I work off my iDisk completely. I Have a "Documents" folder (an alias) sitting in the Dock, pointing to the same folder on my iDisk. I have access to my files from anywhere in the world from any device that has a browser, and I can work on my files from virtually any device that has a browser and can edit text. Whatever syncs automatically with my iDisk is saved locally. All on the fly. I work with nearly 4gb of data in this manner.
Cloud Computing? Sounds like a winning idea to me ...
If TimeMachine worked well with the iDisk I'd be sold on using it that way (for my documents folder). By that, I mean I'd like my iDisk documents folder to be backed up to my external disk, and earlier versions of files etc accessible just like regular documents are.
I've had a couple of (early) problems with iDisk, so an effective backup would win me over.
If TimeMachine worked well with the iDisk I'd be sold on using it that way (for my documents folder). By that, I mean I'd like my iDisk documents folder to be backed up to my external disk, and earlier versions of files etc accessible just like regular documents are.
I've had a couple of (early) problems with iDisk, so an effective backup would win me over.
There is an option for you. Install Apple?s Backup app. It still refers to .Mac but it works. Create an item with Custom, backup your Documents folder with iDisk as a destination then set the time and frequency. What is cool about this service is that you can cherry pick folders and files within the initial folder you choose and it does full and incremental backups. You can find it in your Disk/Backup/ folder.
Google Windows Azure. Still just a CTP (community tech preview) with a 2010 launch date. It has an expected $0.12 per hour rate.
I remember seeing something about that before, but I think it was just an R&D thing when I read about it last. Thanks for the update. When I was thinking of MS as a potential stock pick for cloud computing, I was mainly remembering what I'd read in this Wired article about efforts to get the office suit out there: http://www.wired.com/techbiz/people/...urrentPage=all
All in all, MS seems like a good investment right now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by al_bundy
where i work we're a EMC, MSFT, VMW and GOOG customer. VMW is not cloud computing, trust me. it's good for some things and a PITA for others. EMC are crack dealers, they charge you $800 for a 500GB hard drive.
cloud computing is a stupid marketing term. 10 years ago it was web services, then the tech media used a few others like software as a service. cloud computing is the latest buzz word. in reality it's not as easy as the buzz marketing suggests. and not as cheap.
i checked the pricing of Amazon's EC2 compared to a physical HP Proliant server, and the physical server is cheaper
I'm completely with you on the stupidness of the term. The actual service itself doesn't appeal to me either. None of that has anything to do with the overall success/failure/profitability of the "cloud experience" however.
I appreciate the input though, as I have no first hand experience with EMC or VMW. I associate VMW with other "cloud" prospects because it seems their products will help make the cloud itself. I could be wrong. That is, providers of cloud services could use some of VMW's stuff with which to do their thing. I don't really have a good handle on the technical aspects of "the cloud". My understanding is cloudy. Ha ha.
If EMC can successfully, sell products at an obscene profit, that could make it a good investment (or a bad one if they stop being successful). I had it on my list because it seems like a good way to own VMW at a cheaper price. Thanks for the feedback.
There is an option for you. Install Apple?s Backup app. It still refers to .Mac but it works. Create an item with Custom, backup your Documents folder with iDisk as a destination then set the time and frequency. What is cool about this service is that you can cherry pick folders and files within the initial folder you choose and it does full and incremental backups. You can find it in your Disk/Backup/ folder.
I assumed this would create a backup 'file' of my documents folder.
Are you saying it can be used more like a sync? Such that when I'm on my wife's Mac or parents' Macs I can use the iDisk to access my data?
I assumed this would create a backup 'file' of my documents folder.
Are you saying it can be used more like a sync? Such that when I'm on my wife's Mac or parents' Macs I can use the iDisk to access my data?
That I?m not sure of. I know it?s in the iDisk folder which other paired Macs can access but I don?t know if the compressed file can later be uncompressed by other machines. If your primary need is a synced folder/file then I didn?t see read that.
That I’m not sure of. I know it’s in the iDisk folder which other paired Macs can access but I don’t know if the compressed file can later be uncompressed by other machines. If your primary need is a synced folder/file then I didn’t see read that.
