Cloud hosting?

[seeandsee]

Please someone to explain to people what is this new hype called CLOUD HOSTING ?!??

[baddog]

In a nutshell, Cloud Servers are superior to single dedicated servers by providing fault tolerance and redundancy throughout the cloud network. This mean there are NO single points of failure with a cloud hosting infrastructure. Your data is stored on multiple Network Attached Storage nodes to provide maximum redundancy. Your cloud server will take full advantage of the high speed and increased reliability of the cloud network. Your server’s resources are constantly analyzed and adjusted to compute workloads which guarantee your dedicated cloud servers are never overloaded.

[cooldude7]

what ^^^^^^^^^ said is +1


but in simple term,imho cloud is nothing but multiple dedicated boxes combined together.....
so there is less chance for site to go down/.

[oscer]

The other way to look at cloud hosting is a High End VPS server that has no single point of Failure , Means if any of the processing nodes go down the server will remain active , also you can lose a whole disk array and it will still be fine ... This is a simplified explanation

[marlboroack]

Basically means you get what you pay for honestly.

[HomerSimpson]

whatever you do - do not buy it from MediaTemple since their service SUCKS!
I had (mainstream) site on MT and the database kept crashing and FTP had issues that they didn't solved for couple of months.

When I moved the site out of there my business boomed!
Non cloud hosting is great, just use some cloud for statics and it will speedup your site to the MAX.

I am expert in getting sites blazing fast.

Want your site to be fast as facebook or google?

Contact me http://www.awmzone.com/services

[DVTimes]

Originally Posted by baddog

In a nutshell, Cloud Servers are superior to single dedicated servers by providing fault tolerance and redundancy throughout the cloud network. This mean there are NO single points of failure with a cloud hosting infrastructure. Your data is stored on multiple Network Attached Storage nodes to provide maximum redundancy. Your cloud server will take full advantage of the high speed and increased reliability of the cloud network. Your server?s resources are constantly analyzed and adjusted to compute workloads which guarantee your dedicated cloud servers are never overloaded.

yes

thats right.

[Spudstr]

Originally Posted by oscer

The other way to look at cloud hosting is a High End VPS server that has no single point of Failure , Means if any of the processing nodes go down the server will remain active , also you can lose a whole disk array and it will still be fine ... This is a simplified explanation

Wrong. If the host machine does go down your VM will have to reboot. There is no fault tolerance virtualization that doesn't care if its host machine just dies. They just restart on another node.

See Amazons "cloud" and its horrific failures lately.. including data loss and downtime.. lots of it.

[chaze]

Originally Posted by baddog

In a nutshell, Cloud Servers are superior to single dedicated servers by providing fault tolerance and redundancy throughout the cloud network. This mean there are NO single points of failure with a cloud hosting infrastructure. Your data is stored on multiple Network Attached Storage nodes to provide maximum redundancy. Your cloud server will take full advantage of the high speed and increased reliability of the cloud network. Your server?s resources are constantly analyzed and adjusted to compute workloads which guarantee your dedicated cloud servers are never overloaded.

No it's not, spreading gibberish again.

Cloud computing enables you to cluster several servers in different locations. This is not superior and has a much higher fail rate. The bonus is you can use a bunch of cheap computers and link them for what seems like a super computer but really it's just a time bomb. Every major service that rolled over to clouds like Amazon have had more downtime and more load issues, that is definably not superior.

It's a good idea at best but a good connections and round robin dns is better and more reliable as of now.

[Supz]

Originally Posted by chaze

No it's not, spreading gibberish again.

Cloud computing enables you to cluster several servers in different locations. This is not superior and has a much higher fail rate. The bonus is you can use a bunch of cheap computers and link them for what seems like a super computer but really it's just a time bomb. Every major service that rolled over to clouds like Amazon have had more downtime and more load issues, that is definably not superior.

It's a good idea at best but a good connections and round robin dns is better and more reliable as of now.

You could not be more mistaken. What baddag said was correct. You have no idea what you are talking about. Part of cloud hosting could be in mutliple locations, but the initial redundancy later is all in 1 location. Just as spudstr said, if a virtual server goes down, it has to be rebooted by another node. But the downtime is minimal compared to a single server crashingl. The only reason for multiple locations is if you are doing data replication. The bigger clouds do this, but for an extra price. Amazon I believe can provide this, but its an extra cost. In any scenario, if you take your business seriously, you are doing some sort of disaster recovery from one location to another. Most people dont because of the cost. Let me know if you need a lesson in virtualization. I am certified in both VMware and Citrix.

