Bill Gates Didn't Understand Gmail

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
[citation][nom]killerclick[/nom]I don't understand why anyone thinks Gmail is good. You can't even make folders to move messages to.[/citation]
That`s not true. You can do that with 3 cliks.
 
Well other then when work wants something that i have to email which is super rare or when the state wants something from me which is even more rare. Who the hell uses email anymore. Give me 1meg of email and ill never fill it. spam might but i wont. i dont use email for well anything.. its slow. If someone doesnt have a IM a VOIP program or a phone number you wont be getting many if any messeges from me. Though i do know some people still stuck in the email days that constantly send me emails. Though i dont normaly know about it for weeks on end since i dont ever check it.
 
[citation][nom]kilo_17[/nom]I didn't know there was such thing as "Fools Day" lol[/citation]

yeah its in April.. I'm sure you have heard of it... Sometime around the 1st perhaps? pickup your rock every so often and you keep up with those new fangeld things
 
[citation][nom]alidan[/nom]there is no way any home consumer will ever need 320gb, of ram, not even in the BEST of constance. i actualy doubt that we will even even get cheap consumer grade 4k cameras (as in sub 2000$) and thats the only logical way that 320gb would ever be used, is through dumping all the video into ram and and streaming new video to ram as older gets encoded. other than that, we will never have programs, especialy on the consumer level that bloat to that size, you have any idea how many lines of code that would take or how big and uncompressed an image would have to be to come close to that? it would be nice for vm, servers, and other computers, but they already have tbs of ram, not on one system, but they already use more. now if i have to take a guess, within 10 years we will hit a massive ram brickwall, not we cant make ram bigger, but on the, who the hell really needs that much? currently if i had 8-12gb i would almost never need to restart or shutdown programs. in 5 years i will probably have a 32gb system, and never need more, possibly faster at some point, but not more.[/citation]

Be careful what you predict. Never is an awfully long time. The point that was made is that if you make the hardware that can handle so much space, someone will come up with a way to use that space.
 
[citation][nom]alidan[/nom]there is no way any home consumer will ever need 320gb, of ram, not even in the BEST of constance...[/citation]

I can tell you right now that it will.
Throughout history our computer programs were always limited by the hardware.
Imagine having google maps with the whole world's street view cached on your cell phone or GPS. Imagine having 100080p 😀 video with with surround (360) footage stored on your PC instead of lousy 1080 or 720p. Not mentioning 3D with real 3D object representation.

Imagine having holographic 3D projections stored and calcualted real time complementing the high resolution surround video experience.

Imagine having IBM watson running on your cellphone or even on your watch with real time updates from the net. That is a hell of a lot bigger than 320GB.

Imagine simulating real DNA and atoms and cells inside your PC and growing "real" humans inside SIMS3000. The possibilities are endless, and realistic simulation will require huge amounts of RAM and will become more and more a part of our lives.

Anyways that is my view, the total other side of that 2C coin.
 
1981...Bill Gates: "640K ought to be enough for anybody".....history never changes, huh?
 
In a way I agree with Bill, how do you ever find information you're looking for with so many emails? Every Friday before going home I clean up my mailbox. For private emails I guess cleaning up's not necessary, but that extra space doesn't enhance my life.
 
A clear area that Microsoft has never understood - the need to eliminate constrained, local mail storage. Despite all of its toys, Outlook is a old-generation product trying to compete with superior, efficient cloud-based products. With all of the virus and malware threats circulating, it is incredible to think that Microsoft still expects us to download email to our personal computers!!
 


Simply, wrong.

I can imagine it. Moreover, I see some of breakthroughs coming out of this. You might recall that many nowadays algorithm use limited memory, because there is just not more available and that use crippled down, slower, version because there is so much faster alternative, but there is no memory to put intermediate data into.

Simple example is graphics. It is not about resolution (# of pixels) x 32 bits = all I need. We have double, triple buffering - it is limited, because there is no more memory for it. We could do more frames at the same time, but we do not have memory for all of it at ones. We could do so much more if we have 100x more memory available. Just check back some "academic" algorithms which are being told on universities or being discovered, they are academic for no practical implementation - some ideas are not realizable on nowadays HW.

I believe that massive parallel computers with hundreds to thousands units (more easily controllable and more general than what GPUs have) and lets say hundreds of GBs to TBs of RAM will open the door for before unthinkable. It is just matter of imagination and extrapolation. For instance, we are now limited in buying machines for calculations because of one stupid thing. While I can get plenty of cores in ! machine, I cannot have adequate memory with it, that means sufficient memory for each core. That led to splitting into more machines which have less cores, but adequate memory capacity. And this is nowadays problem with tens of GBs.

The best example of memory capacity is the brain. Brain is so fast not for being so fast CPU, but for having fast searching algorithm with huge amount of data in ther database (think Google). You see someone face and you know, you cannot even trace what your brain did to get that information, it was instant. But it was not like brain had to do some heavy calculations, it just relied on superfast access to superhuge databank. I am not sure that there is any number of memory which would be considered enough. OF course, practicability and technological limitations are the major constrains here, but they can shift pretty fast as it has been shown in the past.
 
Hotmail's limits were small then, it started in a basement with two guys, so before Microsoft bought it, it was extremely low budget. I think it started at 20MB, and would automatically delete old mail to make room for new. When they finally implemented some form of filters, that mail still counted, so it didn't really matter, legitimate email would still be gone in three days.

Even using a whitelist it still uses 120mb as the junk folder continually blows up.
 
[citation][nom]bv90andy[/nom]I was thinking exactly about that.However the amount of space for e-mails is pure Marketing today. Isn't Yahoo! unlimited?[/citation]

What is this Yahoo you speak of? 😉
 
I am sure Google's motivation on giving folks so much storage is not to be nice. This "database" of all your email is great marketing data.

Of all people who I would have would have "gotten it", I would have thought it to be him. Especially after he beat out Apple early on with his information vs hardware mentality. Even now Microsoft is sitting on their laurels. Take xbox. They still limit and price extra storage out the wazoo. This limits the ability to "sell more" of the intangible intellectual property content. Can you imagine (applies to both iPhone and xbox360) how much more content they would sell if people didn't have another barrier such as storage space in the way.

 
[citation][nom]psiboy[/nom]Bill is the same guy who said "you will never need more than 640k" Yes Kilobytes people... not even Megabytes let alone Gigabytes which are now the norm![/citation]

[citation][nom]dogofwars[/nom]64K should be enough for video memory isn't it. Gates had problem before understanding the concept of large space requirement because he was always thinking to make big thing with less.And also the 640K for the main memory one http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Bill_Gates[/citation]

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Bill_Gates#Misattributed
It seems that he was misquoted...Unless one of you two can find the original source of this qoute...
 
[citation][nom]EnFoRceR22[/nom]yeah its in April.. I'm sure you have heard of it... Sometime around the 1st perhaps? pickup your rock every so often and you keep up with those new fangeld things[/citation]
Yes, I know what it is. In the article it says "an Fools Day joke". Last time I checked, it's April Fools Day, hence my sarcastic comment.
 
I remember all the articles years back saying that anything over a 160GB HDD is overkill....😀
This seems to be about the same type of mis-calculation.
I guess there was only one Nostradamus..
I still think that 10GB of live, gmail or yahoo is too much space to need.
For bigger emails I use my ISP configurations for that..
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom