so google thinks your computers should turn into devices with only 1 function. getting online.
that is just one of the many things I use my machine for, my life does not revolve around getting online and looking at "stuff" And this is the thought i was having today.
The internet is a really great tool has has lots of great information on it, but its incressingly turning into a big pile of time wasting "stuff"
|getting online and looking at "stuff" |
Google and some other companies offer in-browser office applications for all the things that you use currently "installed programs" for. Its not so much about "looking" at stuff, but to not have to install apps locally and worry about updates and viruses.
This is not an OS, this is a browser.
When you can't run an installer and update Acrobat or Flash, you're stuck with whatever is bundled in your browser which is the same issue causing problems with the browser in the Wii and Android Phones which both have limited Flash support beyond the operators ability to fix.
Total. Waste. Of. Time.
I'd run Ubuntu on a netbook and run Chrome, but Chrome will never be the "OS" for that netbook.
Not. Happening. Ever.
Google has caused a bit of confusion in some quarters, because it has a browser named "Chrome", and also an OS named "Chrome". And, if that wasn't enough, Google has talked a lot about doing things through the browser that old-media companies like Microsoft would do through monolithic semi-standalone separately-installed programs.
But this announcement is about the OS, not the browser, not the "browser-accessible" cloud-computing applications.
|"installed programs" for. Its not so much about "looking" at stuff, but to not have to install apps locally and worry about updates and viruses |
are we getting so lazy that we can't trust ourself to install a program? RUN - Next - next - next - finish. Great i can use that program even if im not online now.
updates? wow the scary program tells you theirs an update when you run it, it installs the update, done.
viruses? ooooo thats right now hackers and virus writers are just going to vanish now that chrome OS is here.
computers shouldn't be dumbed down to the point where they work like a microwave, that is a waste on a massive scale.
any effort to make computers look like big scary complicated machines so you should just use the one with 1 button and no functionality is such a total failure.
Coherence. We've heard of it. Couldn't see the point.
Since ChromeOS runs on a Linux kernel, I expect it to run the same version of Flash that runs on any of my Ubuntu boxes.
Its absolutely no waste of time, on the contrary. It updates itself, it has 2 system partitions so that if an update fails, it can self-recover. It boots in a few second...
It sounds more like saving a lot of time. And hopefully will get a lot of people on the net, that today shy away from computers, because they feel they are too complicated.
saving alot of time?
have you ever heard of "sleep" yea my computer turns on everyday in about 1.5 seconds thanks to sleep mode.
Since ChromeOS runs on a Linux kernel, I expect it to run the same version of Flash that runs on any of my Ubuntu boxes
you expect alot.
Call me old fashioned, but I just can't see putting important, let alone critical, business data in "the cloud".
I don't see this OS being adopted on a wide scale by government, business, nor even cautious personal users.
Google may want to organize the worlds information, but I will take care of my personal stuff...
|Since ChromeOS runs on a Linux kernel, I expect it to run the same version of Flash that runs on any of my Ubuntu boxes. |
Both Android and Wii are Linux-based and you can't update Flash for the browser.
Keep expectations low.
|But this announcement is about the OS, not the browser, not the "browser-accessible" cloud-computing applications. |
Have you seen it?
It's just a browser - the whole OS is just a browser.
Meaning, if you lose your internet connection it's completely useless.
[edited by: engine at 10:55 am (utc) on Nov. 20, 2009]
[edit reason] fixed typo [/edit]
|Meaning, if you lose your internet connection it's completely useless. |
That's what HTML5 offline storage (and Gears) is for. The online apps run offline, when the connection comes back, they are sync'ed.
I can see exactly who Google are targeting for this and that's the Facebook style of crowd who pretty much only use a browser, it's not unheard of as I see this everyday from my younger brother and friends who aren't too computer savvy.
For them it's a fantastic idea, like a super quick netbook with no distrations, if you want to run .exe's and anything else, use a laptop not a netbook imo.
Just one thing on reading above posts .... the one denying the new OS - "People don't accept new things at first hand" and the one favoring it - Google is basically an internet search engine company. Rest everything falls later with OS being in the last. It will take a few 'versions' for it to be good enough but certainly it will be quicker than that of microsoft as all of that has already been introduced in OS market. Plus only focused on being online does counts but only to those with dialups. For someone like me who is online for all the time the pc is on it makes no difference. I will be eagerly waiting to see what Google has with it..
