Personal computing in the future: of mice and keyboards

[lehnerus2000]

IMO, Local will always be faster than Remote

But you are basing that on what we know now, today.

Yes.
The known Laws of Physics (and the Law of Corporate Greed).

In 10 years time who knows what speeds my internet may run at? I might be on a GB/s WiFi connection....hell I might even be using a Subspace communication system as seen on Star Trek. (Quantum Theorists are already working on faster than light transmissions).

Regardless of the technology, Local will always be faster than Remote.
Even in Star Trek, Local is faster than Remote.

If it wasn't for data charges I would be better off tethering to my phone!!

Exactly.
How much do you think the Corporations will be charging for 1 TB/s bandwidth?

We are already seeing data being talked about in 'petabytes', how long until the first 1PB drive hits the shops??

I say 10 years (Moore's Law).

To stand here now and say, the mouse will die, the desktop is obsolete, cloud storage isn't fast enough is folly. Most of us have been on the ride for a while now...my first computer was the ZX81 with 1kb memory, that was only 28 years ago. If we continue to innovate at the same rate as the last 30 years who knows what we will be accessing this forum on!!

Maybe one day we will have instantaneous inter-galactic teleportation, that doesn't mean "diddly-squat" now.
Windows 8 is here now.
Tablets are here now.
The "Cloud" is here now.

Even if I had a 1Gb/s Internet connection it would still take ~9 hours to download 4 TB.

 

[bobafetthotmail]

Local will always be faster than Remote.

true but mildly irrelevant. What matters is what is cheaper for the company. Turns out 3g and 4g antennas are cheaper than fiber-optic backbones, so guess where everything is headed?

Here for example it is like that. The wired connections are spotty (some are fully-optic, some are half-decent ADSL, some like me have crappy ADSL, quite a few are stuck on double ISDN, an embarrassing amount of people is stuck at 56k (the old days!).

And all the development push is on mobile broadband as antennas are cheaper.

heck, they even tried placing a long-range wifi (just to discover that when there is fog or bad weather its range drops to 1/3 or even less).

 

[King Arthur]

@bobafetthotmail
Especially infuriating because countries like Japan have demonstrated clearly how great a fiber-optic backbone is.

 

[lehnerus2000]

Local will always be faster than Remote.

true but mildly irrelevant. What matters is what is cheaper for the company. Turns out 3g and 4g antennas are cheaper than fiber-optic backbones, so guess where everything is headed?

What does that have to do with Local storage (Desktop) vs "Cloud" storage (Tablet)?

Are you suggesting that corporations are planning to suck even more cash out of the poor saps who are using the "Cloud", by introducing timed connections?

Wireless is great, if you are the only one using it, or if you don't have a wired connection.
In the real world, wireless is "rubbish" and that's despite the fact that everyone isn't using the "Cloud" to store their data.

What sort of download speed do you think will be available, when every Tablet user starts trying to stream 3D HD movies?

I've done Networking, I'll take copper over wireless any day.
I'll take optical fibre over both of those.

I guess when the Liberals win the next election, we'll get stuck with obsolete copper and worthless wireless.

heck, they even tried placing a long-range wifi (just to discover that when there is fog or bad weather its range drops to 1/3 or even less).

It just goes to show what sort of corrupt idiots are in charge of various companies.

I used to work for a telecommunications company in the 80s and we knew that.
In fact that has been known since shortly after radio was first introduced.

 

[bobafetthotmail]

What does that have to do with Local storage (Desktop) vs "Cloud" storage (Tablet)?

A lot. You say wired is better if you look at just speed and I agree, but I say that what matters is bang-for-buck. If you look at the future, it's the cost-effective that is chosen and goes mainstream unless some government starts dumping cash into that for its own reasons.
Internet started wired because well, there was no wireless back then and the copper networks were already in place.
But frankly, copper is going to be replaced by wireless, period. With tablets the ball is rolling and you cannot stop it anymore.
Fiber optic backbones will remain that, backbones to pipe connections over very long distances and as that will have some sense and will still be built, but from backbone to user you skip the middlemen and go 3G as it is faster and cheaper than copper.

Anyway, tablets can store and retrieve stuff in wireless external HDDs just fine, so you don't necessarily need a "cloud" and internet.

Are you suggesting that corporations are planning to suck even more cash out of the poor saps who are using the "Cloud", by introducing timed connections?