Yeah sorry I wasn't clear.
For online backup of my documents folder I use mozy... works great.
edit: of course, perhaps the .mac backup can backup my idisk to my primary external drive...
edit: of course, perhaps the .mac backup can backup my idisk to my primary external drive...
It can back it up anywhere, I just don’t know how easily it can be accessed by others or if the backup is encrypted or if you can prevent the compression.
edit: From the backed up file, which you can put anywhere, you can Right-click and Show Package Contents. From there you can access a Sparse Bundle which will mount and let you access the files you backed up.
Alternatively, any machine or user that can access the backup file will get access to it’s content by running Backup and choosing and Alternate Location to drop the file. That all seems like a lot of extra effort.
edit2: I’m not sure what you are trying to do at all. If it’s a local network the other machines are on you can just use an external disk that is shared and have Time Machine back it up. If it’s over a WAN then you have your public iDisk and can have an alias to your Shared folder anywhere on your Mac that your want.
"i actually wonder if perhaps a cloud option is worked on for use with devices that lack the same level of computing power as a full laptop or desktop. like maybe an iphone or a tablet"
I would really like to see a hybrid approach. To a large degree, it's been web or local... they need to merge better.
Ideally, I'd like my whole user folder to be in the cloud with a full synced copy on my hard disk.
* Great backup (when there's a cloud OR local hardware problems!)
* Fast opening of data by using local synced version
* Offline usage perfect via local data
* access/edit my stuff via web apps OR local apps
* Let a document be collaborated on - me on my local app working with my colleague on a web-based app etc etc.
* full syncs at home (minimal syncs while mobile)
You can have those features now with MobileMe's iDisk. If you turn the syncing option on then you get a local copy that syncs either automagically, or manually. I have been using it for years, I have writing that represents years of my work. If someone comes in and steals all my computer equipment or the house burns down - I will not loose any of it. Pretty slick and very easy.
I'm no fan of "cloud computing" either, and yet I think it's folly to dismiss it. It is going to be big, if only because it's cheap and will save big corporations hundreds of thousands of dollars. Just do the math on Google's offering: http://www.google.com/apps/intl/en/b...ing_value.html
The problem is Google doesn't tell you HOW it get to the numbers it produces. A quick way to see that Google is Ouija boarding the numbers is to put "1" in the "How many employees will your deployment serve?" and see the nonsense that produces. $10,000 for equipment?!? For ONE person?!?!? Google just WHAT are you smoking?!?
The reality is without knowing how you got there you can't trust what that calculator is telling you.
If you are like most businesses a good hunk of computer use is as a glorified typewriter and you are lucky if you even have a server with the programs on it. You are more likely to have a print server set up then anything elaborate especially if you are small.
Quote:
Originally Posted by al_bundy
network resources have always been there since the introduction of the original PC you could connect it to a mainframe. cloud computing is the same sales pitch as the ASP of the late 1980's. where you turn everything to an application service provider to run all your apps remotely.
i use Google a lot including Google Wave and it reminds me of the old stories of mainframe time sharing since Google is becoming slow. and i've seen Chrome use up 600MB of RAM while in Wave making the whole thin client theory completely wrong
Yes we have been down this road many time before and each time it has been pie in the sky dream that never took off do to practical problems. I don't see it being any different this time. A few really large business might go into it but do you really want people's information out there?
Fair enough. I don't pretend to know much about servers or their costs. Certainly Google is trying to sell their service and they will use scenarios that are favorable for them. I can't envision a scenario in which I would want to get on the speculative cloud bandwagon. Nonetheless, I see several signs pointing to the success of the cloud. Big computing shifts seem to happen just when a lot of people think they've got everything figured out in terms of what is practical and what isn't practical. My instinct on the cloud experience--as it's currently known--is that it's a dud. With Apple wading deeper, and with all the other signals I get, I have a stronger instinct that conventional wisdom is missing something and that there is vast hidden potential.
