This USB-Size Cloud Computer From Dell Is A Total Game Changer

page: 7
20
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 12:41 PM
link   
Dell Ophelia? That's typo for sure, I bet it should have been called Dell Orwellia, model 1984.




posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by unityemissions
They're called PC's on sticks, and have been around for over a year.

I made a thread on a quad-core variant that was briefly mentioned on ATS radio.

Here's the thread:

Quad-Core PC on a Stick $99 !!

My husband brought one of those home a few months ago with it a wirless keyboard at the time I didn't ask him what it was .Well he went overseas for a year so I just put it away in the closet,lol thanks to you I now know what it is.Too funny,maybe I'll hook it up to the television later and surf the internet.

May I call on you for questions?



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by PrivateSi
reply to post by PhoenixOD
 


Playing 3D games using the cloud at HD would require:

1920*1080*32 (bits colour) /8 (bits in a byte) /1024 (bytes in a mb) = 8100 kb /s, 8100/1024 (kb in a mb) =
7.9 mega bytes per second --- in megabits / s this is 7.9*8 = 63.1 megabits / second
with mpeg compression at 8x: 63.1/8 = 7.9 megabit
8 megabits * 25 frames per second = 200mb connection needed
24 bit colour is true colour and 12x to 16x compression is realistic so maybe only 100 megabits needed...
Average UKconnection is about 8 megabits but Virgin has released 200mb connections...
SO, HD games are CLOUDABLE, NOW!

I'm not against cloud computing, just the way it's being IMPLEMENTED - Massive cloud centers owned by massive, MULTINATIONAL, GLOBALIST WHORES!

There are 2 FAIRER ways of implementing cloud services (and MUCH SAFER, if you're wary of global, offshore mega-corps)

1) Local cloud computing companies, preferably at least 50% owned by the locals, say 1 center for every 10,000 citizens... These could work as an (inter)national grid where excess demand or lack of demand can be used by other localities, as and when needed (this is how many ISPs already work). GOOGLE etc. are NOT NEEDED!

2) A non-centralised, non-hierarchical (apart from a few trackers) peer-to-peer network. In this model, user's own processors form the cloud - GOOGLE etc. are not NEEDED! The power of the cloud grows as users upgrade to newer devices and keep their old ones plugged into the cloud.

For data integrity's (not losing any data) and security's sake stored data must be split into 'chunks' and replicated many, many times. As no 'complete' document is stored anywhere (it's chunks have to be re-membered, stuck back together) the data is more secure. The replication of data, though wasteful, is needed because of hard-drives failing and in the peer-to-peer model users may not always be connected.

Also, in the peer-to-peer model data would only be stored in the old, permanently(ish) plugged in devices but the user's current device can still ADD it's own processing power to the 'cloud processor' (instead of being computationally passive) to the task in hand... Users could pay less depending on the power and time donated to the cloud by their own PERSONAL SUPER COMPUTER, back at HOME HQ..

All three systems have security issues but by far the CHEAPEST, LEAST WASTEFUL and least centralised system is the PEER-TO-PEER cloud model... Obviously the CORPORATE IT GIANTS want you grabbed by the BALLS so it probably won't happen... Neither will the LOCAL CLOUD model as describe in 1, for the same reasons...

The peer to peer model is SELF-UPGRADING and does not mean the potential DEATH of the PERSONAL COMPUTER (being replaced by a device that only streams internet content, without some hacking knowledge).. It keeps the CARDS in the hand of the USERS rather than the SUPPLIERS...
edit on 19-1-2013 by PrivateSi because: FPS computation error!
edit on 19-1-2013 by PrivateSi because: ??
edit on 19-1-2013 by PrivateSi because: ==
edit on 19-1-2013 by PrivateSi because: Integrity & Security, peer-to-peer data & pricing plan.


Probably the best post on this thread! Starred.

The only thing to take into consideration is ping time (i.e. the delay between server and device, governed by distance). Fibre optics solves that but a lot of the infrastructure is still on copper cable (although being upgraded as we speak no doubt).



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by PhoenixOD
reply to post by RMFX1
 




Actually, it won't depend on how wide your pipe is, but ultimately how close you are to the server.


I would say it depends on both. Its really not going to matter how close you are to the server if you are only using a 58k modem to connect to the internet.

edit on 19-1-2013 by PhoenixOD because: (no reason given)


No sh*t sherlock. Who in this day and age is using dial up? And out of the 4 or 5 people who still are, how many of them would use a service like this?