Suggestion? Here is a reality, and it's less than a ripoff that what you may think. You pay around 30 euros per month and you get 10 GB per month at standard broadband speed through 3G (yes, it's billing by the downloaded stuff, those GBs are downloaded/uploaded GB). For most users it's not that bad (considering that a significant amount of people has crappier connections and pays higher price on wired). You can scale down to 5 GB per month at 10 euros less. (and the modem is free)

After you reached the GB-per-month quota, the speed dials down to (they say) 32 kb/s or so, and you pay no additional cost.

What sort of download speed do you think will be available, when every Tablet user starts trying to stream 3D HD movies?

The speed on all devices using that (from computers to tablets to whatever) is around standard ADSL broadband regardless of the numbers they throw like say 42.2 mbit/s, and adding more bandwidth if needed is just a matter of adding more antennas, which is again far far cheaper than optic fiber, especially for shitty terrain like say Italy.

They managed to put a limit on what you can do with that GB-per-month contracts, there is no more any flat nor timed (hours/minutes) contracts anywhere since 3 years.

I'll take optical fibre over both of those.

Me too, but I'm pretty confident that barring a government's cash drop in the project, none is going to do it.
And I'm not a big fan of paying stuff with tax money and then let a company make profit out of it like happened for the current wired lines.

 

[ICIT2LOL]

I am with lehnerus leave it to our mob whoever that might be and they are going to rip us off anyway they can they did then they do now wand will do in the future.

Me just leave me with my five machines the wireless I have to use on my main laptop but for the rest I couldn't give a fig.


Quit frankly I am sick to the back teeth with tweeting and facelessbook and all that social crap I just want one more screen (27" for Ivy) and I am set.

I just think those touchpad things are so filthy if one on seven banknotes has feacal matter on it what about those dirty touch screens

 

[lehnerus2000]

That's not what I meant

What does that have to do with Local storage (Desktop) vs "Cloud" storage (Tablet)?

A lot. You say wired is better if you look at just speed and I agree, but I say that what matters is bang-for-buck. If you look at the future, it's the cost-effective that is chosen and goes mainstream unless some government starts dumping cash into that for its own reasons.
Internet started wired because well, there was no wireless back then and the copper networks were already in place.
But frankly, copper is going to be replaced by wireless, period. With tablets the ball is rolling and you cannot stop it anymore.
Fiber optic backbones will remain that, backbones to pipe connections over very long distances and as that will have some sense and will still be built, but from backbone to user you skip the middlemen and go 3G as it is faster and cheaper than copper.

Anyway, tablets can store and retrieve stuff in wireless external HDDs just fine, so you don't necessarily need a "cloud" and internet.

That's not what I mean.

Reading data from my HDD is up to 100x faster than my Internet.
If I had an SSD, it would be up to 600x faster than my Internet.

The WAP at our house is theoretically 38x faster than the wired Internet connection.
In reality it is about the same speed and only if it is being used by 1 person and there is no interference (I've measured it transferring data to a media streaming device - distance = ~5 metres).

Are you suggesting that corporations are planning to suck even more cash out of the poor saps who are using the "Cloud", by introducing timed connections?

Suggestion? Here is a reality, and it's less than a ripoff that what you may think. You pay around 30 euros per month and you get 10 GB per month at standard broadband speed through 3G (yes, it's billing by the downloaded stuff, those GBs are downloaded/uploaded GB). For most users it's not that bad (considering that a significant amount of people has crappier connections and pays higher price on wired). You can scale down to 5 GB per month at 10 euros less. (and the modem is free)

After you reached the GB-per-month quota, the speed dials down to (they say) 32 kb/s or so, and you pay no additional cost.

Again that's not what I meant.

I meant timed connections in addition to the other limitations (e.g. bandwidth and download limits).

You get an additional charge based on how many seconds you are connected.
Under that scenario, it is in the Corporation's best interests to make your connection as slow as possible.

We get 200 GB of Downloads/Uploads and a real phone for $80/month.

What sort of download speed do you think will be available, when every Tablet user starts trying to stream 3D HD movies?

The speed on all devices using that (from computers to tablets to whatever) is around standard ADSL broadband regardless of the numbers they throw like say 42.2 mbit/s, and adding more bandwidth if needed is just a matter of adding more antennas, which is again far far cheaper than optic fiber, especially for shitty terrain like say Italy.

They managed to put a limit on what you can do with that GB-per-month contracts, there is no more any flat nor timed (hours/minutes) contracts anywhere since 3 years.

The providers wouldn't have to do anything.

