Storage in 2017: Big improvements are on the way

[Brink]

If 2016 wasn't tumultuous enough for you - the world's largest storage company sold itself to Dell - you ain't seen nothin' yet. The pace of change in the storage industry is accelerating - and that's good for us.

The pace of storage change continues to accelerate, and its impact on us continues to grow. Digital storage is central to a digital civilization, and as we grow more digital, we grow more dependent on improvements in storage. Here's what to expect in 2017...

Read more: Storage in 2017: Big improvements are on the way | ZDNet

 

[ThrashZone]

Hi,
Best thing about so called free storage is always the terms of use and all of the disclaimers
They get you hooked on a generous beginning "free storage" and then not too far down the road slash it in half.. just like MS did with Onedrive
25gb's soon turned into a lot less than that for grand fathered hotmail... account users
I forget what it dropped too 5-10-15 ? either way a lot less than 25gb's plus the free 5-10gb's it started out as

 

[Layback Bear]

Let hope that Cloud Storage security will keep up with the Cloud Storage demand.

Jack

 

[marsmimar]

Let hope that Cloud Storage security will keep up with the Cloud Storage demand.

Jack

And let's hope that those of us who would like to use cloud storage see a huge increase in upload speeds without a corresponding huge increase in monthly service fees. My ISP promises only 1 megabit per second upload speed (8 bits = 1 byte) and 6 megabits download. Using cloud storage is not practical for many of us who live in rural areas.

 

[Lady Fitzgerald]

Let hope that Cloud Storage security will keep up with the Cloud Storage demand.

Jack

And let's hope that those of us who would like to use cloud storage see a huge increase in upload speeds without a corresponding huge increase in monthly service fees. My ISP promises only 1 megabit per second upload speed (8 bits = 1 byte) and 6 megabits download. Using cloud storage is not practical for many of us who live in rural areas.

And that helps explain why I can't understand why MS, Adobe, et.al. are pushing so hard for cloud computing, in addition to the push for cloud storage. More people than not do not have access to affordable broadband internet connections to allow this technology to be practical, not to mention the U.S., and many other parts of the world, simply do not have the infrastructure to support that much added traffic.

 

[Layback Bear]

You are probable correct L.F. but the cloud is there for those that need it and want it.
Many things in todays computer world are not for everybody but that doesn't mean those things should not grow for those that want them.

Just my opinion.

Jack

 

[Lady Fitzgerald]

You are probable correct L.F. but the cloud is there for those that need it and want it.
Many things in todays computer world are not for everybody but that doesn't mean those things should not grow for those that want them.

Just my opinion.

Jack

I wasn't speaking against the cloud; heck, I use it myself for one of my backups. I was decrying the companies who want everyone on the cloud now when more people than not do not have affordable access to the broadband internet necessary to utilize the cloud. That's like trying to sell cars when there isn't enough fuel for all of them or enough roads to drive them on.

 

[marsmimar]

You are probable correct L.F. but the cloud is there for those that need it and want it.
Many things in todays computer world are not for everybody but that doesn't mean those things should not grow for those that want them.

Just my opinion.

Jack

I think you might have missed my point, Jack. I would love to use the cloud. I want to use the cloud. I want the cloud to continue to improve and to be available for everybody. But as this conversion chart shows, trying to upload a 50 gigabyte system image at my current upload speed would take more than 108 hours. That's 4 1/2 days of constant, non-stop uploading. I can't control what my ISP provides to me. So as of today and for the foreseeable future, the cloud is not a viable option for me and many other people living in rural areas.

 

[Barman58]

The current world average is 20.22 Mb/s for download and 7.51Mb/s for Upload, (latest quoted on Speedtest.net by Ookla - The Global Broadband Speed Test), which I would suggest is workable for most scenarios, Yes, not all locations are at these levels, (I'm constantly surprised at the state of the US ISP industry, It seems far behind the rest of the world, from a customer point of view).

Hopefully the available connection will continue to evolve as it has been in the future, to a level where it's as fast as normal networking and hard drives

 

[Lady Fitzgerald]

You are probable correct L.F. but the cloud is there for those that need it and want it.
Many things in todays computer world are not for everybody but that doesn't mean those things should not grow for those that want them.

Just my opinion.

Jack

I think you might have missed my point, Jack. I would love to use the cloud. I want to use the cloud. I want the cloud to continue to improve and to be available for everybody. But as this conversion chart shows, trying to upload a 50 gigabyte system image at my current upload speed would take more than 108 hours. That's 4 1/2 days of constant, non-stop uploading. I can't control what my ISP provides to me. So as of today and for the foreseeable future, the cloud is not a viable option for me and many other people living in rural areas.

View attachment 395048

That's true of many urban areas, as well.

 

[Lady Fitzgerald]

The current world average is 20.22 Mb/s for download and 7.51Mb/s for Upload, (latest quoted on Speedtest.net by Ookla - The Global Broadband Speed Test), which I would suggest is workable for most scenarios, Yes, not all locations are at these levels, (I'm constantly surprised at the state of the US ISP industry, It seems far behind the rest of the world, from a customer point of view).

Hopefully the available connection will continue to evolve as it has been in the future, to a level where it's as fast as normal networking and hard drives

Keep in mind that is at current internet utilization. If everyone increased their internet usage, as many software companies want, the infrastructure would collapse.

