How fast (latency and bandwidth) would one's internet need to be to have the lion's share of all the actual data storage and processing power done at some external server somewhere (say within 100 physical miles) and not have the average user notice a difference?
@HelkaHomba If you don't plan to stream media, a regular 16/1 MBit/s connection is almost overpowered. I use my ubuntu server as my regular desktop using X2Go.
For Windows, this is not feasible. X can be mirrored over SSH, but Windows' GDI is just a PITA. Hence why Teamviewer sessions look so horrible (GDI must be streamed as media basically).
@mınxomaτ I'm not really talking about what tools are available now. I mean if a big company developed their own hardware and software to make it possible for a user to just buy a monitor-like device, sign into their wifi, and then "have a computer" which physically exists in a big server warehouse, would the fastest current consumer internet speeds (~2Gbps) allow the same experience/responsiveness as a normal computer?
It probably won't be as simple as a monitor that starts a VNC session. At minimum you'll want interpolation for mouse/window/etc movements and client-side prediction for a few things
You could probably do something along the lines of how console games currently work. I think they go through a central server. So everything is synced every second or so, but in the meantime, the users' own consoles handle the gameplay.
Assume you have 1Gbs+ internet speed and the server is within 100 or so physical miles of you. No latency to transmit round the world and back each time
Secret Messages
Diane and Sam want to be able to send messages to each other that only they can read. They want to be able to run a program that encrypts a text file so that it is unreadable, except by them who can use the same program to un-encrypt the file.
Challenge:
Create a program which ...