Oh noes teh sky is falling!

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by mredman

If a harddrive crashes all of it is gone. Had a 500 MB harddrive and it crashed. Every movie and tv show and pics from vacation and concert was gone.

This is why you back up stuff twice. I recently put all of my vinyl and CD collection on a 32 GB flash drive and then also backed that up on a hard drive since it took me almost 2 months to rip all those ~2000 songs.

[bigshot]

I'm a digital archivist and I'm responsible for 100 TB of data. Our whole media library is housed on disk arrays. This means if a single hard drive in the array dies, the other drives in the array can recreate it from a redundant copy spread across all the other drives. We also have an off site backup on normal hard drives. We haven't lost a bit of data in ten years. (Knock on wood!)

As time goes by, I think we'll see data servers built into our houses that have redundant arrays and automatic cloud backup built in. We won't have to think about storing or backing up data. It will all be done for us.

[El_Fez]

Why I still favor discs over streaming? Streaming looks like crap. It's laggy, and it looks like watching a bad youtube video. Give it 15 years for the American high speed internet infrastructure to catch up with the rest of the world and then we can talk. But for now? Disc for me, baby!

[borjis]

Originally Posted by bigshot

As time goes by, I think we'll see data servers built into our houses that have redundant arrays and automatic cloud backup built in. We won't have to think about storing or backing up data. It will all be done for us.

You can do that now with a home raid and a $ 5 a month backblaze account.

[leburn98]

Originally Posted by yoniweisberg

I didn't know that, I actually (ignorantly) thought that PC gaming was in a boom period because of services like steam.

To a degree yah, but it depends on the games. It's no secret that game developers/publishers are pushing hard for games with some kind of online component whether that is multiplayer, co-op, etc. GTA V for instance is a popular title on Steam, but I believe that has alot to due with it's Online multiplayer mode. Then you have online-only games like Tom Clancy's The Division, Need for Speed and HITMAN that either require an online connection or require it for core features. In the case of The Division, the online-only nature of the game is a result of the looting system, specifically with the in-game shops/vendors that sell you weapons/mods. Given that the game is always connected, the developers are able to add new weapons and upgrades at these shops every 24 hours. HITMAN uses the online requirement in a similar way, but this time by allowing the developers to add new hits, contracts or assignments on a consistent basis. It's a neat concept, keeps the game fresh while essentially forcing the hand of gamers to buy it.

Steam as a platform has also done very well for itself, mostly due to the Steam sales. However, I do not know how that success really translates to the big publishers. Are publishers really happy that a game is sold for a fraction of the retail price only a few months later? I wouldn't think so, but then again I am not running those companies. But I think the fact that most publishers still cater to the console markets suggests that I may not be too far off.

[balthazar_bee]

Originally Posted by mar3o

Not everyone is in a rush to pay $30 for a movie on home video they just spent $30 on in the theatre 3 months ago. They just saw it. I'm that way. I'd rather buy great new catalog releases I haven't seen in 20 years, and I can always pick up the latest blockbusters down the road when I'm in the mood to see them again. Home video releases come out so quickly now that people don't feel a need to rush out and buy it because they just saw it. Of course everyone is different but I think this does factor into things.

Oh, absolutely. But for me, it's had the opposite effect. I figure if it's going to be out soon, why bother with the theatre at all? I mean, take the money you'd spend on a ticket, popcorn, whatever, and hold on to it, then blind-buy the movie when it comes out.

You probably won't save money, exactly, but the extra money is worth it to own the movie and not have to deal with loud talking, texting, seat kicking, wrapper crinkling, improper projection, messed up sound (Skyfall opening night was basically ruined by this), lack of beer, etc.

Now, this is easier for me, because there's so little I want to see that's playing in my local theatres these days. Teen comedies, superhero movies, animated 3D stuff -- pass. But something like The Nice Guys? A throwback buddy comedy noir directed by Shane Black? Yeah, I'm pretty sure in advance I'll like it enough to own it.

[Lyle_JP]

Originally Posted by mredman

If a harddrive crashes all of it is gone. Had a 500 MB harddrive and it crashed. Every movie and tv show and pics from vacation and concert was gone.

That's why my Media server has a RAID array. If one drive fails, just replace it. No data loss.

[leburn98]

Originally Posted by HD Goofnut

This is why you back up stuff twice. I recently put all of my vinyl and CD collection a 32 GB flash drive and then also backed that up on a hard drive since it took me almost 2 months to rip all those ~2000 songs.

It can get quite costly though as you are essentially buying storage twice. With that said, I do this as well for my Plex library. I use Drivepool to make a copy of each file. However, the great thing about this software versus a raid is that Drivepool allows you to mix and match drives of different sizes. Basically it allows me to backup my 6TB drive to two 3TB drives.