It is inevitable because of the way wireless works.
The simple equation is:

Theoretical Speed / Number of Connections = Effective Speed
​

Since that doesn't take into account:

• The fact that it is half duplex, the "Real Effective Speed" is going to be halved.
• All of the additional overheads in a wireless data transmission, the "Real Effective Speed" is going to be further reduced.

Adding more WAPs won't necessarily fix the problem, as they will start to interfere with each other causing data errors and further reducing the "Real Effective Speed".

 

[bobafetthotmail]

Reading data from my HDD is up to 100x faster than my Internet. If I had an SSD, it would be up to 600x faster than my Internet.

The WAP at our house is theoretically 38x faster than the wired Internet connection.
In reality it is about the same speed and only if it is being used by 1 person and there is no interference (I've measured it transferring data to a media streaming device - distance = ~5 metres).

WAP uses a different protocol. So what? With any good broadband you can stream HD videos and play internet games (the latter with much less, actually), using cloud services isn't going to require more than that as you are just moving and accessing dumb files, not programs. 99% of private users don't need more speed.

You get an additional charge based on how many seconds you are connected.

Not on the contracts available here. That is a ripoff.

Under that scenario, it is in the Corporation's best interests to make your connection as slow as possible.

True but it is also in their best interests to make it about on par with cable, otherwise none will buy it (other than the ones stuck at double ISDN or worse anyway). Because really, watching Youtube is crappy as heck on my low-low-end ADSL, and watching youtube is a MAJOR thing tablet users do (the CRITICAL one being connecting to facebook).
Serious mobile broadband I tested were on par with the standard wired broadband connections I see around when actually tested (serious= offered by a company actually owning the lines and stations and having good coverage, for Italy that's only Tim and Vodafone).

And they are pushing 4G, which is theoretically faster (they hope, it's debatable). When you see even Fasweb, the company that here is the only one providing optic fiber for private users jump into the bandwagon and start making its own mobile offers, you know that it's very very juicy for them.

Theoretical Speed / Number of Connections = Effective Speed

That's right for a single access point (and for wired connections as well, as you are piped to an ISP that has optic fiber and only then you access the internet through his connection). With mobile it's a bit different as you are usually in range of 3 or more towers. Each tower has that limit, and you connect to the less-crowded one.

Also, the stations interface with each other and to the actual internet infrastructure with higher-bandwith fiber-optic or radio transmissions (depending on how far off they are from civilization) that have nothing to do with 3G. If you add more stations you increase the bandwith as you increase the number of possible connections to the internet infrastructure.

Adding more WAPs won't necessarily fix the problem, as they will start to interfere with each other causing data errors and further reducing the "Real Effective Speed".

I never heard that was a major issue with mobile phone stations, anyway they can increase the bandwith from the station to the internet infrastructure and boost the station signal to get the same effect if that becomes a problem.

This article talks about the explosion in mobile internet infrastructure sales, connected to increase of mobile internet users.

 

[lehnerus2000]

WAP uses a different protocol. So what? With any good broadband you can stream HD videos and play internet games (the latter with much less, actually), using cloud services isn't going to require more than that as you are just moving and accessing dumb files, not programs. 99% of private users don't need more speed.

Currently.

What happens when:

• Consumers all start using 3D HD 7.2 channel video cameras and they want to edit/view their footage via their "Cloud" accounts?
• Hollywood movies move to the next HD standard (4x the data rate, minimum)?

The size of the file and the available usable bandwidth determines how low it takes to download.
If it's a video file, the bit rate also comes into play (not enough bit rate = crappy playback).

It's simple mathematics.
If you have an effective (ignoring all overheads) speed of 100Mb/s:

• 20 people could constantly stream video at 5 Mb/s.
• 40 people couldn't constantly stream video at 5 Mb/s.

Not on the contracts available here. That is a ripoff.

Exactly.
I don't know of any timed connection contracts ... currently.

If everyone is using wireless simultaneously, the system can't cope (in fact significantly less than everyone will cause the system to crash).
The companies would lobby the Government to introduce timed connections, claiming that it would reduce congestion (just like car parking).

And they are pushing 4G, which is theoretically faster (they hope, it's debatable). When you see even Fasweb, the company that here is the only one providing optic fiber for private users jump into the bandwagon and start making its own mobile offers, you know that it's very very juicy for them.

More profitable for the company doesn't necessarily mean better for the consumer.