Something else to keep in mind is many ISPs impose data caps that would make depending on the cloud either impossible or prohibitively expensive.

 

[lehnerus2000]

You don't need that anymore

I wasn't speaking against the cloud; heck, I use it myself for one of my backups. I was decrying the companies who want everyone on the cloud now when more people than not do not have affordable access to the broadband internet necessary to utilize the cloud.

The problems will really start when some "bright spark" decides that some features don't need to be installed on a user's PC, because there are Cloud equivalents.

The current world average is 20.22 Mb/s for download and 7.51Mb/s for Upload, (latest quoted on Speedtest.net by Ookla - The Global Broadband Speed Test), which I would suggest is workable for most scenarios, Yes, not all locations are at these levels, (I'm constantly surprised at the state of the US ISP industry, It seems far behind the rest of the world, from a customer point of view).

Not only the US.
We get ~6 Mb/s download and ~1 Mb/s upload on our connection (Adelaide).

Given those Speedtest numbers, there must be some places heavily distorting the average.

I'd be surprised if our Internet service achieved those stated averages within the next decade at our "remote" location (~8 km from the city centre).

 

[Layback Bear]

No I don't think I missed the point.

Most know that the needed upload speeds are not available in many places.
Their are also many that have the internet speed where the Cloud can be used at a reasonable upload speed.
The Cloud is for those people.
Cloud storage is offered to everybody but realistically not usable by everybody because of their I.S.P speed offerings.

It would be a sad day when new products and services were not offered unless everybody could buy and use them.

I don't use Cloud storage but I'm glad it is a option.

Jack

 

[ThrashZone]

Hi,
Another thing people may or may not realize is exactly where they are actually uploading and downloading from the "so called cloud" could be anywhere not just straight up in the air
These misnamed servers are likely out of the country of which the person lives and at best out of the state one lives in.
These servers also probably have their own caps on delivery/ upload or download especially large amounts of data.
Some also compress original files and reserve original sizes to paying customers = review disclaimers

 

[Lady Fitzgerald]

The cloud is being forced on us. One example is Adobe products. After October 2017, one will be forced to upgrade to cloud based or cloud reliant software. MS has been pushing for it but, so far, one can still avoid it.

 

[ThrashZone]

Hi,
As far as I've noticed I do not use anything Adobe
Not sure I have anything cloud based/ dependent except for Panda free.
That and net framework 4.6.1 :/

 

[Lady Fitzgerald]

Hi,
As far as I've noticed I do not use anything Adobe
Not sure I have anything cloud based/ dependent except for Panda free.
That and net framework 4.6.1 :/

You may not but a lot of businesses do (Acrobat, Creative suite, etc.). There will be a sudden spike in internet traffic when businesses are forced to upgrade to the cloud based version (this doesn't address privacy issues).

I depend heavily on Adobe Acrobat Standard. I now have to to find another program to replace it (Master PDF and PDF Studio are the two in the running right now) before my current, non-cloud based version reaches EOL in less than a year. I'll still be at a disadvantage because my ADF scanner integrates with Acrobat to create direct to PDF copies. I will be forced to copy to .JPG, then use another program to convert them to PDFs (virtual printers are too inflexible to properly do the job with anything but letter sized documents) and do any needed editing (something virtual printers can't do).

 

[lehnerus2000]

I depend heavily on Adobe Acrobat Standard. I now have to to find another program to replace it (Master PDF and PDF Studio are the two in the running right now) before my current, non-cloud based version reaches EOL in less than a year. I'll still be at a disadvantage because my ADF scanner integrates with Acrobat to create direct to PDF copies. I will be forced to copy to .JPG, then use another program to convert them to PDFs (virtual printers are too inflexible to properly do the job with anything but letter sized documents) and do any needed editing (something virtual printers can't do).

I'm not sure what you need to do, but GIMP can capture images from scanners and can save them as PDF files.
I haven't checked out how efficient the GIMP PDF files are though.

You may still need to use one of the other programs you mentioned to "finalise" your documents.

 

[Lady Fitzgerald]

I depend heavily on Adobe Acrobat Standard. I now have to to find another program to replace it (Master PDF and PDF Studio are the two in the running right now) before my current, non-cloud based version reaches EOL in less than a year. I'll still be at a disadvantage because my ADF scanner integrates with Acrobat to create direct to PDF copies. I will be forced to copy to .JPG, then use another program to convert them to PDFs (virtual printers are too inflexible to properly do the job with anything but letter sized documents) and do any needed editing (something virtual printers can't do).

I'm not sure what you need to do, but GIMP can capture images from scanners and can save them as PDF files.
I haven't checked out how efficient the GIMP PDF files are though.

You may still need to use one of the other programs you mentioned to "finalise" your documents.

I would have to use a TWAIN compliant scanner to be able to use GIMP or any other graphics program. My ADF (Auto Document Feed; it's also duplexing) scanner is not TWAIN compliant. I may be forced to upgrade my perfectly good $450 ADF scanner to a $1500 scanner to get what I have now or run my current version of Acrobat and the scanner in a VM.

 

[lehnerus2000]

I would have to use a TWAIN compliant scanner to be able to use GIMP or any other graphics program. My ADF (Auto Document Feed; it's also duplexing) scanner is not TWAIN compliant. I may be forced to upgrade my perfectly good $450 ADF scanner to a $1500 scanner to get what I have now or run my current version of Acrobat and the scanner in a VM.

I see.