Another alternative for those that do not want to buy double the storage is to do what I use to do. In the past I would often rip and encode the movie/TV show, then burn those encodes to a DVD/Blu-Ray and keep it with the original Blu-Ray on the shelf. In the event of a failure, yes it would suck having to re-copying everything over to your new HDD, but it was much easier and less time consuming than completely re-ripping from scratch. Of course, if the goal is to rip the entire Blu-Ray as-is, then this is not a solution.

[LeeFanatic007]

Bought everything to start going digital with my movie collection as it is taking up serious space in my house.

I ripped 3 or 4 movies to a 2 TB hard drive I had purchased and it worked great. Then the next day the drive was corrupted and unusable. All I did was copy them from disc to the hard drive.

Packed everything back up I had bought to do this project and returned it. That was my foray into the world of digital and probably my only one, unless it gets more reliable at some point. I thought of how I could have either wasted hours ripping movies only for it to crash and had even considered getting rid of some physical media and keep the digital file, but when I realized how easily all that stuff could be gone instantly I said no thanks.

Physical media all the way!

[Arch Stanton]

Originally Posted by El_Fez

Why I still favor discs over streaming? Streaming looks like crap. It's laggy, and it looks like watching a bad youtube video. Give it 15 years for the American high speed internet infrastructure to catch up with the rest of the world and then we can talk. But for now? Disc for me, baby!

To say streaming looks like that is hyperbolic, but the quality different is still pretty drastic between the two in my experience - especially when you see it on a big screen. Still, the actual act of ownership is the deal beaker and that's why I'll always favour physical media.

[El_Fez]

Originally Posted by Arch Stanton

To say streaming looks like that is hyperbolic, but the quality different is still pretty drastic between the two in my experience - especially when you see it on a big screen. Still, the actual act of ownership is the deal beaker and that's why I'll always favour physical media.

If you hit a burp on a streaming service, for the time it takes the buffer to catch up, it can look like someone hit my screen with a mosaic filter. Something like a high profile event - like streaming Wrestlemania - it can look like that for large chunks of time.

So yeah, it's not as much hyperbole as I'd like sometimes.

[master gandhi]

Originally Posted by El_Fez

If you hit a burp on a streaming service, for the time it takes the buffer to catch up, it can look like someone hit my screen with a mosaic filter. Something like a high profile event - like streaming Wrestlemania - it can look like that for large chunks of time.

So yeah, it's not as much hyperbole as I'd like sometimes.

So part of the problem, as you've briefly touched on, is the current state of your home internet. I'm on 100mbps cable internet, not even fiber, and I almost never have any issues like the ones you've described. Do the speeds fluctuate? Yes, but not to the point that my videos have to buffer anymore.

ISPs seem to not want to encourage people to be on higher speeds for some reason, so they question why you want such fast internet. They did this to me when I had them upgrade my speeds a couple years ago (at the time, I went from 15mbps to 30mbps, but then months later they automatically upgraded us to the hundreds). They were asking me what I use it for, and I mentioned that sometimes I may want to upload videos to YouTube, and it needs more bandwidth to do that easily. Plus I'd gotten into streaming Netflix and Hulu at least, and the upgrade addressed my buffering issues.

I believe you when you say it's not always hyperbole. I'd recommend not having internet speeds below 30mbps. When my wife and I move next year, I'll be sure to opt for fiber instead of cable, though. That will also greatly improve the overall experience going forward. For me, it's not exactly necessary now for fiber, but it will be important in the future as technology evolves. I always want to be ready for what's to come. My parents, on the other hand, are still on 6mbps, because they're reluctant to switch to their local cable internet provider, since they hear it goes down sometimes. Internet that goes down sometimes is better than internet that is always slow. heh

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by master gandhi

So part of the problem, as you've briefly touched on, is the current state of your home internet. I'm on 100mbps cable internet, not even fiber, and I almost never have any issues like the ones you've described. Do the speeds fluctuate? Yes, but not to the point that my videos have to buffer anymore.

ISPs seem to not want to encourage people to be on higher speeds for some reason, so they question why you want such fast internet. They did this to me when I had them upgrade my speeds a couple years ago (at the time, I went from 15mbps to 30mbps, but then months later they automatically upgraded us to the hundreds). They were asking me what I use it for, and I mentioned that sometimes I may want to upload videos to YouTube, and it needs more bandwidth to do that easily. Plus I'd gotten into streaming Netflix and Hulu at least, and the upgrade addressed my buffering issues.

