.

Originally posted by unityemissions

Originally posted by Ghost375

PCs will never die. Especially for gamers. They're just no alternative. I mean maybe in a long time, cloud computing could handle hardcore gaming, but the technology is just not even close.

Define "close".

Google has already rolled out gigabit internet connections in a city or two, and the internet two (10Gbps) will trickle down from universities and the government into the public consumer market within the decade. Once we have +1Gbps connections to the house the delay will be imperceivable, and everything you do on a workstation will be easily done on a flexible sheet of smart paper via 5g wireless.

PC's are toast by 2020.

edit on 17-1-2013 by unityemissions because: (no reason given)

Surfing the web and things of that nature don't even compare to the requirements that real video games have.
Maybe this tech can support facebook games....but real games are so much more complex than that.

an up to date gaming rig is like 3ghz quad core processing, 3 GB video memory TIMES 2!, and 8 GB RAM or more! Even the rig I just listed won't run the most graphical intensive games on the market right now at max!

Saying that will be replaced by 2020 is hilarious.

reply to post by boxertwin


And I'm sure they will host those servers for a small monthly fee right? Unless it's an MMO (which is even questionable), games don't need to be a constant money suck. I know that's what the corps are all aiming for.
But, it doesn't make it right. Before long, Steam and sites like it would be the HBOs of the Cloud everyone is so enchanted with.

While I DO like this product much better for on-the-go computing than a laptop which I have no plans on owning, I'll happily stick to my desktop where I spend all my time anyway.

Sure is theft-friendly though. Gotta give it that.

reply to post by Ghost375


Dude, you have NO comprehension of what I'm talking about.

I've tried multiple times. How the hell do you not get this is beyond me.

I give up.

Originally posted by unityemissions
reply to post by Ghost375

 

Dude, you have NO comprehension of what I'm talking about.

I've tried multiple times. How the hell do you not get this is beyond me.

I give up.

ok first off....you've responded to me ONCE! L2C

It's you who doesn't comprehend this stuff. The limitation does not lie with the speed of internet. It lies with the hardware computing the data. Not the rate at which the data is transmitted.

Originally posted by PhoenixOD
But with cloud computing a lot of the hard work like 3D GFX processing can be done in the cloud so there will be no need for the average gamer to keep up to date with the latest hardware. Everyone will more or less be on an equal footing there will be no more problems with some players having faster computers than others and therefore having a distinct advantage in the game.

So could this be the beginning of the end for PC's as we know them? Will you be quick to embrace the cloud?

BLASPHEMY!

I Will NOT be a cloud user. I'll have the best hardware I can buy right under my desk where I can modify it, interchange it, upgrade it, and have it display the top Graphics setting and visual FX on my Extra Large Ultra HD Screens!

Cloud computers to me is horrible, just horrible!

Sure backup some data to the cloud like saved games. That's it. No more!

Originally posted by Ghost375

Originally posted by unityemissions
reply to post by Ghost375

 

Dude, you have NO comprehension of what I'm talking about.

I've tried multiple times. How the hell do you not get this is beyond me.

I give up.

ok first off....you've responded to me ONCE! L2C

It's you who doesn't comprehend this stuff. The limitation does not lie with the speed of internet. It lies with the hardware computing the data. Not the rate at which the data is transmitted.

I'm going to chime in again and defend unity's post - read it through, it talks about games being processed and computed on a remote server (ie. IN THE CLOUD) and things like images, sound and user interface are sent over a HIGH SPEED connection (hence the +1Gbps) to a basic dummy terminal, just like an office workstation.

If you read one of my replies earlier (and the thread as a whole) you wouldn't make an * of yourself. Do not try to pretend like you know what you're talking about (and flame someone who does) without first reading and absorbing all the facts given in the thread.

What was the motto again? Deny Ignorance?
Consider it denied.

Originally posted by gottaknow
reply to post by boxertwin

 

And I'm sure they will host those servers for a small monthly fee right? Unless it's an MMO (which is even questionable), games don't need to be a constant money suck. I know that's what the corps are all aiming for.
But, it doesn't make it right. Before long, Steam and sites like it would be the HBOs of the Cloud everyone is so enchanted with.

While I DO like this product much better for on-the-go computing than a laptop which I have no plans on owning, I'll happily stick to my desktop where I spend all my time anyway.

Sure is theft-friendly though. Gotta give it that.

I think the monthly fee thing would be a non-contract or pay-as-you-go. I rarely (if ever) play my Xbox 360 now, it literally collects dust most of the year so a pay-as-you-go subscription without the initial expense of buying the hardware (thanks to the cloud) would work well for someone like myself.

I think TrueBrit mentioned earlier that from a sustainability perspective it would be better too, as it would be in the manufacturer's interest to make these units as small and as unobtrusive as possible - using less resources in the process.

