Space: it seems you can never have enough of it. When we moved to a house that was almost 1000 square feet bigger than the old one, we wondered how we would ever fill all that space. Four and half years later, there are no empty rooms or closets, and the garage contains the overflow. Computer storage is the same; in the beginning, a 5 MB hard drive seemed roomy. When I bought my first 1 GB drive, I thought it was huge. Now it won't even hold the operating system. A few years ago, we could hardly imagine having a terabyte of storage space on the network. Now we have twice that on a single computer. It's like a law of nature that no matter how large your space, your collection of "stuff" - whether that's furniture or knick-knacks or electronic files - will expand to fill it.
We can blame software bloat for some of this, but it's not just the OS and applications that take up more room. Today's data files are enormous compared to those we stored in earlier times. I still have a few dozen floppy disks from the 1990s (the contents have, of course, been copied to other media many times since then) that held most of my user data. It consisted primarily of text documents and low resolution photos, with most of the files only a few KB in size. Today's digital cameras create high quality, high resolution photos that can reach 30 or 40MB file sizes in RAW format. Good quality video files are even larger: an uncompressed video in 640x480 resolution and a 30 frame-per-second frame rate can require more than 200MB to store a mere 10 seconds of footage. Some audio formats, such as .WAV, also result in large file sizes (around 50 MB for an average song).
Of course, you can reduce the amount of storage space needed for pictures, video and music by using compression technologies. For example, storing songs in MP3 format instead of .WAV, or saving pictures as .JPGs instead of .TIFs or RAW files will greatly reduce the file size - but that comes with some loss of quality. Another option is to use the file compression technology built into Windows to reduce storage space needs. This is done by right clicking a file or folder, selecting Properties, clicking the Advanced button on the General tab, and checking the "Compress contents" box. A disadvantage is that if a file or folder is encrypted, it can't also be compressed. You can also easily "zip" folders containing multiple files in Vista to compress the contents. Right click it, select Send To, then select Compressed (zipped) Folder.
Even with compression, you're likely to experience an ever-increasing need for more storage space. This is especially true if you record or download high definition movies and TV programs, each of which can be several gigabytes in size. Luckily, vendors keep coming up with ways to create larger and larger storage media, often at lower and lower cost. The price of a one TB hard drive today is about half what I paid for a 1 GB drive in the mid-90s, and it's also faster.
Traditional platter-based hard drives give you a lot of storage space for very little money, but they also have disadvantages. Those moving parts introduce potential points of failure. They're especially vulnerable to being dropped (although they're not nearly as fragile as the first ones were; back in the 80s we had to "park" our drive heads - lock them in place - before we dared move the computer). They're also relatively big and heavy and use quite a bit of power.
An alternative to the hard disk that's gaining ground, especially with notebooks and netbooks, is the solid state drive (SSD) which uses flash memory instead of magnetic platters and has not moving parts. It's smaller and lighter and more energy efficient, and data access is faster, especially for read operations. However, it's also expensive and capacities are lower. The largest SSD that's readily available is 256GB, and prices for that capacity start at over $500. Compare this to the $279 price for a traditional hard drive with almost 8 times as much storage (2 TB).
For most of us, the traditional drive makes the most economic sense for data storage. But for backups and portability of data, there are some new, exciting options in the wings. General Electric recently announced that their research division has achieved a breakthrough in the field of holographic storage, which will allow for DVD-like discs that will hold 500 GB of data (a regular DVD holds about 8, while Blu-ray discs top out at 50).