This could be big. While WebmasterWorld are all debating over weather it's a browser or an OS, we might be missing something revolutionary because it's not what we're used to.
if you want to run .exe's and anything else, use a laptop not a netbook imo.
its still a computer, even though its slower doesn't mean it can't still be useful and should only be given net duty with a single minded OS. I also could not perform my job as a webmaster on such a single minded computer. checking e-mail, watching youtube, or facebook doesn't make me any $$
I don't know where google is going with this sure they want everyone logged in onling 24/7 using google services and making them money. BUT we now have quad core 64 bit processors sitting on our desktops and they are only GETTING FASTER. we should be using the power we have sitting right on our desks MORE then less, and web applications aren't exactly using anything on your desk, nor are they very graceful. This is a step backwards.
The purpose of software isn't to keep hardware busy (although Microsoft seems to have often misunderstood that.
The purpose of hardware is to help out with specific kinds of logical problems (those for which written algorithmic solutions are available.) "Help out" means "make solving those problems easier for the person."
Ten different people might have ten different definitions of "easy" -- that's why a range of approaches is good and the monolithic one-size-fits-all approach (Windows 7, anyone?) is pure evil.
This may be another option. It may be good for some people. I'm not yet sure I'd be one of them, but I'm excited to see more options available.
im not saying software should keep the hardware busy, im saying software should take advantage of having powerful hardware. web apts do not take advantage of your hardware at all really, they are clumbsy and laggy depending on your browser and connection.
a perfect example would be hulu, they have a website where you can see the programs, and they also have a full featured desktop application that provides a much richer experiance and it utlizes your hardware. once the desktop apt came out i never used the website again.
|The purpose of software isn't to keep hardware busy (although Microsoft seems to have often misunderstood that. |
So do Google. Have you used to Google Chrome browser? It hammers your hard disk and hangs for minutes at a time. Do a search to see the number of people complaining about this.
If this Google OS is anything like this, it will be as successful as Cuil was.
An OS that entirely relies on the cloud is - not useful.
1) Most people see the PC or Netbook as universal tool to do many things, including things like watching movies, listening to music, or edit their photos. Unfortunately, these tasks are VERY bandwidth heavy and thus require super-fast AND cheap connections. This is not the reality in most places right now, and won't be for the next couple of years.
2) People have learned the hard way that relying on the cloud may actually be not so smart. Just read the complaints when people upload images to (a popular photo sharing service) and then -one day- find out that their account has been disabled. They uploaded their originals to the cloud and thought they were safe! That's why people WANT to run stuff locally. Nobody knows whether his preferred cloud service will REALLY be available at any time and forever.
3) People do not want to be tracked. Thus, the privacy discussion around a Google OS will be immense. When every move is tracked and the OS updates itself with all the latest tracking features to shove even more ads your way, please do not expect the public to cheer! No, they don't want to be caught watching pron or looking for free movies or music.
Failure pre-programmed. I hear the laughter from Redmond already.
on another note, motherboards are already coming with small "instant on" OS's built on the board that can quickly get you online if you just need to check something vs booting up the full PC. such as ASUS Express Gate.
Of course, the crowd here isn't typical. Did any of you see the video where Google went out and surveyed people and found less than half knew what a browser was? When asked what browser they used, most people answered "Google" except those that said "Yahoo".
My neighbor does three things with his computer
- play flight simulator
- access the internet.
- spend hours and hours on the weekends trying to the the #*$!ing thing working
I bet if people like that could just get rid of the whole hassle of being their own sysadmin, lots would.
To some extent, the PC as we know could and should in the near future become a geek's power tool, as it was not so long ago.
For people like us (I'm assuming anyone here is at least more like me than like the people who say their preferred browser is Google), I've never understood wanting to have apps in the cloud because of
- file format issues
- document control
For example, I have no idea how to obtain a local copy of a Google doc (short of a "save as" export) and I have no idea what the native file format is and even if I did, if the Google Docs service ceases to exist tomorrow, there is no offline app I can buy that will read those docs and I wouldn't have copies anyway.
When I own a local copy of an app, as long as I own a computer that can still run that app, I have access to the documents I created with it (unless they're on a 9-inch floppy!).
>>are we getting so lazy that we can't trust ourself to install a program?
Back to my initial observation, the whole idea that the user should be responsible for installing and maintaining apps is just one model and one that really only dates from the late 1980s as the more general, common rule.