Fair enough. I don't pretend to know much about servers or their costs. Certainly Google is trying to sell their service and they will use scenarios that are favorable for them. I can't envision a scenario in which I would want to get on the speculative cloud bandwagon. Nonetheless, I see several signs pointing to the success of the cloud. Big computing shifts seem to happen just when a lot of people think they've got everything figured out in terms of what is practical and what isn't practical. My instinct on the cloud experience--as it's currently known--is that it's a dud. With Apple wading deeper, and with all the other signals I get, I have a stronger instinct that conventional wisdom is missing something and that there is vast hidden potential.
the number i've heard was $50 per user for "enterprise" google mail. Exchange 2007 will run you around $100 per user including Outlook licenses. i've seen numbers where MS wanted to charge us $400 per user per year for unlimited Windows/Exchange/Office/SQL/Sharepoint and almost every one of their server products. you pay per employee and use whatever software you want on as many servers as you want.
RAM is so cheap that you can just buy 32GB of RAM and not worry about it. we had one of these data surges a few weeks ago on a DL360 with 8GB RAM. a week later it had 32GB and normal use is 2GB for that server
I don't know about DL120's but i compared the price of a DL380 with 32GB of RAM which is what our minimum buy spec is now compared to EC2. Proliant G6 servers will take up to 144GB of RAM allowing you to buy less machines and not worry about using EC2
EC2 costs $10000 per year or so. physical server around $10,000. and i don't think i accounted for the data transfer charges and the increased bandwidth costs we'll have to pay. and we still have proliant servers from 10 years ago doing some things. sometimes we use them for testing, other times they still do work. with Amazon we would still be paying
EC2 makes sense for small businesses, but not larger ones
High memory instances cost $3185 + $3679.20 (24 x7 x 365) = $6864 per year.
High-Memory Double Extra Large Instance 34.2 GB of memory, 13 EC2 Compute Units (4 virtual cores with 3.25 EC2 Compute Units each), 850 GB of local instance storage, 64-bit platform.
With the Virtual Private Cloud option (0.05/hour) you can scale your enterprise to the cloud with minimal capital costs.
Yes, Amazon is targetting large businesses. You may end up outsourced to someone like Amazon.
I’m not sure what you are trying to do at all. If it’s a local network the other machines are on you can just use an external disk that is shared and have Time Machine back it up. If it’s over a WAN then you have your public iDisk and can have an alias to your Shared folder anywhere on your Mac that your want.
This grew from my comment on finding a balance between cloud and local storage. Accessible everywhere - but also with offline usage (when the cloud is unavailable), and fast access through local copies....
I use Macs in multiple locations - so iDisk makes sense to get all my docs. When I first used iDisk, however, something went wrong and one deleted its contents... then synced the deletion to the others. That was my concern. (It also synced slowly).
In general, I also like TimeMachine backup. It _seems_ a no-brainer to have iDisk backup via Time Machine just like any other disk... and in fact it can backup the locally cached disk image, you just can't delve into the iDisk history.
Anyway, I think I've been nudged into using iDisk seriously again. The TimeMachine or .Mac backup will be there if something goes badly wrong - and that is a crucial aspect of Cloud computing!
Knock off the free crap. It'll most likely be rolled into MobileMe subscriptions.
And iWork isn't short on features, especially for its low price.
I'm with Daniel here. I think/hope iWork.com would be rolled into MobileMe because it makes sense but I also think it would be a separate service for those who don't want MobileMe.
Also the reason iWork.com is so feature lacking is because of one word... BETA. Obviously the original poster hasn't actually been to iWork.com because otherwise they'd have noticed the big "beta" word sitting above the name.
iWork.com has much potential but I think it will be of most use with iWork '10 for desktop and finally a release of iWork for iPhone/iPod Touch which would have me ditch Documents To Go in a heartbeat not because it's a bad product but because it doesn't support iWork documents which is what I use all the time.
High memory instances cost $3185 + $3679.20 (24 x7 x 365) = $6864 per year.
High-Memory Double Extra Large Instance 34.2 GB of memory, 13 EC2 Compute Units (4 virtual cores with 3.25 EC2 Compute Units each), 850 GB of local instance storage, 64-bit platform.