Over on ZDNet, Andrew Nusca speculates that this may have come too late, noting that "the latest trend ... is to connect your set top [box] and media player to the Internet. That connectivity means content will flow directly to your viewing area - no media needed ...". He suggests that we are headed toward a "medialess" world, and then asks "And if not, hasn't flash media proved itself a more worthy and useful format?"
http://www.vistanews.com/090430-Blu-ray-killer
I have to take issue on both counts. First, I believe we are far from a "medialess" world. Even if we do end up streaming all or most of our HD content to our TVs and never storing it (and I'm not so sure that's given), that's only one element of the data that we store on our local computers. Many of us create a lot of original content. That includes our digital photographs, personal digital videos (what we used to call "home movies"), large PowerPoint presentations that incorporate many visual and audio components, and large Word documents with embedded graphics. We also back up large amounts of email, our web sites, and other big files (or big numbers of smaller files).
Flash drives and cards are certainly convenient and proven to work, but capacities are still relatively low and prices fairly high (32 GB is around $80-100). Based on past progress, we won't see a low priced 500 GB flash drive/card for several years. And sometimes all the USB ports are in use, or USB has been disabled. I think there is a market for a low cost, super high capacity DVD-type disc. I don't think streaming will do away with the need/desire for enormous traditional hard drives, either. Tell us what you think at feedback@vistanews.com
Follow-up: Web-based Services
Last week, I took a look at so-called "cloud" services from a different perspective: not as a replacement for traditional computing, but as a supplement. I reviewed some web-based services, particular Windows Live services, that I think can be useful for the average computer user. Many of our readers offered their opinions, both in agreement and disagreement.
This comes from David A.: "I feel that web-based services (especially the free ones) are great. The only worry I have is if the power to those providing the services goes out or they are doing an update or upgrade which takes the service down (just when you need it) or the service just plain disappears. I have seen a couple of providers just up and vanish."
Mike S. said, "I am blogging using Live now, and finding Live, at least as a brand, is trying to be all things, covering all services to all people. It has a tendency to be feature bloated and detracts a bit from the small things I want to accomplish in the Live cloud. Still a good effort and makes things easier for the average user." He then went on to say, "By reading some of the many publications out there touting cloud computing ... you would think cloud computing is going to take over the world and that all traditional forms of computing will yield to the cloud. As you pointed out, this is not the case."
Chris H. brought up this obstacle that would have to be overcome before service-based computing could ever become ubiquitous: "I like the idea of cloud computing, and I would use it a great deal more except for one thing: upload speed. Asynchronous connections are pretty much standard, and in my case I get 7 mgbps download vs. about 256 kbps upload. What an extreme difference. I do use the cloud world for my documents, but to think of uploading my pictures and mp3's into the cloud - or any other backup service - is almost prohibitive."
Ron H. had this to say: "Basically, I've found out about Windows Live and like it. The calendar help me keep my personal things scheduled. And I can have additional calendars for others I mingle with and yet keep separate. I didn't understand the Spaces and SkyDrive alternatives. But I like how you suggest they tend to work well together. I'm all for that. But having not enough time to get basic things done, I don't feel I had time to pursue those aspects. Your links to how they work will likely help make my research far more efficient. I don't use my system for business purposes. So keeping it simple should prove adequate for my needs."
And Larry E. said, "I'm all for the "in conjunction" approach to cloud-based services. Just as I depend on Yahoo Mail to maintain my various email files, and my ability to access and respond to them from anywhere, I can see value in having selected documents available to me from anywhere. I'm anticipating being on the road a lot more in the not to distant future, and expect to use such serves more extensively then."
All in all, responses to this way of using the cloud get much more support than earlier articles on the possibility of a cloud "takeover." Not all responses were positive, though. Vic G. wrote: "Once again there is someone willing to push every thing she has heard about on the rest of us that don't care. The majority has let it be known that they, at this time, are not interested in the cloud computing but you are still pushing. Just one more person who thinks they [sic] know what the rest of us poor uninformed shleps need. No thanks." Folks, it makes no difference to me whether you use web services or not and I have no reason or desire to "push" them on you if you don't want them. My intent was to share my own experiences in the hopes that some people might find them interesting or useful.
Thanks to all of you who wrote!
