Re: The New iMacs
- From: JCrowe <bongofury@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 14:40:07 -0500
HH et al,
-hh wrote:
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.
All your points are interesting and valid, especially in the
corporate environment. OTOH, for people concerned with privacy,
and people who simply want their data available on a single point
source, which I think includes most home users, network storage may
be a non-starter. Perhaps in another generation this will be
common. By the way, Sun had that thin client model years ago and it
was fairly much a bust. Remember the network is the computer? For me,
with a home network built on 100baseT, I simply use external drives
for storing the big data objects...mostly movies. One can easily get
a 500Gbyte drive with FW800 for $200....makes sense to me.
Your point about the iMac as thin client is also interesting. That
could be Apple's intent, but I'm not sure how that will sell in the
home market.....
.
-hh
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: The New iMacs
- From: -hh
- Re: The New iMacs
- References:
- The New iMacs
- From: John Slade
- Re: The New iMacs
- From: Wayne Stuart
- Re: The New iMacs
- From: Vulpine
- Re: The New iMacs
- From: Wayne Stuart
- Re: The New iMacs
- From: -hh
- The New iMacs
- Prev by Date: Re: How stupid does one have to be to buy a Mac?
- Next by Date: GPS with multi-destination routing...
- Previous by thread: Re: The New iMacs
- Next by thread: Re: The New iMacs
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