Thanks for stating the obvious.



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by RMFX1

Originally posted by PhoenixOD
reply to post by RMFX1
 




Actually, it won't depend on how wide your pipe is, but ultimately how close you are to the server.


I would say it depends on both. Its really not going to matter how close you are to the server if you are only using a 58k modem to connect to the internet.

edit on 19-1-2013 by PhoenixOD because: (no reason given)


No sh*t sherlock. Who in this day and age is using dial up? And out of the 4 or 5 people who still are, how many of them would use a service like this?

Thanks for stating the obvious.


chill out dude.. its an example to highlight my point.

The fact is its the ping thats important and not just how close you are to the server as you suggested. It will depend how close you are to the server AND how wide the pipe is.

edit on 19-1-2013 by PhoenixOD because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by PhoenixOD

Originally posted by RMFX1

Originally posted by PhoenixOD
reply to post by RMFX1
 




Actually, it won't depend on how wide your pipe is, but ultimately how close you are to the server.


I would say it depends on both. Its really not going to matter how close you are to the server if you are only using a 58k modem to connect to the internet.

edit on 19-1-2013 by PhoenixOD because: (no reason given)


No sh*t sherlock. Who in this day and age is using dial up? And out of the 4 or 5 people who still are, how many of them would use a service like this?

Thanks for stating the obvious.


chill out dude.. its an example to highlight my point.

The fact is its the ping thats important and not just how close you are to the server as you suggested.

edit on 19-1-2013 by PhoenixOD because: (no reason given)


My point is that your bandwdith could be astonomically huge, but if your ping to the server is too high, because you're just too far away, then your bandwidth will not help you. It's not worth stating that people on very low speeds would have issues as that is obviously a given.



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 02:35 PM
link   
reply to post by RMFX1
 


well what you said was the bandwidth (or the 'pipe' as you called it) was not important but how close you were to the server.

My point is that they are both as important as each other because if one isnt up to the job of fully complimenting the other then you will have a bottle neck.

Do you disagree with this?

edit on 19-1-2013 by PhoenixOD because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by PhoenixOD
reply to post by RMFX1
 


well what you said was the bandwidth (or the 'pipe' as you called it) was not important but how close you were to the server.

My point is that they are both as important as each other because if one isnt up to the job of fully complimenting the other then you will have a bottle neck.

Do you disagree with this?

edit on 19-1-2013 by PhoenixOD because: (no reason given)


I think that you are arguing a non-point and nit picking.



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 03:00 PM
link   
It seems there have been quite a few developments in cloug gaming over the last year.

this is from WIKI :


In July 2012, Sony buys out the largest cloud gaming service provider Gaikai for US$ 380 million.[17]

In July 2012, Cloud Union's cloud gaming service subscribers beyond 300,000.

In August 2012, Square Enix launched their CoreOnline streaming games service, which will offer free and advertising-supported access to their back catalog of older games via a web browser.[18]

September 11, 2012 saw the launch of CiiNOW, a new cloud gaming platform. CiiNOW claims to have pioneered a new approach called hybrid streaming. Hybrid streaming consists of streaming graphics primitives as well as video simultaneously. It utilizes some processing on a client to achieve better quality at lower bandwidth.[19]

October 11, 2012 Orange launches commercial cloud gaming service to all of its IPTV subscribers in France powered by G-cluster technology.

source
edit on 19-1-2013 by PhoenixOD because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ghost375

ok first off....you've responded to me ONCE! L2C

It's you who doesn't comprehend this stuff. The limitation does not lie with the speed of internet. It lies with the hardware computing the data. Not the rate at which the data is transmitted.


Again, you show a complete lack of comprehension with this statement.

Which hardware? Where is it? On your desktop? Why? If we can put it in the cloud, and send it back to you before you can blink, how will you notice the difference?

Why put all the hardware on that old clunker? Why not move forward with smaller, sleeker devices. Wearable devices. Bendable devices. Why the hell do we need to have all the hardware right in front of you?

Seriously, there's some sort of mental block you have here. Your arguments are 100% invalid. It matters not that the hardware specs aren't up to your 2012 desktop rig. You know that your computer doesn't match a supercomputer, correct?

All that the device needs is a sufficiently fast connection to the internet, and access to cloud computers, and anything you can do from your PC today, you will be able to do in the cloud of the future, but faster, and better.

4k gaming? Not a problem. Maya rendering? Much quicker. The device simply needs to have a NIC, and ability to push the data to/from the cloud, and display the results on a screen. That's it.



