Read more.Quote:
Application streaming and collaboration coming to mobile devices sometime in the future.
Printable View
Read more.Quote:
Application streaming and collaboration coming to mobile devices sometime in the future.
One use for this techonology I can see is having a low-power netbook and a decent desktop at home, and using it to essentially (but more streamlined) RDP into the main computer and use its speed and functionality on the go. Obviously internet services would have to be up to speed.
I remain reluctant to embrace cloud computing though.
Someone mentioned this previously on the forum, but it's a good point so I'll say it again:
We're going full circle back to a dumb client + mainframe computing system. Albeit without green screens and wires, but I can't really see the benefit of going this way...
Well I can see reasons for many people, who aren't worried about data confidentiality and don't understand the importance of or can't afford to back up - their data will be safer for them on a remote server. Then add in convenience of access anywhere, and no need to upgrade hardware for gamers, and it could become quite an attractive proposition - for those who do not need data confidentiality, and do not want the hassle of managing their data themselves.
For many enthusiasts, it will be a service not touched with a barge pole, but for other folk, it's really not that big a deal. Offline connectivity problems can be solved by having, for example, a virtual drive which is synced to the cloud with data on - but stored locally, and I'm sure there are much more elegant solutions to these problems than I can think of in two minutes.
I mostly feel the same way, but I thought what Eric Schmidt said yesterday about Chrome OS was really interesting. He basically said we're going back to thin-clients (which he was a big part of in the 90s at Sun). While it wasn't really feasible then, we now have wildly powerful supercomputers (and terminals, relatively speaking) and very fast network speeds that make it much more practical.Quote:
Originally Posted by jimbouk
And why would you not want to leverage the incredible power of a cluster/cloud somewhere else? Sure the network could go down, or the server could break or the sun could explode, but we're so reliant on the internet in general, we pretty much grind to halt when we lose our connection anyway.
So my question is, if you have a vastly superior amount of computing power on tap, what's the benefit of relying on the PC in your own home/office?
Because they're under your control.Quote:
Originally Posted by BullDogg
With this, you're not only relying on your own connectivity, but unbroken connectivity to OnLive or whoever.
Still, it is interesting. I'm intrigued and worried about the next 10-15 years equally.
This is no different to Steam. If Valve went down your in the same situation still. Personally i think it's a great idea. What i don't like is the BT partnership they have formed. That and the end of 2011 release date. I was messing around with the lounge in the onlive pc client and it was maxing my broadband out (5Mb/s). That can't be good for those on limited or fair use plans.
Being at university, I've done the client - server thing. Turns out my ultra-portable laptop was quicker than their server at running Matlab due to the many other people using it...
But most of the time I don't exactly need a supercomputer, an a affordable quad+ core and a few gig of ram under my desk will do fine!
It's an interesting concept. Kind of like a cloud based Citrix on steriods. I can certainly think of a few scenarios where this would work very well. Yes there are security and bandwidth considerations but fundamentally I think there is potential here.
The key thing for onlive will be to find the right devices and applications to target this at. The iPad is an obvious one where it's partly the OS and partly the hardware holding it back. There are plenty of other devices with these sorts of issues too.