[raymor]

First, cloud is a buzzword which is used to describe various technologies and techniques, without a single technical definition. It normally means the combination of at least virtualization (think vmware) and a storage network.

Some cloud configurations are better for some situations. For other situations, dedicated hardware is better. Clouds excel when scalability is super important because traffic goes from very low to very high. A site like superbowl.com is a great example. It gets little traffic all year, then suddenly gets super busy for a few hours during the game. It would be silly for them to buy a thousand servers if they only need them for a few hours. On the other hand, a group of porn sites will have similar traffic levels each week, so it can be more efficient to just buy the server.

Clouds can provide tiny virtual private servers with only 512 MB of RAM or less. If for some technical reason you really need a dedicated OS but have little traffic and need little resources, a cloud server can be more efficient on space and power than running an old PII server with a 500 Mhz CPU. On the other hand, if you need 2 GB of RAM or more, you may as well have a whole physical server to yourself.

In theory cloud environments can be set up to be more reliable than individual servers, but in practice that's often not the case. Particularly large public clouds haven't been as reliable as hoped. A single server, once set up properly, will generally continue to run fine until the power supply or the hard drive wears out in about five years or so. The OS may get hacked or otherwise screwed up before that, but that's the same on a cloud as it is on metal. The difference is hardware failure. That'll happen maybe once every five years if you have a single drive and power supply. With monitored RAID and dual power supplies, maybe once in ten years will the hardware fail. On the other hand, a cloud is much more complex, and constantly being expanded, upgraded, and reconfigured. All of that extra complexity means more things can go wrong. A cloud crash every 1-3 years is probably typical. A small, simple, private cloud like we use can be more reliable because as mentioned above if one hardware dies the server is just booted on a different hardware.

An advantage of physical hardware, called bare metal, is that you know what you're getting. If you buy a 2Ghz dual core processor and a pair of Cheetah drives, you know what kind of performance you'll get.
With a public cloud, in the other hand, you are sharing several processors and dozens of drives with hundreds of other people. You have no way of knowing what kind of disk performance you'll get on any given day. So clouds have that uncertainty that you don't know exactly what you're buying, and that encourages vendors to oversell their resources, reducing performance. A small private cloud is like bare metal in that respect. We know that our small cloud has exactly thirty hard drives and twenty-two CPU cores and we know exactly what kind of performance to expect from it.

Lastly, cloud is good for hot spares, like Clonebox. You'll probably only need to run your sites from your Clonebox hot spare server once every few years, so why pay for a dedicated server every month when you're not using it? In this role the cloud server, which is an exact copy of your main server, is a lot like a timeshare. You pay a few dollars a month since you're normally not using any resources other than disk space, but your sites can run from the clone once in a while when something bad happens with your main hosting.

So neither physical hardware nor any particular cloud, public or private, is "better". They are each suited to different needs, with different advantages and disadvantages.

[grumpy]

You will never know if you are on a cloud or on a shared server. So we all sell cloud now.

[CaptainHowdy]

Originally Posted by grumpy

You will never know if you are on a cloud or on a shared server. So we all sell cloud now.

...

[Supz]

Originally Posted by raymor

First, cloud is a buzzword which is used to describe various technologies and techniques, without a single technical definition. It normally means the combination of at least virtualization (think vmware) and a storage network.

Some cloud configurations are better for some situations. For other situations, dedicated hardware is better. Clouds excel when scalability is super important because traffic goes from very low to very high. A site like superbowl.com is a great example. It gets little traffic all year, then suddenly gets super busy for a few hours during the game. It would be silly for them to buy a thousand servers if they only need them for a few hours. On the other hand, a group of porn sites will have similar traffic levels each week, so it can be more efficient to just buy the server.

Clouds can provide tiny virtual private servers with only 512 MB of RAM or less. If for some technical reason you really need a dedicated OS but have little traffic and need little resources, a cloud server can be more efficient on space and power than running an old PII server with a 500 Mhz CPU. On the other hand, if you need 2 GB of RAM or more, you may as well have a whole physical server to yourself.

In theory cloud environments can be set up to be more reliable than individual servers, but in practice that's often not the case. Particularly large public clouds haven't been as reliable as hoped. A single server, once set up properly, will generally continue to run fine until the power supply or the hard drive wears out in about five years or so. The OS may get hacked or otherwise screwed up before that, but that's the same on a cloud as it is on metal. The difference is hardware failure. That'll happen maybe once every five years if you have a single drive and power supply. With monitored RAID and dual power supplies, maybe once in ten years will the hardware fail. On the other hand, a cloud is much more complex, and constantly being expanded, upgraded, and reconfigured. All of that extra complexity means more things can go wrong. A cloud crash every 1-3 years is probably typical. A small, simple, private cloud like we use can be more reliable because as mentioned above if one hardware dies the server is just booted on a different hardware.