'Til next week,
Deb Shinder, Editor
feedback@vistanews.com
PS: Did you know this newsletter has a sister publication for XP users called WXPnews? You can subscribe here, and tell your friends:
http://www.vistanews.com/090430-WXPNews
And for IT pros, there's our "big sister," WServer News, at
http://www.vistanews.com/090430-WServerNews
Look for the VistaNews fan page on Facebook!
We can blame software bloat for some of this, but it's not just the OS and applications that take up more room. Today's data files are enormous compared to those we stored in earlier times. I still have a few dozen floppy disks from the 1990s (the contents have, of course, been copied to other media many times since then) that held most of my user data. It consisted primarily of text documents and low resolution photos, with most of the files only a few KB in size. Today's digital cameras create high quality, high resolution photos that can reach 30 or 40MB file sizes in RAW format. Good quality video files are even larger: an uncompressed video in 640x480 resolution and a 30 frame-per-second frame rate can require more than 200MB to store a mere 10 seconds of footage. Some audio formats, such as .WAV, also result in large file sizes (around 50 MB for an average song).
Of course, you can reduce the amount of storage space needed for pictures, video and music by using compression technologies. For example, storing songs in MP3 format instead of .WAV, or saving pictures as .JPGs instead of .TIFs or RAW files will greatly reduce the file size - but that comes with some loss of quality. Another option is to use the file compression technology built into Windows to reduce storage space needs. This is done by right clicking a file or folder, selecting Properties, clicking the Advanced button on the General tab, and checking the "Compress contents" box. A disadvantage is that if a file or folder is encrypted, it can't also be compressed. You can also easily "zip" folders containing multiple files in Vista to compress the contents. Right click it, select Send To, then select Compressed (zipped) Folder.
Even with compression, you're likely to experience an ever-increasing need for more storage space. This is especially true if you record or download high definition movies and TV programs, each of which can be several gigabytes in size. Luckily, vendors keep coming up with ways to create larger and larger storage media, often at lower and lower cost. The price of a one TB hard drive today is about half what I paid for a 1 GB drive in the mid-90s, and it's also faster.
Traditional platter-based hard drives give you a lot of storage space for very little money, but they also have disadvantages. Those moving parts introduce potential points of failure. They're especially vulnerable to being dropped (although they're not nearly as fragile as the first ones were; back in the 80s we had to "park" our drive heads - lock them in place - before we dared move the computer). They're also relatively big and heavy and use quite a bit of power.
An alternative to the hard disk that's gaining ground, especially with notebooks and netbooks, is the solid state drive (SSD) which uses flash memory instead of magnetic platters and has not moving parts. It's smaller and lighter and more energy efficient, and data access is faster, especially for read operations. However, it's also expensive and capacities are lower. The largest SSD that's readily available is 256GB, and prices for that capacity start at over $500. Compare this to the $279 price for a traditional hard drive with almost 8 times as much storage (2 TB).
For most of us, the traditional drive makes the most economic sense for data storage. But for backups and portability of data, there are some new, exciting options in the wings. General Electric recently announced that their research division has achieved a breakthrough in the field of holographic storage, which will allow for DVD-like discs that will hold 500 GB of data (a regular DVD holds about 8, while Blu-ray discs top out at 50).
Over on ZDNet, Andrew Nusca speculates that this may have come too late, noting that "the latest trend ... is to connect your set top [box] and media player to the Internet. That connectivity means content will flow directly to your viewing area - no media needed ...". He suggests that we are headed toward a "medialess" world, and then asks "And if not, hasn't flash media proved itself a more worthy and useful format?"
http://www.vistanews.com/090430-Blu-ray-killer
I have to take issue on both counts. First, I believe we are far from a "medialess" world. Even if we do end up streaming all or most of our HD content to our TVs and never storing it (and I'm not so sure that's given), that's only one element of the data that we store on our local computers. Many of us create a lot of original content. That includes our digital photographs, personal digital videos (what we used to call "home movies"), large PowerPoint presentations that incorporate many visual and audio components, and large Word documents with embedded graphics. We also back up large amounts of email, our web sites, and other big files (or big numbers of smaller files).
