Stick Online Forums

Think we will ever see a 1 Geopbyte hard drive? Or even a 1 Brontobyte?

? 1024 Bytes = 1 Kilobyte
? 1024 Kilobytes = 1 Megabyte
? 1024 Megabytes = 1 Gigabyte
? 1024 Gigabytes = 1 Terabyte
? 1024 Terabytes = 1 Petabyte
? 1024 Petabytes = 1 Exabyte
? 1024 Exabytes = 1 Zettabyte
? 1024 Zettabytes = 1 Yottabyte
? 1024 Yottabytes = 1 Brontobyte
? 1024 Brontobytes = 1 Geopbyte

At some point we will stop saying how big it is because it will just say "holds everything you ever need". :P

lmao. What ART said.
I think you'd need like, every game/song/movie ever created in order to fill that much.. o.o

I'm thinking before they discover how to do this, they would have found a work-around for unlimited space by then.
Also, your chart confused me at first, but then again, I was reading it from bottom to top because I wanted to see what "Bronotobyte" was :P

Quote from: ARTgames on April 20, 2011, 11:15:04 PM
At some point we will stop saying how big it is because it will just say "holds everything you ever need". :P

I agree and disagree.

At some point, it would be satisfying to no longer worry about whether or not you have enough disk space, and statistically we are improving, if not mistakingly already there with things like cheap cloud storage, but respectively, it's not like stuff isn't continually consuming more and more disk space.  Hell, I remember when Microsoft's Flight Simulator 1 came on a couple of 3 & 1/2 floppy disks, amounting to no more than a couple megabytes, and what is it now?  How much hard drive consumption does WoW gobble with all its expansions?  As requirements increase, so does disk storage capacity.  It wasn't too long ago that we thought gigabytes were unheard of, much less did games require more than a single compact disk (not DVD, we're talking the same physical storage that you would purchase music on), even much less where a decent internet connection would be able to download gigabytes worth of games.

The term "At some point", while inevitably true (that's my optimism chiming in) is a ways off still.  I seem to recall having this exact conversation with Chaos a year ago.

Thing is, more advanced and better compression algorithms are being developed/used. So in the end we have larger hard drives and smaller sized files. Files (like images/videos/models) sizes all depends on the quality/complexity of the file, so I would like to see how anyone could fill up that much space. Overtime quality will improve, but it has to stop at some point, right? I don't want to de-rail this topic or anything, just makes you wonder what you would need this much space for. Unless you plan to have a server that holds all the data in the world...

I seem to remember reading a while back that the entire Library of Congress would take up, like, 5 petabytes or something like that.

I agree with Scott on one hand. We will definitely at some point require that much storage. But I also think the rate of increase is exponential. So the likeliness of that happening sooner rather than later is pretty good. On the other hand, it all depends on whether we will come up with a better way of processing data. If we aren't using bytes anymore, then the scale shown wouldn't really have any relavence.

It all comes down to which comes first. I definitely think in order to process that much data would require similarly exponential processing power. And we seem to be coming to some sort of threshhold for processors. It's getting harder and harder to cram enough into a single processor, which is why we have seen a shift to multi-core processors. It depends how far we can take that. If that reaches another threshhold, there will have to be another shift. Something like quantum computing, while probably not feasible right now, might become the next thing in processing power before storage capacity reaches the Geopbyte.

Quote from: Lingus on April 22, 2011, 05:38:20 PM
Something like quantum computing, while probably not feasible right now, might become the next thing in processing power before storage capacity reaches the Geopbyte.

While quantum computing is not really feasible right now, I definitely see it taking off in the not too distant future. I'm constantly reading articles that show scientists are quickly advancing the plausibility of creating quantum processors. Besides, according to some physicists, it will be another 75 years before CPU's stop following Gordon Moore's law, and reach their quantum limit. This gives us plenty of time to find an alternative to our current processing methods to better accompany the extreme amounts of data we'll be able to hold (which will also undergo a storage change if we move towards quantum computing because it will no longer use bits of information but rather qubits).

An interesting (and slightly de-railing) observation both my fellow co-web-developer and I have been discussing as of late, we both think the future of computer science is going to take a turn towards web development.  Google has pioneered so much that not even 5 years ago, we would've thought such functionality was only achieved through some expensive desktop applications.  Look at Google Maps, or even better, the Google Earth version of Google Maps that you can use in your browser.  Google is hitting it on the nose with creating an operating system that is nothing more than a web browser.  I will say that they are a bit premature in their ambition, but I seriously believe that the day will come that all of our computing will be done through the internet.  We already have technology in place to enable document management through a computer (in due time, bubye Microsoft Office), we have geospatial technology through either extensive Javascript, and even more with the upcoming HTML 5.  Hell, with HTML 5 we have multiplayer gaming through a browser.  No hours of downloading through Steam, no need to hit up the pirate bay and use torrent to download Gb's worth of games, no, load it in the browser, and go.  With graphics engines like the prospective WebGL, we can play 3d sonic on our web browser: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUQ4Nbr48HE or we can do multiplayer space shooters: https://gaming.mozillalabs.com/games/133/far-7

I am thoroughly convinced that in due time, all computing will be done through cloud computing and the internet.  All data storage will be done through a web browser (of whatever technologically advanced kind), with data centers that store those geopbytes worth of data for us, etc...  I promise anyone who wants to get into the computer science research and development field, learn web development, it'll pay off in the future.

Quote from: Scotty on April 22, 2011, 11:59:00 PM
I am thoroughly convinced that in due time, all computing will be done through cloud computing and the internet.  All data storage will be done through a web browser (of whatever technologically advanced kind), with data centers that store those geopbytes worth of data for us, etc...  I promise anyone who wants to get into the computer science research and development field, learn web development, it'll pay off in the future.