An advantage of physical hardware, called bare metal, is that you know what you're getting. If you buy a 2Ghz dual core processor and a pair of Cheetah drives, you know what kind of performance you'll get.
With a public cloud, in the other hand, you are sharing several processors and dozens of drives with hundreds of other people. You have no way of knowing what kind of disk performance you'll get on any given day. So clouds have that uncertainty that you don't know exactly what you're buying, and that encourages vendors to oversell their resources, reducing performance. A small private cloud is like bare metal in that respect. We know that our small cloud has exactly thirty hard drives and twenty-two CPU cores and we know exactly what kind of performance to expect from it.

Lastly, cloud is good for hot spares, like Clonebox. You'll probably only need to run your sites from your Clonebox hot spare server once every few years, so why pay for a dedicated server every month when you're not using it? In this role the cloud server, which is an exact copy of your main server, is a lot like a timeshare. You pay a few dollars a month since you're normally not using any resources other than disk space, but your sites can run from the clone once in a while when something bad happens with your main hosting.

So neither physical hardware nor any particular cloud, public or private, is "better". They are each suited to different needs, with different advantages and disadvantages.

Wow. I just wrote a whole story on how everything you said was wrong, Then my laptop crapped out. But yea. Basically everything you are saying here is completely wrong and you have no idea what you are talking about.

[AliGbone]

Originally Posted by Supz

You could not be more mistaken. What baddag said was correct. You have no idea what you are talking about. Part of cloud hosting could be in mutliple locations, but the initial redundancy later is all in 1 location. Just as spudstr said, if a virtual server goes down, it has to be rebooted by another node. But the downtime is minimal compared to a single server crashingl. The only reason for multiple locations is if you are doing data replication. The bigger clouds do this, but for an extra price. Amazon I believe can provide this, but its an extra cost. In any scenario, if you take your business seriously, you are doing some sort of disaster recovery from one location to another. Most people dont because of the cost. Let me know if you need a lesson in virtualization. I am certified in both VMware and Citrix.

I don't see no cloud on your site, do you guys offer a cloud solution? was just trying to compares it to how you explained it to what you are offering but didn't see no pages on it.

[oscer]

Originally Posted by Spudstr

Wrong. If the host machine does go down your VM will have to reboot. There is no fault tolerance virtualization that doesn't care if its host machine just dies. They just restart on another node.

See Amazons "cloud" and its horrific failures lately.. including data loss and downtime.. lots of it.

How many people notice a 20 second reboot cycle ?

yea amazons blunders are pretty horrific

[seeandsee]

Web Edition

0,25 CPU Core
256 MB RAM
10 GB HDD
50 GB Bandwidth

- this is one example offer i found, what does 0,25 CPU CORE stand for?

[Supz]

Originally Posted by AliGbone

I don't see no cloud on your site, do you guys offer a cloud solution? was just trying to compares it to how you explained it to what you are offering but didn't see no pages on it.

We currently do not have a cloud offering fopr the public. Although we do build private clouds for midsize to enterprise customers. I personally also do private cloud consulting that is not part of the hosting portion of the business. Cloud is in the near future though.

[Fletch XXX]

seems to be becoming more popular as ive been designing cloud server ads for companies lately.

[flashfreak]

cloud hosting = most overused and abused term in the hosting industry

we had ec2 amazon cloud hosting on our flagship site until april - http://venturebeat.com/2011/04/21/am...it-and-others/ )

now after those 3 days of downtime and 0 support from amazon we can say it loud : FUCK THE CLOUD...
and the horde of idiots who talk about cloud hosting, knowing shit about it.

[grumpy]

Originally Posted by seeandsee

Web Edition

0,25 CPU Core
256 MB RAM
10 GB HDD
50 GB Bandwidth

- this is one example offer i found, what does 0,25 CPU CORE stand for?

this is not cloud, this is shared server

[DarkJedi]

ya'll do realize that you are posting in a sigwhore thread who can't even afford virtual hosting, right?

