ronin - 6:58 pm on Dec 17, 2007 (gmt 0)

I can't imagine most information workers seeing this as an either / or decision.

For some applications such as Maps, I prefer either a cloud computing solution (Google Maps or map24) or else a hybrid solution (Google Earth) rather than having a hard-coded map software package on my hard-drive which would quickly be out of date.

For other activities such as producing and saving my business invoices, I prefer a hard drive based application (I use OpenOffice.org Writer and save the files as MS-compatible .docs) because I only want the invoices to be accessible from my hard drive and not from any internet connected machine.

If I were developing a work schedule in collaboration with others in remote physical locations, I'd want to use cloud computing (perhaps Google Docs) rather than constantly resaving and emailing a .doc attachment backwards and forwards.

If I were developing graphics for my website I'd want to use a hard-drive based application (such as my free copy of Paint Shop Pro) because, once again, I only want those under production graphics to be accessible from my own computer.

Cloud computing is most useful for collaborative projects and for reference data which needs to be updated by external third parties.

Hard-drive based applications are better when you want to keep something under wraps rather than sending data backwards and forwards over the net.

I think the real choice is not between cloud computing and hard drive based computing but between free software or software you purchase or subscribe to.

Given the ever-increasing quality and reliability of free software - OpenOffice.org, phpbb, OpenAds, OpenCommerce, Thunderbird, Firefox etc. - I can't see much of an argument left for actually paying for software.

That said, given the choice between free software which displays contextual ads and free software which doesn't, I opt for the latter every time. I hear Gmail is very good, but I still use Yahoo! Mail as my webmail provider.