6 ms·

> Now where have I heard that before... Ok, sorry, in another 30 years time people might want more than 1G to do brain dumps to their robo-shrink. In 2023, th

> Now where have I heard that before... Ok, sorry, in another 30 years time people might want more than 1G to do brain dumps to their robo-shrink. In 2023, there are very few uses for home users that will exceed what a 1G connection can provide. But please enlighten me about where you think you've "heard this before"?

theryan 3y ago
I believe they are referring to the quote from Bill Gates '640K ought to be enough for anyone' in reference to ram.
- stephenr 3y ago
  I guess I shouldn't be surprised that someone who believes the debunked Gates quote is real, also can't comprehend the difference between "for anyone" and "for a lot of people".
Aaargh20318 3y ago
> In 2023, there are very few uses for home users that will exceed what a 1G connection can provide Video games are getting bigger all the time. The latest Call of Duty apparently is 200GB. On 1gbit you are limited to 125MB/s downloads (assuming zero overhead) that's almost a half an hour to download. PCIe4 SSD's are capable of write speeds of about 7GB/s and PCIe5 SSD's are just hitting the market with even faster speeds. At 10Gbit you can download that game in less than 3 minutes. In neither case are you even approaching the speed at which your PC can store that data. When PCIe5 SSD's go mainstream a home PC user would even be able to saturate a 100Gbit connection.
- stephenr 3y ago
  Please, I implore you, to read the line you quoted again, and then perhaps pull out the old Oxford English, and look up what "very few" means. I'll be generous and give you a hint: it doesn't mean none. But your example also has great relevance to the "familiar" sentence in my original comment which was: > 2.5G is rapidly approaching, if not already past the point, for a lot of people where a single machine will never use all of that capacity, and the advantage of higher total bandwidth is to support multiple people doing high bandwidth tasks. I italicised the part that I knew people would somehow ignore in my original comment and I've done it again, because obviously once wasn't enough. Here, let me pull out the important words yet again just to make it really clear: > for a lot of people
hnlmorg 3y ago
Not the commenter but I’ve heard people make statements like that time and time again, only for those limits to be obliterated a few years later. The thing is, the moment a new upper bound becomes available, developers find a way to use it. It’s like the freeway problem that adding more roads ironically adds to congestion. Take storage, the greater the storage capacity of media increased, the larger game assets became. The faster CPUs and system memory became, the heavier our operating systems and desktop software became. Likewise, the faster our internet becomes, the more dependent we will become on streaming high fidelity content. 4k on a lot of streaming services is compressed to hell and back to work with people on slower internet connections. And much as Google Stadia was shutdown, video game streaming services aren’t a failed experiment. Plus even with more traditional services, how many of us roll our eyes at multi-hour download times for new games? Once gigabit internet becomes the norm (it’s common place in a lot of countries already, but it’s not quite the norm yet) then you’ll see more and more services upscale to support it, and thus others on the cutting edge of the tech curve finding that gigabit internet isn’t quite fast enough any more. And that will happen sooner than you think.
- stephenr 3y ago
  > 4k on a lot of streaming services is compressed to hell and back to work with people on slower internet connections. A 4K UltraHD Bluray (that's 100GB for one movie) has a maximum bitrate of "just" 144Mbps. If you're suggesting online streaming services have some swathe of content that's (checks notes) in excess of 7x the bitrate used for 4K Bluray discs, I'd love to hear about it. > video game streaming services aren’t a failed experiment I'd have thought latency was a far bigger concern here, but even if not: it's still just sending you a 4K video stream.. it just happens to be a stream that's reacting to your input.
  - ndriscoll 3y ago
    AFAIK we're still very far below the dynamic range human eyes are capable of seeing, so there's plenty of room to need to up the bit depth (and rate) for video if displays can improve. Our color gamuts also do not cover human vision.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

theryan 3y ago

I believe they are referring to the quote from Bill Gates '640K ought to be enough for anyone' in reference to ram.

stephenr 3y ago
I guess I shouldn't be surprised that someone who believes the debunked Gates quote is real, also can't comprehend the difference between "for anyone" and "for a lot of people".

Aaargh20318 3y ago

> In 2023, there are very few uses for home users that will exceed what a 1G connection can provide Video games are getting bigger all the time. The latest Call of Duty apparently is 200GB. On 1gbit you are limited to 125MB/s downloads (assuming zero overhead) that's almost a half an hour to download. PCIe4 SSD's are capable of write speeds of about 7GB/s and PCIe5 SSD's are just hitting the market with even faster speeds. At 10Gbit you can download that game in less than 3 minutes. In neither case are you even approaching the speed at which your PC can store that data. When PCIe5 SSD's go mainstream a home PC user would even be able to saturate a 100Gbit connection.

stephenr 3y ago
Please, I implore you, to read the line you quoted again, and then perhaps pull out the old Oxford English, and look up what "very few" means. I'll be generous and give you a hint: it doesn't mean none. But your example also has great relevance to the "familiar" sentence in my original comment which was: > 2.5G is rapidly approaching, if not already past the point, for a lot of people where a single machine will never use all of that capacity, and the advantage of higher total bandwidth is to support multiple people doing high bandwidth tasks. I italicised the part that I knew people would somehow ignore in my original comment and I've done it again, because obviously once wasn't enough. Here, let me pull out the important words yet again just to make it really clear: > for a lot of people

hnlmorg 3y ago

Not the commenter but I’ve heard people make statements like that time and time again, only for those limits to be obliterated a few years later. The thing is, the moment a new upper bound becomes available, developers find a way to use it. It’s like the freeway problem that adding more roads ironically adds to congestion. Take storage, the greater the storage capacity of media increased, the larger game assets became. The faster CPUs and system memory became, the heavier our operating systems and desktop software became. Likewise, the faster our internet becomes, the more dependent we will become on streaming high fidelity content. 4k on a lot of streaming services is compressed to hell and back to work with people on slower internet connections. And much as Google Stadia was shutdown, video game streaming services aren’t a failed experiment. Plus even with more traditional services, how many of us roll our eyes at multi-hour download times for new games? Once gigabit internet becomes the norm (it’s common place in a lot of countries already, but it’s not quite the norm yet) then you’ll see more and more services upscale to support it, and thus others on the cutting edge of the tech curve finding that gigabit internet isn’t quite fast enough any more. And that will happen sooner than you think.

stephenr 3y ago
> 4k on a lot of streaming services is compressed to hell and back to work with people on slower internet connections. A 4K UltraHD Bluray (that's 100GB for one movie) has a maximum bitrate of "just" 144Mbps. If you're suggesting online streaming services have some swathe of content that's (checks notes) in excess of 7x the bitrate used for 4K Bluray discs, I'd love to hear about it. > video game streaming services aren’t a failed experiment I'd have thought latency was a far bigger concern here, but even if not: it's still just sending you a 4K video stream.. it just happens to be a stream that's reacting to your input.
- ndriscoll 3y ago
  AFAIK we're still very far below the dynamic range human eyes are capable of seeing, so there's plenty of room to need to up the bit depth (and rate) for video if displays can improve. Our color gamuts also do not cover human vision.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]