With mobile it's a bit different as you are usually in range of 3 or more towers. Each tower has that limit, and you connect to the less-crowded one.

Also, the stations interface with each other and to the actual internet infrastructure with higher-bandwith fiber-optic or radio transmissions (depending on how far off they are from civilization) that have nothing to do with 3G. If you add more stations you increase the bandwith as you increase the number of possible connections to the internet infrastructure.
...
I never heard that was a major issue with mobile phone stations, anyway they can increase the bandwith from the station to the internet infrastructure and boost the station signal to get the same effect if that becomes a problem.

Regardless, there are a finite number of channels available in a given frequency spectrum (i.e. you cannot just keep increasing the number of channels).
The number of channels is also dependent upon the modulation/protocol chosen.

Boosting the signal strength won't necessarily help either (that will increase the amount of overlap between adjacent cells).

That is the same as everyone in a room talking louder and louder, until they are all shouting to be heard.

My friend performs site surveys for a telecommunication company.
The reason is to locate the best sites for antennas/towers, so that the minimum interference is generated and maximum capacity is utilised.
The power output also has to conform to Government regulations.

Improved technology and new modulation/protocol schemes will increase the number of available channels.

 

[bobafetthotmail]

What happens when:

• Consumers all start using 3D HD 7.2 channel video cameras and they want to edit/view their footage via their "Cloud" accounts?
• Hollywood movies move to the next HD standard (4x the data rate, minimum)?

They will upgrade the networks probably. Besides, for both the network isn't the only bottleneck, as neither can be done by crappy consumer hardware atm. As that improves and there is demand (if they can do it) they will.

Also, I don't see the point for HD video or ultra mega hyper Hollywood movie quality for tablet or tablet-like devices, where the screen (even if Retina) isn't frankly good enough to show that correctly anyway.

If you have an effective (ignoring all overheads) speed of 100Mb/s:

Hey they aren't morons. The contracts allocates an amount of bandwith per user, out of a total bandwith "pool" of the medium of the ISP (mobile or not, this is exactly the same for either).
Granted, it's not anywhere near the numbers they trumpet around, but there is.
If they are too dumb to have a big enough "bandwith pool" for every contract they sell (they actually upgrade the hardware based on projections, to never end up in situations where they don't have any more bandwith left), they shouldn't be a ISP in the first place.

The companies would lobby the Government to introduce timed connections, claiming that it would reduce congestion (just like car parking).

Why a company has to lobby the gov to change the kind of mobile internet contract it offers over its very own network?
They had timed contracts and pay-per-GB contracts a few years ago, the former disappeared.

More profitable for the company doesn't necessarily mean better for the consumer.

I was just showing the trend. They decide what the future will be.

Regardless, there are a finite number of channels available in a given frequency spectrum (i.e. you cannot just keep increasing the number of channels).
The number of channels is also dependent upon the modulation/protocol chosen.

It's more an issues for phones, mobile internet has protocols with higher limits. Although I frankly don't know how high.

 

[lehnerus2000]

Also, I don't see the point for HD video or ultra mega hyper Hollywood movie quality for tablet or tablet-like devices, where the screen (even if Retina) isn't frankly good enough to show that correctly anyway.

I don't either, but since when is marketing based on reality?

Hey they aren't morons. The contracts allocates an amount of bandwith per user, out of a total bandwith "pool" of the medium of the ISP (mobile or not, this is exactly the same for either).
Granted, it's not anywhere near the numbers they trumpet around, but there is.
If they are too dumb to have a big enough "bandwith pool" for every contract they sell (they actually upgrade the hardware based on projections, to never end up in situations where they don't have any more bandwith left), they shouldn't be a ISP in the first place.

It's got nothing to do with that.
My first job was with a telecommunications company.
ROI is all that matters.

Equipment allocation is based on Congestion.
If a route is Congested more than a certain percentage of a given time period, more equipment will (eventually) be allocated.

For example:
There were 12 channels from the peninsula my home town was on, to the state capital (30 years ago).
There were >10,000 subscribers on the peninsula.
12 channels provided an "acceptable" level of congestion.

Why a company has to lobby the gov to change the kind of mobile internet contract it offers over its very own network?
They had timed contracts and pay-per-GB contracts a few years ago, the former disappeared.

I don't what the situation is in Italy, but Timed Local Connections are currently banned here.
International and Interstate calls are timed.
Mobile phone calls are handled using some bizarre combination of pricing.

As to why, the companies could increase their profit, without installing more equipment.