With the Virtual Private Cloud option (0.05/hour) you can scale your enterprise to the cloud with minimal capital costs.
Yes, Amazon is targetting large businesses. You may end up outsourced to someone like Amazon.
and this still costs more than HP especially when you add in recurring costs like faster network pipes
I remember seeing something about that before, but I think it was just an R&D thing when I read about it last. Thanks for the update. When I was thinking of MS as a potential stock pick for cloud computing, I was mainly remembering what I'd read in this Wired article about efforts to get the office suit out there: http://www.wired.com/techbiz/people/...urrentPage=all
All in all, MS seems like a good investment right now.
I'm completely with you on the stupidness of the term. The actual service itself doesn't appeal to me either. None of that has anything to do with the overall success/failure/profitability of the "cloud experience" however.
I appreciate the input though, as I have no first hand experience with EMC or VMW. I associate VMW with other "cloud" prospects because it seems their products will help make the cloud itself. I could be wrong. That is, providers of cloud services could use some of VMW's stuff with which to do their thing. I don't really have a good handle on the technical aspects of "the cloud". My understanding is cloudy. Ha ha.
If EMC can successfully, sell products at an obscene profit, that could make it a good investment (or a bad one if they stop being successful). I had it on my list because it seems like a good way to own VMW at a cheaper price. Thanks for the feedback.
VMWare is good because we can take servers that used to run one or a few minor apps and take them off the physical hardware since they never used all of the resources of even older servers. and it's nice for testing. few months ago i used the free version of ESX server to set up a few testing SQL Server instances for a project. in the past you would have to buy multiple physical machines or pray. last week i had another server crash due to hardware issues and needed a sql server to recreate the databases. i used my VMWare server to set up another SQL instance to copy database files to and fix them.
EMC is nice but expensive and everything in there is redundant if you spend the cash to set it up that way. we had drives and cards go bad in it and didn't care. 4 hour support and multiple paths to drives.
but it's not like the cloud where everything happens magically. everything still takes a lot of work to set up properly and manage it. to migrate to a new EMC SAN to us 6 months of planning
Comments
I work off my iDisk completely. I Have a "Documents" folder (an alias) sitting in the Dock, pointing to the same folder on my iDisk. I have access to my files from anywhere in the world from any device that has a browser, and I can work on my files from virtually any device that has a browser and can edit text. Whatever syncs automatically with my iDisk is saved locally. All on the fly. I work with nearly 4gb of data in this manner.
Cloud Computing? Sounds like a winning idea to me ...
If TimeMachine worked well with the iDisk I'd be sold on using it that way (for my documents folder). By that, I mean I'd like my iDisk documents folder to be backed up to my external disk, and earlier versions of files etc accessible just like regular documents are.
I've had a couple of (early) problems with iDisk, so an effective backup would win me over.
If TimeMachine worked well with the iDisk I'd be sold on using it that way (for my documents folder). By that, I mean I'd like my iDisk documents folder to be backed up to my external disk, and earlier versions of files etc accessible just like regular documents are.
I've had a couple of (early) problems with iDisk, so an effective backup would win me over.
There is an option for you. Install Apple?s Backup app. It still refers to .Mac but it works. Create an item with Custom, backup your Documents folder with iDisk as a destination then set the time and frequency. What is cool about this service is that you can cherry pick folders and files within the initial folder you choose and it does full and incremental backups. You can find it in your Disk/Backup/ folder.
Google Windows Azure. Still just a CTP (community tech preview) with a 2010 launch date. It has an expected $0.12 per hour rate.
I remember seeing something about that before, but I think it was just an R&D thing when I read about it last. Thanks for the update. When I was thinking of MS as a potential stock pick for cloud computing, I was mainly remembering what I'd read in this Wired article about efforts to get the office suit out there: http://www.wired.com/techbiz/people/...urrentPage=all
All in all, MS seems like a good investment right now.
where i work we're a EMC, MSFT, VMW and GOOG customer. VMW is not cloud computing, trust me. it's good for some things and a PITA for others. EMC are crack dealers, they charge you $800 for a 500GB hard drive.
cloud computing is a stupid marketing term. 10 years ago it was web services, then the tech media used a few others like software as a service. cloud computing is the latest buzz word. in reality it's not as easy as the buzz marketing suggests. and not as cheap.
i checked the pricing of Amazon's EC2 compared to a physical HP Proliant server, and the physical server is cheaper
I'm completely with you on the stupidness of the term. The actual service itself doesn't appeal to me either. None of that has anything to do with the overall success/failure/profitability of the "cloud experience" however.