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 05:49 PM
link   
reply to post by PhoenixOD
 


The current limitation with cloud gaming is bandwidth and latency. Gaming in 1080p in the cloud with current broadband standards means the images will be compressed. Latency is usually 30-50ms on a decent connection each way. If you double that, it means you're going to have a bit of lag.

Getting +1Gbps lines to the house gets rid of these problems. The human eye can process at a rate of 30fps, or roughly 33ms. If you can get latency down under 10ms each way, you can have gaming without a perceived lag. With +1Gbps, you can send uncompressed images.

What's currently offered is a step forward, but it's for early adapters who are willing to sacrifice performance for nerd points. Give it 5 years, and we may have a significant percentage of gamers running off hardware in the cloud.
edit on 19-1-2013 by unityemissions because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 06:31 PM
link   
I see the cloud, as a vast open network for shared files etc.

I do not, see it as a replacement, how ever only going by it's attributes, it is obvious they are not intended to replace solid storage space. Give it time sure, but as a file sharing platform, it is unbeatable. At least in my opinion.

For me it is also, a preferred method of mobile storage or as I have previously mentioned in other posts here.

So, I agree the old PC and laptops are better, but this to me, isn't a replacement. It is an alternative capability for being mobile.



But, could any one imagine a PS3 or Xbox with these built in...!?



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 10:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by PhoenixOD

So could this be the beginning of the end for PC's as we know them? Will you be quick to embrace the cloud?



No. My data is mine, and will not be getting stored on someone else's "cloud".



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 10:57 PM
link   
reply to post by PhoenixOD
 


A cloud computer? No thanks! I prefer using a custom Linux distro on a memory stick or Raspberry Pi. I like to keep my things local.



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 06:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by PhoenixOD
Well it seems like Dell have re-invented themselves again , this time coming up with a cloud based PC that the size of a slightly oversized USB key!



The cutely named Ophelia is rumored to selling at a starting price of just $50 which is only slightly more expensive than the UK's super cheap mini computer the Raspberry PI that got launched last year.

Ophelia is so small partly because it sends a lot of its local task processing to the cloud :


Ophelia works exactly like a USB port: Just plug it into any flat panel monitor or TV, and, boom, you have a computer. Ophelia automatically connects to the Internet via Wi-Fi and can link to keyboards and other peripherals via Bluetooth.

According to Quartz, Ophelia is powered by Google’s Android operating system to handle local tasks such as decoding and encoding audio and video, but the computer itself is relatively power-friendly. The Ophelia reportedly draws 2.1 watts of power; comparatively, the average smartphone microprocessor draws a little more than 1 watt, while the average PC can consume more than 20 times as much electricity.

source

Wiki defines the cloud as:

Cloud computing is the use of computing resources (hardware and software) that are delivered as a service over a network (typically the Internet). The name comes from the use of a cloud-shaped symbol as an abstraction for the complex infrastructure it contains in system diagrams. Cloud computing entrusts remote services with a user's data, software and computation

Wiki source

For a long time now many of us in the PC world have known that the cloud would eventually change things forever. Really the only thing that has stopped it happening so far is the speed of internet connections. I think one of the biggest driving forces of the PC world is the games market. Every year 3D games producers come out with more and more complex and processor intensive games and companies like Nvidia and MSI / Radeon fight to produce the hardware to keep up with the demand. But with cloud computing a lot of the hard work like 3D GFX processing can be done in the cloud so there will be no need for the average gamer to keep up to date with the latest hardware. Everyone will more or less be on an equal footing there will be no more problems with some players having faster computers than others and therefore having a distinct advantage in the game.

Also with cloud computing there will inevitably be less configuration problems with the system. So less PC problems for the user all round. As not everyone is computer savvy or even has time to keep up with the latest operating system cloud computing ,has the potential to take off very quickly. With all these advantages its not really a case of if it takes off so much as when..

So could this be the beginning of the end for PC's as we know them? Will you be quick to embrace the cloud?

edit on 17-1-2013 by PhoenixOD because: (no reason given)


They are not new. Android on a stick PC's have been around for ages.



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by unityemissions
reply to post by PhoenixOD
 


The human eye can process at a rate of 30fps, or roughly 33ms.