I don't know how old you all are, but at least IncrediBILL and I held tech jobs before PCs existed and there was one computer for a company or a university and everyone was on the same computer. And actually, if you were at a non-tech company, like my brother who was at a top-400 contruction firm, you bought computer time and your computer was, effectively, in the "cloud" though it was a smaller, local cloud with just one central node.
The point being that this world in which users install and maintain their own OS and apps is really only about 25 years old and I see no reason to believe that 25 years from now that model will still hold.
Currently, the liabilities still outweigh the advantages. But I don't actually miss the days when a sysdamin took care of application installation, updates, security patches, backups, archiving and so on.
In the long run, though, I expect data storage to become more like money storage. How many of you feel it's safer to keep all your money "locally" under the bed in your home?
Still, with storage and processing prices continuing to fall, I see local storage and processing, with online data backup, as the dominant model for the forseeable future.
|My neighbor does three things with his computer |
- play flight simulator
A perfect example for a local application, unless you can retrieve video streams from the net at 25 frames per second and has close to zero response time from the remote server.
So, I guess your neighbor will throw the nice Chrome OS netbook against the wall once he realizes that he can't do what he wants.
That's the point I was trying to make. Even if people most of the time do one thing, and maybe online, they know they have a computer that is far more powerful than going online. Some want to edit photos. Some want to use a Flight Simulator. Some want to write confidential letters.
|I held tech jobs before PCs existed and there was one computer for a company or a university and everyone was on the same computer. |
I remember that time well. It was no fun. They had their outages, too, and people were really annoyed with it. I remember sitting in a room full of display terminals and all of a sudden -out of the blue!- you could hear a long beep (^G) on all those terminals, including yours:
%% [SYSOP] System will shut down in 5 minutes
or some similar cryptic message, follow by a loud sigh of the folks sitting at the terminals (again, including me). Which is again a strong point against the cloud: If you are running a stand-alone system and configure it for your most important application, you will not be harmed by anything that goes on in the cloud...
|this world in which users install and maintain their own OS and apps is really only about 25 years old and I see no reason to believe that 25 years from now that model will still hold. |
Yeah, 25 years is a long time. I think I even do agree with you that in 25 years we might not be talking about stand-alone systems any more. However, for the next five years, I do not see the majority of consumers jumping on "the cloud".
In the long run, though, I expect data storage to become more like money storage. How many of you feel it's safer to keep all your money "locally" under the bed in your home?
you can't paint that picture. Money is money, when its in a bank its numbers, when its in a vault its a pile of paper. everyones paper looks the same some people might have more or less of it but it doesn't tell you a single thing about that person other then how much money they have.
data on the other hand tells everything about you, good or bad.
And since you've said that statment i suppose you think home servers and home NAS systems are a waste of time too?
spend hours and hours on the weekends trying to the the #*$!ing thing working
I've run into that alot, 98% of the time there is nothing wrong with their computer they just can't figure out how to do "something" so they just say the classic line everyone else says.... stupid computer that thing never works right...its always broken blahblabh. Im sure those people will say the same thing about the google netbook when they can't figure out how to do something on it.
I bet if people like that could just get rid of the whole hassle of being their own sysadmin, lots would
Im sure you remember those devices that you plugged into your phone line and wrote e-mail with right? and back then PC were much more of a hassle for the ordinary person to figure out... and people still purchased the big scary computers over the nice simple single use e-mail device. Seems like google is giving that model another go, buy the google device, all google only google all the time.
I basically agree with everything you say in both posts. I think we both agree that it is too soon for this sort of thing (last line of my post) but when I hear people say never I have to laugh.
>>%% [SYSOP] System will shut down in 5 minutes
My original post was much longer, but I didn't think anyone would read it. But yes, I remember waiting 2 seconds for a character to get echoed back to the terminal. It was terrible sitting in the "computer room" (really the terminal room) at midnight during the last week of the semester when everyone was bogging down the system recompiling our buggy programs.
When I got my own machine and could control loads myself (close an app) and know how long a recompile would take and work from my own home and eat out of the kitchen instead of the vending machine at the computer center, it was fantastic.
But I also remember that the first standalone micro PCs were essentially toys and we thought "that's fine for hobbyists, but you can't do serious work on a desktop computer" and I honestly thought a desktop computer of the power of the one I own now was a sci-fi thing that I wouldn't see until, I don't know, the 21st century, and that seemed impossibly far away!