I appreciate the input though, as I have no first hand experience with EMC or VMW. I associate VMW with other "cloud" prospects because it seems their products will help make the cloud itself. I could be wrong. That is, providers of cloud services could use some of VMW's stuff with which to do their thing. I don't really have a good handle on the technical aspects of "the cloud". My understanding is cloudy. Ha ha.
If EMC can successfully, sell products at an obscene profit, that could make it a good investment (or a bad one if they stop being successful). I had it on my list because it seems like a good way to own VMW at a cheaper price. Thanks for the feedback.
There is an option for you. Install Apple?s Backup app. It still refers to .Mac but it works. Create an item with Custom, backup your Documents folder with iDisk as a destination then set the time and frequency. What is cool about this service is that you can cherry pick folders and files within the initial folder you choose and it does full and incremental backups. You can find it in your Disk/Backup/ folder.
I assumed this would create a backup 'file' of my documents folder.
Are you saying it can be used more like a sync? Such that when I'm on my wife's Mac or parents' Macs I can use the iDisk to access my data?
I assumed this would create a backup 'file' of my documents folder.
Are you saying it can be used more like a sync? Such that when I'm on my wife's Mac or parents' Macs I can use the iDisk to access my data?
That I?m not sure of. I know it?s in the iDisk folder which other paired Macs can access but I don?t know if the compressed file can later be uncompressed by other machines. If your primary need is a synced folder/file then I didn?t see read that.
That I’m not sure of. I know it’s in the iDisk folder which other paired Macs can access but I don’t know if the compressed file can later be uncompressed by other machines. If your primary need is a synced folder/file then I didn’t see read that.
Yeah sorry I wasn't clear.
For online backup of my documents folder I use mozy... works great.
edit: of course, perhaps the .mac backup can backup my idisk to my primary external drive...
edit: of course, perhaps the .mac backup can backup my idisk to my primary external drive...
It can back it up anywhere, I just don’t know how easily it can be accessed by others or if the backup is encrypted or if you can prevent the compression.
edit: From the backed up file, which you can put anywhere, you can Right-click and Show Package Contents. From there you can access a Sparse Bundle which will mount and let you access the files you backed up.
Alternatively, any machine or user that can access the backup file will get access to it’s content by running Backup and choosing and Alternate Location to drop the file. That all seems like a lot of extra effort.
edit2: I’m not sure what you are trying to do at all. If it’s a local network the other machines are on you can just use an external disk that is shared and have Time Machine back it up. If it’s over a WAN then you have your public iDisk and can have an alias to your Shared folder anywhere on your Mac that your want.
"i actually wonder if perhaps a cloud option is worked on for use with devices that lack the same level of computing power as a full laptop or desktop. like maybe an iphone or a tablet"
A few people have said this... I don't get it.
Unless Apple is laying off in a big way?
I would really like to see a hybrid approach. To a large degree, it's been web or local... they need to merge better.
Ideally, I'd like my whole user folder to be in the cloud with a full synced copy on my hard disk.
* Great backup (when there's a cloud OR local hardware problems!)
* Fast opening of data by using local synced version
* Offline usage perfect via local data
* access/edit my stuff via web apps OR local apps
* Let a document be collaborated on - me on my local app working with my colleague on a web-based app etc etc.
* full syncs at home (minimal syncs while mobile)
You can have those features now with MobileMe's iDisk. If you turn the syncing option on then you get a local copy that syncs either automagically, or manually. I have been using it for years, I have writing that represents years of my work. If someone comes in and steals all my computer equipment or the house burns down - I will not loose any of it. Pretty slick and very easy.