[seeandsee]

Originally Posted by grumpy

this is not cloud, this is shared server

And they are offering this like cloud hosting, fuckers

[raymor]

Originally Posted by seeandsee

Web Edition

0,25 CPU Core
256 MB RAM
10 GB HDD
50 GB Bandwidth

- this is one example offer i found, what does 0,25 CPU CORE stand for?

From just that snippet, without seeing the site, it looks to me like 0.25 CPU core = 1/4 of a CPU core. So if you're on a single core box, you share it with three other people. It coulda be a dual core box with seven other people, etc.

That could qualify as "cloud" if it's a) a complete virtualized machine with b) shared storage (SAN) and probably c) the ability to quickly/automatically migrate virtual machines between different physical machines.

[V_RocKs]

Just stick to Cyberwurx for your dedicated box. And then get MAXCDN for caching and delivering data all over the world. I have a very busy network at Cyberwurx that was running 3.x load averages with my old host. Cyber got that down to .1x by properly tuning things up and then adding MaxCDN made it so no matter where you are in the world, it takes less than a second to load the page.

Did I mention 34/7/365 support that is always truly there? And extremely helpful!

[Jakez]

lol @ people typing long detailed explanations of what cloud hosting is and then others saying they don't know what they're talking about and then typing out their own long explanation.

Sounds confusing.

Is cloud where they host your site(s) in many locations all over the globe or country, so that your site(s) load as fast as possible for everyone? Or I think that's something else..

[Supz]

Originally Posted by Jakez

lol @ people typing long detailed explanations of what cloud hosting is and then others saying they don't know what they're talking about and then typing out their own long explanation.

Sounds confusing.

Is cloud where they host your site(s) in many locations all over the globe or country, so that your site(s) load as fast as possible for everyone? Or I think that's something else..

No. This is not what it is. That is called Global Load Balancing.

Cloud is a broad term. And depending on what you are doing, there are different meaning. Cloud hosting, is different then SaaS (Software as a Service). Which is also cloud. For instance Salesforece.com is a cloud product.

Cloud hosting, is when you are using a virtual hosted server. Similar to a VPS, but with a more powerful infrastucture and backend.

[ArsewithClass]

www.netelligent.ca are a fantastic host. They can answer any questions you have

[raymor]

Originally Posted by Jakez

Is cloud where they host your site(s) in many locations all over the globe or country, so that your site(s) load as fast as possible for everyone? Or I think that's something else..

That's called reverse caching proxy, or it was for a decade. Then a couple of years ago people with no clue how to do it right started doing it badly and calling it CDN.

[Supz]

Originally Posted by raymor

That's called reverse caching proxy, or it was for a decade. Then a couple of years ago people with no clue how to do it right started doing it badly and calling it CDN.

CDN is more for data distribution then it is for the site loading fast. But it will help with that as well.

[xebec]

cloud hosting is the future of hosting, similar concept to desktops going virtual, the hosting is done on a mass scale so that you pay for only the exact elements you use, decreasing your costs and if you get huge spike in traffic, its absorbed, some other examples below from securedcloud

http://phoenixnap.com/secured-cloud/...d/features.php

Using the innovative Secured Cloud, you can:
Provision customized cloud virtual machines on-demand
Easily configure and horizontally scale servers to address traffic spikes
Scale RAM allotment on the fly as need dictates
Load balance your VMs and physical hardware with F5 Networks' technologies
Turn your services on and off instantly to meet changing demands
Manage everything through our custom-developed user interface
Convert IT CapEx to OpEx; pay only for what you use
Easily deploy a virtual firewall for an added layer of security
Use APIs to efficiently integrate applications into the cloud

[flashfreak]

'Secured Cloud' ... forgot to mention: thats the newest buzzword xebec

[Supz]

Originally Posted by flashfreak

'Secured Cloud' ... forgot to mention: thats the newest buzzword xebec

With VMwares VSPhere 5 having a lot of these new features for 'secured cloud' i could understand.

[shade001]

I don't know what dumbass thought using the word CLOUD would make something sound more reliable. Sounds kinda communist anyway.

[Supz]

Originally Posted by shade001

I don't know what dumbass thought using the word CLOUD would make something sound more reliable. Sounds kinda communist anyway.

It is the technology that makes it more reliable, not the term. Is it more reliable? If setup correctly, sure. Can there be downtime, sure. Are your odds better with cloud to be up then having just a dedicated server, for sure.