Flash drives and cards are certainly convenient and proven to work, but capacities are still relatively low and prices fairly high (32 GB is around $80-100). Based on past progress, we won't see a low priced 500 GB flash drive/card for several years. And sometimes all the USB ports are in use, or USB has been disabled. I think there is a market for a low cost, super high capacity DVD-type disc. I don't think streaming will do away with the need/desire for enormous traditional hard drives, either. Tell us what you think at feedback@vistanews.com
Follow-up: Web-based Services
Last week, I took a look at so-called "cloud" services from a different perspective: not as a replacement for traditional computing, but as a supplement. I reviewed some web-based services, particular Windows Live services, that I think can be useful for the average computer user. Many of our readers offered their opinions, both in agreement and disagreement.
This comes from David A.: "I feel that web-based services (especially the free ones) are great. The only worry I have is if the power to those providing the services goes out or they are doing an update or upgrade which takes the service down (just when you need it) or the service just plain disappears. I have seen a couple of providers just up and vanish."
Mike S. said, "I am blogging using Live now, and finding Live, at least as a brand, is trying to be all things, covering all services to all people. It has a tendency to be feature bloated and detracts a bit from the small things I want to accomplish in the Live cloud. Still a good effort and makes things easier for the average user." He then went on to say, "By reading some of the many publications out there touting cloud computing ... you would think cloud computing is going to take over the world and that all traditional forms of computing will yield to the cloud. As you pointed out, this is not the case."
Chris H. brought up this obstacle that would have to be overcome before service-based computing could ever become ubiquitous: "I like the idea of cloud computing, and I would use it a great deal more except for one thing: upload speed. Asynchronous connections are pretty much standard, and in my case I get 7 mgbps download vs. about 256 kbps upload. What an extreme difference. I do use the cloud world for my documents, but to think of uploading my pictures and mp3's into the cloud - or any other backup service - is almost prohibitive."
Ron H. had this to say: "Basically, I've found out about Windows Live and like it. The calendar help me keep my personal things scheduled. And I can have additional calendars for others I mingle with and yet keep separate. I didn't understand the Spaces and SkyDrive alternatives. But I like how you suggest they tend to work well together. I'm all for that. But having not enough time to get basic things done, I don't feel I had time to pursue those aspects. Your links to how they work will likely help make my research far more efficient. I don't use my system for business purposes. So keeping it simple should prove adequate for my needs."
And Larry E. said, "I'm all for the "in conjunction" approach to cloud-based services. Just as I depend on Yahoo Mail to maintain my various email files, and my ability to access and respond to them from anywhere, I can see value in having selected documents available to me from anywhere. I'm anticipating being on the road a lot more in the not to distant future, and expect to use such serves more extensively then."
All in all, responses to this way of using the cloud get much more support than earlier articles on the possibility of a cloud "takeover." Not all responses were positive, though. Vic G. wrote: "Once again there is someone willing to push every thing she has heard about on the rest of us that don't care. The majority has let it be known that they, at this time, are not interested in the cloud computing but you are still pushing. Just one more person who thinks they [sic] know what the rest of us poor uninformed shleps need. No thanks." Folks, it makes no difference to me whether you use web services or not and I have no reason or desire to "push" them on you if you don't want them. My intent was to share my own experiences in the hopes that some people might find them interesting or useful.
Thanks to all of you who wrote!
'Til next week,
Deb Shinder, Editor
feedback@vistanews.com
PS: Did you know this newsletter has a sister publication for XP users called WXPnews? You can subscribe here, and tell your friends:
http://www.vistanews.com/090430-WXPNews
And for IT pros, there's our "big sister," WServer News, at
http://www.vistanews.com/090430-WServerNews
Look for the VistaNews fan page on Facebook!
Indonesian Rupiah Exchange Rate