I'm no fan of "cloud computing" either, and yet I think it's folly to dismiss it. It is going to be big, if only because it's cheap and will save big corporations hundreds of thousands of dollars. Just do the math on Google's offering: http://www.google.com/apps/intl/en/b...ing_value.html
The problem is Google doesn't tell you HOW it get to the numbers it produces. A quick way to see that Google is Ouija boarding the numbers is to put "1" in the "How many employees will your deployment serve?" and see the nonsense that produces. $10,000 for equipment?!? For ONE person?!?!?
The reality is without knowing how you got there you can't trust what that calculator is telling you.
If you are like most businesses a good hunk of computer use is as a glorified typewriter and you are lucky if you even have a server with the programs on it. You are more likely to have a print server set up then anything elaborate especially if you are small.
network resources have always been there since the introduction of the original PC you could connect it to a mainframe. cloud computing is the same sales pitch as the ASP of the late 1980's. where you turn everything to an application service provider to run all your apps remotely.
i use Google a lot including Google Wave and it reminds me of the old stories of mainframe time sharing since Google is becoming slow. and i've seen Chrome use up 600MB of RAM while in Wave making the whole thin client theory completely wrong
Yes we have been down this road many time before and each time it has been pie in the sky dream that never took off do to practical problems. I don't see it being any different this time. A few really large business might go into it but do you really want people's information out there?
Fair enough. I don't pretend to know much about servers or their costs. Certainly Google is trying to sell their service and they will use scenarios that are favorable for them. I can't envision a scenario in which I would want to get on the speculative cloud bandwagon. Nonetheless, I see several signs pointing to the success of the cloud. Big computing shifts seem to happen just when a lot of people think they've got everything figured out in terms of what is practical and what isn't practical. My instinct on the cloud experience--as it's currently known--is that it's a dud. With Apple wading deeper, and with all the other signals I get, I have a stronger instinct that conventional wisdom is missing something and that there is vast hidden potential.
the number i've heard was $50 per user for "enterprise" google mail. Exchange 2007 will run you around $100 per user including Outlook licenses. i've seen numbers where MS wanted to charge us $400 per user per year for unlimited Windows/Exchange/Office/SQL/Sharepoint and almost every one of their server products. you pay per employee and use whatever software you want on as many servers as you want.
RAM is so cheap that you can just buy 32GB of RAM and not worry about it. we had one of these data surges a few weeks ago on a DL360 with 8GB RAM. a week later it had 32GB and normal use is 2GB for that server
I don't know about DL120's but i compared the price of a DL380 with 32GB of RAM which is what our minimum buy spec is now compared to EC2. Proliant G6 servers will take up to 144GB of RAM allowing you to buy less machines and not worry about using EC2
EC2 costs $10000 per year or so. physical server around $10,000. and i don't think i accounted for the data transfer charges and the increased bandwidth costs we'll have to pay. and we still have proliant servers from 10 years ago doing some things. sometimes we use them for testing, other times they still do work. with Amazon we would still be paying
EC2 makes sense for small businesses, but not larger ones
High memory instances cost $3185 + $3679.20 (24 x7 x 365) = $6864 per year.
High-Memory Double Extra Large Instance 34.2 GB of memory, 13 EC2 Compute Units (4 virtual cores with 3.25 EC2 Compute Units each), 850 GB of local instance storage, 64-bit platform.
With the Virtual Private Cloud option (0.05/hour) you can scale your enterprise to the cloud with minimal capital costs.
Yes, Amazon is targetting large businesses. You may end up outsourced to someone like Amazon.
I’m not sure what you are trying to do at all. If it’s a local network the other machines are on you can just use an external disk that is shared and have Time Machine back it up. If it’s over a WAN then you have your public iDisk and can have an alias to your Shared folder anywhere on your Mac that your want.
This grew from my comment on finding a balance between cloud and local storage. Accessible everywhere - but also with offline usage (when the cloud is unavailable), and fast access through local copies....
I use Macs in multiple locations - so iDisk makes sense to get all my docs. When I first used iDisk, however, something went wrong and one deleted its contents... then synced the deletion to the others. That was my concern. (It also synced slowly).