I (like many others on here) however do worry about the privacy aspect of it so for now will stick to keeping all my private data local.

reply to post by PhoenixOD


Playing 3D games using the cloud at HD would require:

1920*1080*32 (bits colour) /8 (bits in a byte) /1024 (bytes in a mb) = 8100 kb /s, 8100/1024 (kb in a mb) =
7.9 mega bytes per second --- in megabits / s this is 7.9*8 = 63.1 megabits / second
with mpeg compression at 8x: 63.1/8 = 7.9 megabit
8 megabits * 25 frames per second = 200mb connection needed
24 bit colour is true colour and 12x to 16x compression is realistic so maybe only 100 megabits needed...
Average UKconnection is about 8 megabits but Virgin has released 200mb connections...
SO, HD games are CLOUDABLE, NOW!

I'm not against cloud computing, just the way it's being IMPLEMENTED - Massive cloud centers owned by massive, MULTINATIONAL, GLOBALIST WHORES!

There are 2 FAIRER ways of implementing cloud services (and MUCH SAFER, if you're wary of global, offshore mega-corps)

1) Local cloud computing companies, preferably at least 50% owned by the locals, say 1 center for every 10,000 citizens... These could work as an (inter)national grid where excess demand or lack of demand can be used by other localities, as and when needed (this is how many ISPs already work). GOOGLE etc. are NOT NEEDED!

2) A non-centralised, non-hierarchical (apart from a few trackers) peer-to-peer network. In this model, user's own processors form the cloud - GOOGLE etc. are not NEEDED! The power of the cloud grows as users upgrade to newer devices and keep their old ones plugged into the cloud.

For data integrity's (not losing any data) and security's sake stored data must be split into 'chunks' and replicated many, many times. As no 'complete' document is stored anywhere (it's chunks have to be re-membered, stuck back together) the data is more secure. The replication of data, though wasteful, is needed because of hard-drives failing and in the peer-to-peer model users may not always be connected.

Also, in the peer-to-peer model data would only be stored in the old, permanently(ish) plugged in devices but the user's current device can still ADD it's own processing power to the 'cloud processor' (instead of being computationally passive) to the task in hand... Users could pay less depending on the power and time donated to the cloud by their own PERSONAL SUPER COMPUTER, back at HOME HQ..

All three systems have security issues but by far the CHEAPEST, LEAST WASTEFUL and least centralised system is the PEER-TO-PEER cloud model... Obviously the CORPORATE IT GIANTS want you grabbed by the BALLS so it probably won't happen... Neither will the LOCAL CLOUD model as describe in 1, for the same reasons...

The peer to peer model is SELF-UPGRADING and does not mean the potential DEATH of the PERSONAL COMPUTER (being replaced by a device that only streams internet content, without some hacking knowledge).. It keeps the CARDS in the hand of the USERS rather than the SUPPLIERS...

This is just history repeating itself. IBM in the 70s and 80s was doing this with 3270 dumb terminals connected to a super-computer. It's not the future. In actuality, it's a throwback to the past.

The device is cheap. So how are the manufacturers going to make a profit? Probably from the connection and CPU time used by the user. If you want to do something simple like write a Word Doc, you will need connectivity. The overall cost will balance itself out in the end... or it may be more expensive overall.

Say goodbye to user-data privacy. Whatever smidgen of privacy we have now.... bye bye.

Originally posted by Jeremiah65
Now we're talkin tech baby!



When I see things like this, it gives me a break from the doom and gloom we are often surrounded by and lets me have a positive vision (at least for the moment) for the future of this rock.

As an old-timer,before TV or even a phone (or more) in every house, I gauge your overly enthusiastic optimism about the importance of this "advancement" in civilization, if not humanity itself, as downright incredible in a most depression manner. YOU are precisely what is wrong with the Western world. What's happening on FB today?

reply to post by PrivateSi


You are right ,playing games on the cloud would only need a connection fast enough to receive video at 50 frames a second. It wont be very long before we have connections fast enough to do that at HD quality. Some places have that capability already.

Originally posted by PhoenixOD
reply to post by PrivateSi

 

You are right ,playing games on the cloud would only need a connection fast enough to receive video at 50 frames a second. It wont be very long before we have connections fast enough to do that at HD quality. Some places have that capability already.

edit on 19-1-2013 by PhoenixOD because: (no reason given)

Actually, it won't depend on how wide your pipe is, but ultimately how close you are to the server. Services like this already exist. On LIVE and Gaikai, but they're utterly hopeless for most people because the data just doesn't get from there to you and vice versa fast enough which leads to huge input lag for one thing even after you take into account that what you're seeing on your screen has already happened a second or so ago in reality. By the way, I work in the gaming industry, tech like this is a long way off from becoming mainstream. 15 years at least, and that's being optimistic.

reply to post by RMFX1

Actually, it won't depend on how wide your pipe is, but ultimately how close you are to the server.

I would say it depends on both. Its really not going to matter how close you are to the server if you are only using a 58k modem to connect to the internet.