4 ms·
True, but "most files" still doesn't cut it. I have great hopes for the upcoming Google Drive, it would solve many of the problems I'm facing right now in proje
by luckyisgood 15y ago
True, but "most files" still doesn't cut it. I have great hopes for the upcoming Google Drive, it would solve many of the problems I'm facing right now in project management (I wrote about it on my blog: http://luckyisgood.com/blog/google-drive/ http://luckyisgood.com/blog/google-drive/) - and support for all file types is essential if Google wants to call its service "cloud storage".
- palish 15y agoHoly french fries. With Google, I can get 80GB for $20/year: https://support.google.com/docs/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=39567 https://support.google.com/docs/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answ... With Dropbox, 100GB would cost me $199/year. I've been with Dropbox forever (I have account #315) but man, it is tempting to snag 80GB for the price of half a tank of gas. Convenience is obviously the primary loss. But I'm a nerd. It would likely be easy to figure out some way of auto-syncing my whole music folder. My other primary usage for Dropbox (and incidentally the motivation for its inception) is as a way to transfer files to other people. There's nothing like being able to host your own .html file within your own dropbox with literally zero effort. That said, a hybrid of the two seems best -- ridiculously cheap bulk storage, combined with the convenience of Dropbox when needed.