[chaze]

Originally Posted by Supz

You could not be more mistaken. What baddag said was correct. You have no idea what you are talking about. Part of cloud hosting could be in mutliple locations, but the initial redundancy later is all in 1 location. Just as spudstr said, if a virtual server goes down, it has to be rebooted by another node. But the downtime is minimal compared to a single server crashingl. The only reason for multiple locations is if you are doing data replication. The bigger clouds do this, but for an extra price. Amazon I believe can provide this, but its an extra cost. In any scenario, if you take your business seriously, you are doing some sort of disaster recovery from one location to another. Most people dont because of the cost. Let me know if you need a lesson in virtualization. I am certified in both VMware and Citrix.

Then why did Yahoo, Google, and for several days Amazon go down after switching to Clouds?

[chaze]

Originally Posted by Supz

It is the technology that makes it more reliable, not the term. Is it more reliable? If setup correctly, sure. Can there be downtime, sure. Are your odds better with cloud to be up then having just a dedicated server, for sure.

Not true again, it is not more reliable it is supposed to be faster by being accessed in more locations. Do your home work before correcting people that know more then you.

Why do you only have two name servers? Try better dns like at least three in different global positions then ditch the cloud hype. It's a just a cheesy sales pitch and at this point more harm then good.

Unless you think you can run a network better then Amazon?

The main reason is several additional points of failure. More load, more hardware, all for what faster loading speeds? I will put our premium bandwidth against any cloud any day and be much faster most of the time.

BTW:

http://www.webslug.info/index/results

Winner
dwhs.net was faster by 2.8 seconds. It has won 100% of all encounters.

Average time to load over 8 tests was 0.6s
GALAXYVISIONS.COM

But your still faster then hostgator and dreamhosts sluggish network if that makes you feel better.

http://dwhs.net/
loaded in:
0.59s
Address:
http://dreamhost.com/
loaded in:
7.13s


Dreamhost is a nightmare and hostgator is about the same. Really worth saving a cup of coffee a month over people? Sorry for the rant but you have to wonder why people ruin business opportunities over a couple bucks.

[grumpy]

haha, all the fuz about cloud and they dont really know whats it about.
Quoting a small player, Larry Ellison is not against cloud computing as such but rather is mocking the hype and hullabaloo around something which has existed under different names for well over 10 years.

[facialfreak]

Hahahaa ... host bashing one another over usage of the buzzword "Cloud" ...

Cloud is so 2010!

We will be rolling out our new "Stratosphere" Hosting soon ...

[chaze]

Originally Posted by facialfreak

Hahahaa ... host bashing one another over usage of the buzzword "Cloud" ...

Cloud is so 2010!

We will be rolling out our new "Stratosphere" Hosting soon ...

Hell yeah, can't wait for that.

[Supz]

Originally Posted by chaze

Not true again, it is not more reliable it is supposed to be faster by being accessed in more locations. Do your home work before correcting people that know more then you.

Why do you only have two name servers? Try better dns like at least three in different global positions then ditch the cloud hype. It's a just a cheesy sales pitch and at this point more harm then good.

Unless you think you can run a network better then Amazon?

The main reason is several additional points of failure. More load, more hardware, all for what faster loading speeds? I will put our premium bandwidth against any cloud any day and be much faster most of the time.

BTW:

http://www.webslug.info/index/results

Winner
dwhs.net was faster by 2.8 seconds. It has won 100% of all encounters.

Average time to load over 8 tests was 0.6s
GALAXYVISIONS.COM

But your still faster then hostgator and dreamhosts sluggish network if that makes you feel better.

http://dwhs.net/
loaded in:
0.59s
Address:
http://dreamhost.com/
loaded in:
7.13s


Dreamhost is a nightmare and hostgator is about the same. Really worth saving a cup of coffee a month over people? Sorry for the rant but you have to wonder why people ruin business opportunities over a couple bucks.

You are like 3 years behind on technology my friend. You have no idea how Cloud is created, nor do you know what the technology consits of. And yes. I can build the same Cloud that Amazon has if I had there money. But I don't. I know more about cloud and virtualizaton in my left hand, then you know about hosting in general. You are making yourself look like a fool for anyone who knows about this technology, and you are supposed to be a hosting company. Not saying your shared accounts are not good. But you obviously do not host large enterprise customers.

I am certified in both VMware and Citrix. If you want me to scan my certificates for you, let me know. So I have done my homework. I have sold and built my share of private clouds to many private companies.

You truely have no idea what Cloud hosting is.