Now it's sort of the reverse. Networked "smart terminals" (as IBM used to call them) are sort for those who don't plan to do serious work. I'm just saying I wouldn't bet my savings on that remaining so.
However, as I said before
|with storage and processing prices continuing to fall, I see local storage and processing, with online data backup, as the dominant model for the foreseeable future. |
But the foreseeable future is remarkably brief.
I completely agree with the Flight Simulator point and that's ultimately where I was headed (saying that we were a long ways from connections that could offload processing and expected data storage to come first).
|Some want to use a Flight Simulator. Some want to write confidential letters. |
One is a throughput problem, the other a security problem. Neither has been solved, but I could certainly see that in many households, a combo of internet enabled game consoles and cloud-based computers would become common. Most gamers I know have at least two game consoles and one computer already.
But in any case, that sort of speaks to my main point. I think data storage is the easier nut to crack. The network has to be 100% reliable, but not super fast. If you want to do both storage and processing, you need it to be both 100% reliable and super fast. We are quite far from that in the US. Maybe it would work in South Korea, but I don't see it happening most places for the foreseeable future.
Yes, the analogy isn't perfect. I'm only addressing the issue that the home is not the safest place to keep things of value. Most people would feel safer with not just money, but valuable documents (deeds, wills, and so on) in a safe deposit box and distributed in multiple copies (yours in the safe deposit box at the bank, one with your lawyer). I don't do that personally, but I would feel safer if I did.
Because the data problem is more complex than the money problem, we aren't there yet. Most people feel safer controlling their own data. But I'm guessing that in the long run people will want ways to store data other than a hard drive in their homes.
Before that changes will need a rock solid connection, reliable encryption and data redundancy and geographical distribution. We're not there yet, but I expect we will be before I die.
As I say, my original post was longer. I originally mentioned that modern banking was invented in late-medieval Italy in the thirteenth century. I would say that it was sometime in the mid-twentieth century, post-FDIC, that common people generally felt that it was safer to keep their money in the bank than somewhere else. I don't expect it will take seven centuries from the development of computer networks to the adoption of remote storage as a common model, but I don't expect it tomorrow either. I do, however, expect it be a common model in my lifetime.
It's a guess. I could be wrong. I didn't think digital cameras would become popular until they passed 10MP. Obviously, I was wrong about that.
Of course, a few paradigm-changing advances and there go all those theories.
And yeah, I remember all the hype about "internet appliances" which seemed absurd to me at the time and it's why I don't think remote processing is coming in the foreseeable future either. People don't want to buy six machines for six tasks (although they seem perfectly happy to by 28 machines for six tasks in the kitchen, so perhaps it's just cultural).
|And since you've said that statment i suppose you think home servers and home NAS systems are a waste of time too? |
Why would anything I've said make you think that? I think they are a total pain the butt, but I would never be able to keep my laptop and desktop in synch without a home network and I wouldn't have a decent backup plan.
I don't see what my guesses about the future of computing have to do with how I'm actually using the computer today.
But since you raised the point - where do you store your backup physically? Do you have an off-site storage location? One friend has a set of terabyte drives and every couple of weeks he trades out the one at his house with one of the backups at his mother's house. I don't know anyone else that systematic.
What good is a backup on your home network if the house burns down?
|data on the other hand tells everything about you, good or bad. |
My bank knows everything. Money is money, but where my checks went and what I bought with my credit card is probably the most valuable data one can get about me. If I trust that data to the bank, frankly, I would trust them with any other data about me that exists. Granted, if I were involved in something criminal, I would likely be paying cash. But I'm not and so if I'm doing it and it costs money, the bank knows.
And if I had a super secret diary with all my deepest thoughts, I would be more comfortable with it disappearing in the morass of some documents held by some company other than Google (i.e. an online apps company that doesn't already have the best search engine) than I would be secreting it away in a wall cavity in my home in hopes that nobody would find it.
But yes, you're right - I have a third choice: leaving it on my computer with strong encryption and for the time being, that would be the option that would likely make me feel safest about avoiding discovery. Though I would be nervous about my off-site backup scheme.
microsoft got into all sorts of trouble in the european courts trying to tie their operating system with their browser, and here comes google trying to merge the two even tighter.
if chrome's market share ever approached that of windows, how would they separate them out?