Originally Posted by solipsism
1) Doesn’t iwork.com already work on other WebKit-based browsers? I thought MS was working to make their Office Live compatible with all modern browser-engines.
Yes, but AFAIK, these all will be "lite" versions of the apps -- meant to augment the full, robust, high-performance desktop versions. I don't see Google apps having the desktop versions.
2) I don’t think Chrome OS is meant to unseat anyone’s primary computing device, it’s being pushed right now as a replacement for a full fledged desktop machine that is operating much slower than it should because it’s using resources that most will not utilize.
Yes, but are web apps with local store sufficient to be a replacement -- asking as I don't know.
3) While I see this type of OS having a great impact in the poorest countries among the poorest people, it is being marketed as a secondary or satellite computer, much like the iPad is. The arguments against *not* having Mac OS X in full on the iPad are pretty much the same as those that say you can’t use a browser-based OS and get anything done, that’s it’s not enough “computing”, yet if I were write a book I’d much rather do it on the cr-48 notebook’s keyboard than on an iPad’s touchscreen.
I agree -- with qualification. The difference is that iOS is a fairly robust OS and iPad apps such as Pages, Numbers, Keynote are fairly robust -- even in their first implementation. That is because they can avail themselves of features in the underlying OS.
Here's an off-the-wall example of what I am trying to say:
1) Pages on the Mac allows use of Bezier curves to define free-form lines, shapes and masks.
2) Pages on the iPad does not support Bezier curves.
Likely, the reason for the lack of iPad support is two fold:
-- requires a graphics processor
-- requires access to Bezier API/Framework in the OS
The iPad has a respectable GPU
Until 4.0, iOS did not support the Bezier API/Framework.
Now it does, and I suspect that iPad Pages will be upgraded to support Bezier curves.
3) Pages on the Web could allow access to the GPU and Bezier API/Framework when being run from a Mac or an iDevice -- because it knows it is there
and it knows that it is permitted
access to the GPU and underlying OS.
4) The web versions of Word or Google's WP, likely, will not be allowed (or motivated) to access the underlying OS or API/Framework.
In this case, Pages Web == Pages iOS == Pages Mac.
I used the Bezier curve as an example, but there are a slew of things that a WP does that involve sophisticated APIs and hardware -- flowing text around images in multiple column documents, for example.
While Google aps could
exploit the hardware and OS APIs when running on the server -- they, likely, will not be able to exploit the same hardware and APIs when running the app on the desktop... unless Google is supplying the OS, the APIs and the GPU APIs.
PS: Your Einstein joke (different thread) made me spit up my coffee on my Mac. Thanks.
Is Chrome OS a full OS in itself or does it sit atop another OS?
I agree with all your points. In fact, the ideal for Google might
-- merge Android and Chrome
-- hide the underlying Linux
-- port it to Intel as well as ARM
-- Flesh out the Google web apps to work better on the desktop (with the same UI)
-- and/or rework Android desktop apps to augment Google web apps
I'll send you a napkin... The iPad's virtual kb is a lot easier to clean than Mac kb