I believe you when you say it's not always hyperbole. I'd recommend not having internet speeds below 30mbps. When my wife and I move next year, I'll be sure to opt for fiber instead of cable, though. That will also greatly improve the overall experience going forward. For me, it's not exactly necessary now for fiber, but it will be important in the future as technology evolves. I always want to be ready for what's to come. My parents, on the other hand, are still on 6mbps, because they're reluctant to switch to their local cable internet provider, since they hear it goes down sometimes. Internet that goes down sometimes is better than internet that is always slow. heh

100 Mbps? What are you paying for that?

Not having speeds below 30 Mbps? I have to pay $70 a month just to get 15 Mbps from AT&T and if you want 30 Mbps it cost over $100. You are definitely the exception to the rule here.

[PuppetMasterBlu]

Originally Posted by HD Goofnut

100 Mbps? What are you paying for that?

Not having speeds below 30 Mbps? I have to pay $70 a month just to get 15 Mbps from AT&T and if you want 30 Mbps it cost over $100. You are definitely the exception to the rule here.

Wow really? Im getting 150mbps from Comcast and im paying 130 for internet and cable together. If I paid 10 dollars less it would drop down to 75mbps. Thats locked for a year. After that I will have to strike a new deal. It's so weird to haggle with your cable company. I never knew you could do that until a couple years ago.

[HarcourtMudd]

Originally Posted by PuppetMasterBlu

Wow really? Im getting 150mbps from Comcast and im paying 130 for internet and cable together. If I paid 10 dollars less it would drop down to 75mbps. Thats locked for a year. After that I will have to strike a new deal. It's so weird to haggle with your cable company. I never knew you could do that until a couple years ago.

I also have Comcast, and pay about the same. My upload/download rates hover around 103/23 mbps, except at peak times (as determined by Ookla). Currently, I have their 105mps package, and bundle cable, internet, and phone.

[LeeFanatic007]

I pay $70 for 15mps where I live and it is the only option for high speed internet, I could go up to 20 mps but it would be around $120 and that is the max you can get here.

I usually go through that in around 10 days and then I have horrible speeds until the following month when it resets.

Had to move out into the country this year, couldn't afford to stay where I was after I lost my job, but internet there was cheap and could be bundled with cable service, I had Time Warner Cable and 130mps for $150 or so. Really miss that.

The internet situation in the US is actually not very good, lots of other countries have superior internet capabilities and we are the bulk consumers of the majority of stuff on the internet, so you'd think it would be a priority here in the US to fix that, but it doesn't seem to be a concern for companies right now.

[master gandhi]

Originally Posted by HD Goofnut

100 Mbps? What are you paying for that?

Not having speeds below 30 Mbps? I have to pay $70 a month just to get 15 Mbps from AT&T and if you want 30 Mbps it cost over $100. You are definitely the exception to the rule here.

I pay $54.99/month for 100mbps. AT&T is kind of a rip off with their internet. My parents have them for their 6mbps internet, and that's the fastest they offer in my parents' neighborhood, unless they switch to Comcast. I've suggested they switch to Comcast, but they're afraid of the internet going out. I don't even know why their afraid of this. They have data on their smart phones. If the internet is down, they can still check their emails.

[koover]

Originally Posted by HD Goofnut

100 Mbps? What are you paying for that?

Not having speeds below 30 Mbps? I have to pay $70 a month just to get 15 Mbps from AT&T and if you want 30 Mbps it cost over $100. You are definitely the exception to the rule here.

How the services differ from region to region. Cox in the Phoenix area is $90 a month for 100 Mbps and it's very stable. Waiting for Gigiblast to come into our area but it's still not available. Granted mines only for my internet so that's pricy comparatively speaking. I have direct TV so I dont bundle like so many others.
You need to move Goof!

[koover]

Originally Posted by master gandhi

I pay $54.99/month for 100mbps. AT&T is kind of a rip off with their internet. My parents have them for their 6mbps internet, and that's the fastest they offer in my parents' neighborhood, unless they switch to Comcast. I've suggested they switch to Comcast, but they're afraid of the internet going out. I don't even know why their afraid of this. They have data on their smart phones. If the internet is down, they can still check their emails.

I think that's cheap!

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by koover

How the services differ from region to region. Cox in the Phoenix area is $90 a month for 100 Mbps and it's very stable. Waiting for Gigiblast to come into our area but it's still not available. Granted mines only for my internet so that's pricy comparatively speaking. I have direct TV so I dont bundle like so many others.
You need to move Goof!

It's because I live in a less populated state. MS only has a little over a million people in the entire state. Fewer people means the ISPs have to charge more. The only other option I have is Comcast and they charge about the same.