Re: The New iMacs

Wayne Stuart wrote:

Yes, I get the point of an integrated flat PC, like the iMac, but what I
don't get is why when they had one that is 2" thick and user upgradable,
they then needed to go thinner thereby giving up that user
upgradability. The stand is still the same size, so the desk footprint
is the same. So the pursuit of further thinness has actually gained
nothing tangible beyond something to brag about; "Hey look everyone,
we've made it thinner! Aren't we clever?"

When you look at corporate applications, they're migrating to what I'd
euphemistically call a "thin" client in that the local HD holds the OS
and Applications, but no data: all of the data is out on a local file
server where it gets backed-up nightly, in accordance with "data
retension" requirements (which for a few companies out there are
currently being mandated by a Judge due to an ongoing lawsuit). In
extreme cases, even the Applications will be server-based instead of
local.

As such, the question is the future of data storage: will it continue
to be local to the PC, or will it start to become more network-
centric? I'm increasingly of the attitude that the proliferation of
inexpensive Network Attached Storage (NAS) will result in networks - -
including home networks - - that don't need for the data to be "stuck"
on a single PC, but available proverbially from anywhere.

For example, LaCie is now selling a NAS that offers 1TB of storage ...
for only $320.

As such, why should I even bother with worrying about pulling an
internal HD upgrade when I can simply throw this "external" onto my
Network? Particularly since it will be available to multiple machines
and it will probably run for probably more years than any one of the
PC's will stick around for?

Afterall, is there any better way to migrate data between an old and
new PC than by not having it on the old PC in the first place?

As such, I'm increasingly of the opinion that the paradigm of needing
the capability of pulling internal HD upgrades is becoming a thing of
the past. True, there will always be those that want maximum I/O
performance, for which they'll be looking at building a RAID on
SCSI-320 (which is incrementally faster than SATA-II). The simple
reality is that Gigabit ethernet isn't a slouch, which means that for
basic storage application needs, it passes the 'good enough' test.


-hh

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The New iMacs
    ... Yes, I get the point of an integrated flat PC, like the iMac, but what I ... upgradability. ... the question is the future of data storage: ... inexpensive Network Attached Storage will result in networks - - ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: VMS SAN Primer
    ... (SAN - as in the interconnecting infrastructure). ... Area Network), corrolary to a VLAN. ... have different seperate nodes accesing drives in a SAN, ... CI-based storage array. ...
    (comp.os.vms)
  • Re: Information store on WSS 2003
    ... communication with the storage, not with the network. ... Check for firmware and driver updates for storage solution. ... Check with your storage manufacturer to see if one or more settings ... Please do not send email directly to this alias. ...
    (microsoft.public.exchange.admin)
  • Re: iSCSI disconnects dilema
    ... While I think I have almost solved the problem of network disconnects, ... You have a queue of I/O requests. ... Paranoia is a Good Thingin data storage land :-) ... This is roughly the same as a RAID box accepting a write into a writeback cache ...
    (freebsd-hackers)
  • Re: The New iMacs
    ... euphemistically call a "thin" client in that the local HD holds the OS ... the question is the future of data storage: ... inexpensive Network Attached Storage will result in networks - - ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)