In general, I also like TimeMachine backup. It _seems_ a no-brainer to have iDisk backup via Time Machine just like any other disk... and in fact it can backup the locally cached disk image, you just can't delve into the iDisk history.
Anyway, I think I've been nudged into using iDisk seriously again. The TimeMachine or .Mac backup will be there if something goes badly wrong - and that is a crucial aspect of Cloud computing!
Knock off the free crap. It'll most likely be rolled into MobileMe subscriptions.
And iWork isn't short on features, especially for its low price.
I'm with Daniel here. I think/hope iWork.com would be rolled into MobileMe because it makes sense but I also think it would be a separate service for those who don't want MobileMe.
Also the reason iWork.com is so feature lacking is because of one word... BETA. Obviously the original poster hasn't actually been to iWork.com because otherwise they'd have noticed the big "beta" word sitting above the name.
iWork.com has much potential but I think it will be of most use with iWork '10 for desktop and finally a release of iWork for iPhone/iPod Touch which would have me ditch Documents To Go in a heartbeat not because it's a bad product but because it doesn't support iWork documents which is what I use all the time.
Here's hoping.
High memory instances cost $3185 + $3679.20 (24 x7 x 365) = $6864 per year.
High-Memory Double Extra Large Instance 34.2 GB of memory, 13 EC2 Compute Units (4 virtual cores with 3.25 EC2 Compute Units each), 850 GB of local instance storage, 64-bit platform.
With the Virtual Private Cloud option (0.05/hour) you can scale your enterprise to the cloud with minimal capital costs.
Yes, Amazon is targetting large businesses. You may end up outsourced to someone like Amazon.
and this still costs more than HP especially when you add in recurring costs like faster network pipes
and what about security?
I remember seeing something about that before, but I think it was just an R&D thing when I read about it last. Thanks for the update. When I was thinking of MS as a potential stock pick for cloud computing, I was mainly remembering what I'd read in this Wired article about efforts to get the office suit out there: http://www.wired.com/techbiz/people/...urrentPage=all
All in all, MS seems like a good investment right now.
I'm completely with you on the stupidness of the term. The actual service itself doesn't appeal to me either. None of that has anything to do with the overall success/failure/profitability of the "cloud experience" however.
I appreciate the input though, as I have no first hand experience with EMC or VMW. I associate VMW with other "cloud" prospects because it seems their products will help make the cloud itself. I could be wrong. That is, providers of cloud services could use some of VMW's stuff with which to do their thing. I don't really have a good handle on the technical aspects of "the cloud". My understanding is cloudy. Ha ha.
If EMC can successfully, sell products at an obscene profit, that could make it a good investment (or a bad one if they stop being successful). I had it on my list because it seems like a good way to own VMW at a cheaper price. Thanks for the feedback.
VMWare is good because we can take servers that used to run one or a few minor apps and take them off the physical hardware since they never used all of the resources of even older servers. and it's nice for testing. few months ago i used the free version of ESX server to set up a few testing SQL Server instances for a project. in the past you would have to buy multiple physical machines or pray. last week i had another server crash due to hardware issues and needed a sql server to recreate the databases. i used my VMWare server to set up another SQL instance to copy database files to and fix them.
EMC is nice but expensive and everything in there is redundant if you spend the cash to set it up that way. we had drives and cards go bad in it and didn't care. 4 hour support and multiple paths to drives.
but it's not like the cloud where everything happens magically. everything still takes a lot of work to set up properly and manage it. to migrate to a new EMC SAN to us 6 months of planning
Let me get this straight......OK?
Apple has how many employees?
And they cannot hire for this job within?
They are looking for "an extra person".
We all saw what happened when the iPhone deadline was nearing. OSX development was postponed so the iPhone could release on time.
If you believe that then you're easily played by Apple. Mac OS X touch was the other reason. There's no way they would ever put the Mac OS on hold.
t r o l l a l e r t !
He's not being trollish. I've long said Apple should bundle iWork as part of the OS and use it to move computers.