What's currently offered is a step forward, but it's for early adapters who are willing to sacrifice performance for nerd points. Give it 5 years, and we may have a significant percentage of gamers running off hardware in the cloud.
edit on 19-1-2013 by unityemissions because: (no reason given)

It's obvious you have no knowledge of PC gaming and what it requires. Real PC gamers are a unique breed, that would never sacrifice performance. Maybe those Facebook gamers would, they don't matter.

We are not anywhere close to the technology for real PC gaming in the cloud as you think. Maybe we can run some crappy facebook games with it. Real PC gamers don't give a crap about that. You know all those people 30 years ago saying everyone would have flying cars by 2000. Yeah, that's what you're doing.

And the human eye processes at a rate higher than 30 fps. It's laughable you say that. and proves to me there's no point in talking to you further. It's YOU who doesn't understand this stuff. It's YOU who has the mental block.



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ghost375

Originally posted by unityemissions
reply to post by PhoenixOD
 


The human eye can process at a rate of 30fps, or roughly 33ms.

What's currently offered is a step forward, but it's for early adapters who are willing to sacrifice performance for nerd points. Give it 5 years, and we may have a significant percentage of gamers running off hardware in the cloud.
edit on 19-1-2013 by unityemissions because: (no reason given)

It's obvious you have no knowledge of PC gaming and what it requires. Real PC gamers are a unique breed, that would never sacrifice performance. Maybe those Facebook gamers would, they don't matter.

We are not anywhere close to the technology for real PC gaming in the cloud as you think. Maybe we can run some crappy facebook games with it. Real PC gamers don't give a crap about that. You know all those people 30 years ago saying everyone would have flying cars by 2000. Yeah, that's what you're doing.

And the human eye processes at a rate higher than 30 fps. It's laughable you say that. and proves to me there's no point in talking to you further. It's YOU who doesn't understand this stuff. It's YOU who has the mental block.



30 fps + is fine for gaming, the higher frame rates achieved by high-end gaming rigs act as a buffer - ie when you get to an action scene with lots of characters/light sources/effects which cause the frame rate to drop it goes unnoticed (where as a lesser system would experience a perceivable lag).

Casper, as this this is about streamed content (from the cloud) - having a higher frame rate is a moot point as the servers would be running the game and streaming the data to the cloud device at a fixed frame rate so as not to consume bandwidth with extra frames that in reality, would not be perceived by the gamer.

I hope the above makes sense! It's been a long day!
edit on 20-1-2013 by boxertwin because: because I confused milliseconds with deciseconds - I become retarded when I'm tired




posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by MarkJS
This is just history repeating itself. IBM in the 70s and 80s was doing this with 3270 dumb terminals connected to a super-computer. It's not the future. In actuality, it's a throwback to the past.

The device is cheap. So how are the manufacturers going to make a profit? Probably from the connection and CPU time used by the user. If you want to do something simple like write a Word Doc, you will need connectivity. The overall cost will balance itself out in the end... or it may be more expensive overall.

Say goodbye to user-data privacy. Whatever smidgen of privacy we have now.... bye bye.

There's a thought.... Consolidating power from the hands of many, into the hands of
a few. That's always been a winning formula in society.
So many sheeple. []Sarcasm off.[]

Well maybe the power will so consolidated that it goes ultimately to 'one man', the antichrist (one tricky fellow...not a nice man). It's not ideal, humanly speaking, but if it happens, it has been prophesized to be.


16 He causes all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hand or on their foreheads, 17 and that no one may buy or sell (and probably: and cannot use the internet... added by me) except one who has the mark or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.
Revelation 13:16-17 (New King James Version)

edit on 21/1/2013 by MarkJS because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2013 @ 06:32 AM
link   
reply to post by ADVISOR
 


I know better late in a reply than never.

How I envy the camping in the woods aspect, but young twins forbid that at the moment.

I too use my droid for many web based things, but prefer the PC for mostly everything else. I won't go into the specifics, but all the things I can do with it and never need worry about dropping or leaving it somewhere makes it my choice, but hey as we agree, "to each their own".

Just love to see all those lights and cool chip sets inside the box, something I'll not easily accomplish with a laptop.



posted on Mar, 17 2013 @ 08:11 AM
link   
You loose internet, you loose your computer. You have high latency internet connection, you have crappy performance on your end. And toss your privacy out the window, everything is done in the cloud so anyone has access to your entire history of what you have done. Going through divorce? A lawyer gets a subpoena and gets a list of sites which you visited and could potentially cause you to loose the divorce.

The latter part already happens if you use services like google.



  exclusive video


new topics
top topics
 
20
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join