Here are some reason why people go virtual
-Less Power Consumption - usually around a 10 or 15 to 1 ration of physical server to virtual server
-Ease of management - creating a virtual server with Windows 2008 R2 takes about an hour from start to finish to roll out a new server. Good luck ordering new hardware, building it, installing the OS and having it online in less then 3 days if you dont have a spare server in stock
-High availability - Using VMware, you can use VMotion, DRS and HA to ensure if one physical host fails, the virtual servers will move to the other physical host automatically.
-Less switching infranstructure - You can also use virtual nic's with VMware and you can do inter VLan routing and switch management with the Cisco v1000 virtual switch on top of VMware
- Maximize hardware - If you take the average server, they usually use 10-15% of there resources (this is fact, look it up), which means you are paying for 85-90% of a server you will never use. This is a waste of money

This is just off the top of my head. I can go on. But again, you have no idea what Cloud is used for or what its made of.

[nextri]

Cloud hosting is when you use a server provider who has their servers in a blimp that floats in the clouds.

[Supz]

Lets go Tim Tebow

[SZNY]

Clouds are cool and misunderstood. Why you want to babysit a battery of servers while everything can be in a cloud? I'm not talking about storage but also running PaaS (Platform as a Service).

I personally believe this is the future

[Supz]

Originally Posted by SZNY

Clouds are cool and misunderstood. Why you want to babysit a battery of servers while everything can be in a cloud? I'm not talking about storage but also running PaaS (Platform as a Service).

I personally believe this is the future

It is not the future, it is now. Virtual Desktops is the future. Server virtualization is a standard in corporate data centers for atleast the last 2-3 years. It is just coming into the hosting game recently. But for companies who use a good amount of servers, it is the way to go.

[SZNY]

Originally Posted by Supz

It is not the future, it is now. Virtual Desktops is the future. Server virtualization is a standard in corporate data centers for atleast the last 2-3 years. It is just coming into the hosting game recently. But for companies who use a good amount of servers, it is the way to go.

I know! Just talking from my perspective, developing/deploying apps without babysitting and worry about servers and reachability, cloud storage and paas cloud is really cool.

From a consumers perspective Virtual Desktops is for sure the future thing. It would be nice to have the same desktop on your tablet/PC/TV including your working environment.

[Supz]

Originally Posted by SZNY

I know! Just talking from my perspective, developing/deploying apps without babysitting and worry about servers and reachability, cloud storage and paas cloud is really cool.

From a consumers perspective Virtual Desktops is for sure the future thing. It would be nice to have the same desktop on your tablet/PC/TV including your working environment.

Yea. One thing I agree with some of what the other people have said here, is that some cloud services are not stable. Amazon for one has had there issues with downtown. I do not know exactly what has caused it, but I do believe it is because they are not replicating to other locations and there was a datacenter failure. I am not exactly sure. But things such has Hosted Exchange are getting questioned a lot, from many companies I know that have been using there own Exchange/BES servers. And most are pretty stables, Rackspace, App River. Microsoft 365 is going to be huge right now. Salesforce.com is huge. Best contact management system around. all hosted solutions, or Cloud, or Software as a Service, you choose the name. VIrtual Desktop has gotten a lot of attention in the last couple of years. But very costly for a Small to Medium size business. The outlay for hardware, software and setup is very high upfront costs. With not enough ROI to make a huge difference. Much better for bigger corps. People with huge call centers. So people are going for small monthly payments, even though the end result is a higher cost. But same desktop anywhere on any computer, tablet etc. Its awesome.

I use Citrix XenApp on my iPad. All my work software and drive shares are there. I can work the same form any PC. Its not a true desktop. But gets the job done.

[Fletch XXX]

have been doing cloud hosting banners, cant wait to do stratosphere ads! yes!

[chaze]

Originally Posted by Supz

It is not the future, it is now. Virtual Desktops is the future. Server virtualization is a standard in corporate data centers for atleast the last 2-3 years. It is just coming into the hosting game recently. But for companies who use a good amount of servers, it is the way to go.

Originally Posted by SZNY

I know! Just talking from my perspective, developing/deploying apps without babysitting and worry about servers and reachability, cloud storage and paas cloud is really cool.

From a consumers perspective Virtual Desktops is for sure the future thing. It would be nice to have the same desktop on your tablet/PC/TV including your working environment.

You guys are nuts, virtual desktops are not the future. People will not trust their private data to a company. I think your living in the clouds.

The future is nano technology. Meaning computers the size of a business card that will project the interactive screen and keyboard. AND sorry but the data will still be saved within the unit.

Lets hands in the cookie jar always means more cookies. Things will simplify not expand. That is the future.

[Rochard]

I had sex on a cloud once.