The question is: Once computing power and network speeds are no longer important because of their seemingly infinite speed and reliability, will people be completely reliant on cloud computing or completely independent of it because of their own computers ability to complete any task they need. At this point, I feel it could go either way. On one end of the spectrum, you have people that love keeping their data and processing localized, and having unlimited computing technology only further reinforces the idea that have a supercomputer to take care of your business will no longer be necessary. Not only that, but many people don't often trust private businesses or even the government to manage important data. On the other hand, we're already extremely reliant on outside sources to manage our lives. People might find that lugging around devices that can compute an md5 hash in 2 milliseconds is total overkill when you can have one device manage thousands of devices (which could possibly save on resources... A topic that will be even more important in the future). I guess time will tell.

Is it odd that we had mainframe computers in the past then moved to pc's and with cloud computing is moving back to mainframe in a way.

Quote from: Jake on April 22, 2011, 11:33:09 PM

Quote from: Lingus on April 22, 2011, 05:38:20 PM
Something like quantum computing, while probably not feasible right now, might become the next thing in processing power before storage capacity reaches the Geopbyte.

While quantum computing is not really feasible right now, I definitely see it taking off in the not too distant future. I'm constantly reading articles that show scientists are quickly advancing the plausibility of creating quantum processors. Besides, according to some physicists, it will be another 75 years before CPU's stop following Gordon Moore's law, and reach their quantum limit. This gives us plenty of time to find an alternative to our current processing methods to better accompany the extreme amounts of data we'll be able to hold (which will also undergo a storage change if we move towards quantum computing because it will no longer use bits of information but rather qubits).

That's actually exactly what I was getting at. Btw, I do agree that quantum computing will be feasible very soon. I was more referring to when it would become feasible for consumer application.

Quote from: Jake on April 23, 2011, 12:14:44 AM

Quote from: Scotty on April 22, 2011, 11:59:00 PM
I am thoroughly convinced that in due time, all computing will be done through cloud computing and the internet.  All data storage will be done through a web browser (of whatever technologically advanced kind), with data centers that store those geopbytes worth of data for us, etc...  I promise anyone who wants to get into the computer science research and development field, learn web development, it'll pay off in the future.

The question is: Once computing power and network speeds are no longer important because of their seemingly infinite speed and reliability, will people be completely reliant on cloud computing or completely independent of it because of their own computers ability to complete any task they need. At this point, I feel it could go either way. On one end of the spectrum, you have people that love keeping their data and processing localized, and having unlimited computing technology only further reinforces the idea that have a supercomputer to take care of your business will no longer be necessary. Not only that, but many people don't often trust private businesses or even the government to manage important data. On the other hand, we're already extremely reliant on outside sources to manage our lives. People might find that lugging around devices that can compute an md5 hash in 2 milliseconds is total overkill when you can have one device manage thousands of devices (which could possibly save on resources... A topic that will be even more important in the future). I guess time will tell.

I think definitely moving to cloud is preferrable. The main point of it is that you don't have to manage anything (at all) on your hardware device. If internet speeds allow, it would be beneficial in every case to have everything managed on the cloud. In fact, this is already taking place. You can currently have a device setup to be completely reliant on a cloud based system. The faster the internet speeds, the more things will move in that direction. Having faster processors probably will not change that. I'm guessing it would just make the servers faster, and the devices cheaper.

Cost is going to go down, efficiency and up-time are going to soar, it's the perfect solution to fit today's needs.

There's always going to be those who bitch about new technology.  When we go to cloud storage (not if, but when), there's going to be those who say "Cloud sucks!  I want to spend hundreds and thousands on local storage by buying a huge computer that'll keep up with today's standards, when I could just use the cloud and buy mediocre yet experience the same thing."  In fact, was anyone alive back in the day when mobile phones first came around.  I remember arguments of "I don't need a mobile phone!  I have a landline, and that's all I need!"  They'd throw out every argument under the sun to try and convince people that they were right, and everyone else was wrong.  Guess what everyone else did?  We left them in the dust.  They probably continued on for years without a mobile phone and people just gave up trying to contact them, until they got one.  Same thing will happen with cloud computing.  Many will object for a host of reasons, and we'll just forget them until they can stop being stubborn douches.

Quote from: Scotty on April 25, 2011, 06:13:59 PM
There's always going to be those who bitch about new technology.  When we go to cloud storage (not if, but when), there's going to be those who say "Cloud sucks!  I want to spend hundreds and thousands on local storage by buying a huge computer that'll keep up with today's standards, when I could just use the cloud and buy mediocre yet experience the same thing."

That's exactly what's happening right now. A lot of companies are already switching over to cloud. A lot of companies are doing exactly what you're saying... standing by their out-dated servers.

Quote from: Scotty on April 25, 2011, 06:13:59 PMIn fact, was anyone alive back in the day when mobile phones first came around.  I remember arguments of "I don't need a mobile phone!  I have a landline, and that's all I need!"  They'd throw out every argument under the sun to try and convince people that they were right, and everyone else was wrong.  Guess what everyone else did?  We left them in the dust.  They probably continued on for years without a mobile phone and people just gave up trying to contact them, until they got one.

Haha. Yes, I was around for this. I was around when pagers were the common thing to have actually. That was funny. But definitely mobile phones changed a lot of things. It made people reachable anywhere, anytime. Which is what a lot of people did not like about it.

It's funny though, because I feel like what you described is exactly what happened with me and text messaging. I refused to get it because I don't text. So people just didn't text me, and because of that, stopped contacting me. So now I have unlimited texting... It's frustrating because I still feel that texting is more time consuming than a phone call, and I still prefer calling and talking to someone. Texting, in my opinion, is much more inconvenient... but no one else feels that way. So in order to keep up I had to get it.