or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Google's Chrome OS assailed by needless, dangerous by critics
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Google's Chrome OS assailed by needless, dangerous by critics - Page 3

post #81 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by derekmorr View Post

Why does AppleInsider continue to give this raging Apple fanboy the space to write his rants? We know what he's going to say: If it's not an Apple product, it sucks. It's laughable. Please, stop posting this nonsense from Mr. Dilger.

Because this is a fking Apple fan board. They laugh at the google cloud yet they'd trust Jobs to handle their data in NC; like he smells better than any other corporation on the planet. So ironic.
post #82 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Firefly7475 View Post

This is the same writer that on Monday said Microsoft re-branded Windows CE as Windows XP Embedded to escape the negative stigma of Windows CE's failures.

I think the other writers at AI need to pull Mr Dilger aside and have a quiet word about writing articles on subjects where he is hopelessly outside of his comfort zone.

Giving an article a bias toward Apple is on an Apple-centric site is expected, but getting basic factual content wrong... that's simply not a good idea on any respectable tech site.

I think Mr Dilger needs to stay inside the Appleverse where he knows his stuff.

Oh dear, you are ranting again.
DED articles are well researched and I enjoy reading them, if you don't, then STFU, we don't want to hear your opinions troll.
post #83 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by White Rabbit View Post

Oh dear you you are ranting again.
DED articles are well researched and I enjoy reading them, if you don't then STFU, we don't want to hear your opinions troll.

Well researched when he says that Android is bases on JavaME?
post #84 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by pwj View Post

I agree
Unfortunately, I found that his articles detract from the site. They tend to be based solely on shamelessly attacking Google while providing no new insight or analysis on the matter

And the notion of an Apple site quoting Stallman! The irony! I can't think of any guy who is more antithetical to Apple's computing philosophy than Stallman. Mr Dilger, you know this man browses the web by downloading webpages as plain text to his email, right? You also know that he also advocates for users having complete control over their hardware and software, down to the right to access and modify the source code, right?

The GNU GPL. Look it up. Last time I checked, this website seems to hate it (I think I remember some article about the iPad VLC media app)



Meh. That's technology for you.

A far scarier prospect for me has always been the cellular telcos and Facebook. The telcos essentially know your location all the time that your phone is on their network; we have no privacy of location any more. But I never see people bitching at their cell phone company for keeping records of their location

Same with Facebook. Half a billion people around the world are actively giving Facebook intimate details about their likes, interests, social conversations, activities (tagged bar photos, anyone?), etc. Total loss of privacy in your personal life
And Facebook has a terrible track record with privacy. Absolutely terrible

The price of technologic progress is privacy. That's just how it is.



Though the iPad can't be used as a primary computing device; it has to be tethered to a mother ship computer running iTunes. I think this is the iPad's single greatest disadvantage; it can't wholly replace a "full" computer.
Theoretically, a Chrome OS device could be used as a primary computer. From my perspective as a student, I could do serious word processing on some online document service and survive; I can't imagine writing a 4200 word paper on an iPad.

Are you nuts ? I can get an iPad activated at an Apple shop, and if I wanted to NEVER have to connect it to any device. So whats your point ?
post #85 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

You're right -- and that's pretty scary! Hopefully, as scary to users as to MS.

As an aside...

I stopped reading DED's blog several years ago because i† was too biased for me (an overt Apple fan).

With the continuous onslaught of this same, over the to top reporting from AI, it is losing its value as a source of information and discussion.

There are many reasoned an intelligent people here -- why does AI allow DED to repeatedly set an agenda that brings out the worst...

Mel... ?

Ever heard of the concept called choice ? If you no like, you no read.
I like his articles but don't go around ranting about them unless its to prove to people like you that one should not go around ranting negatives about someone.
No need to tell us, and I won't tell you that I like his articles. Win, win for both of us, do you dig ?
post #86 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePixelDoc View Post

but I've stated here in assorted threads that I think Apple should take a look at an easy to use, consumer friendly server setup. Especially since iOS is their cash-cow going forward. Whether a NAS, Drobo-type, Mac-Mini, whatever. A media and document server that works across the entire Mac OSX and iOS line-up of devices. WITH connectivity options for when you're on the go with one of the mobile devices.


The iHub/iHome is a pet topic of mine

I think it would be really interesting to see a small embedded (A4/iOS maybe?) appliance-like device with a number of hard drives that offers:

* Media/iTunes storage and streaming to network devices (iPod/iPhone/iPad/Apple TV/Macbook Air/Air Tunes etc)
* Shared TimeMachine
* Data sync between all network devices. Possibly even user profile sync on iPad.
* Backup to the cloud
* The ability to activate/sync iDevices over-the-air

A device like this would actually allow for a desktop free home - and if you believe the tech pundits this is the direction we are heading.
post #87 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by White Rabbit View Post

Oh dear, you are ranting again.
DED articles are well researched and I enjoy reading them, if you don't, then STFU, we don't want to hear your opinions troll.

Cheers! Two personal attacks and still no rebuttal, I must be doing well!!!

As a side project you should look up the definition of an " internet troll". You might get an ironic surprise!
post #88 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by White Rabbit View Post

Oh dear, you are ranting again.
DED articles are well researched and I enjoy reading them, if you don't, then STFU, we don't want to hear your opinions troll.

No, your reply is a rant. His comment was well-written and very level-headed. Yours, on the other hand, was not, resorting to foul language ("STFU") and name calling ("troll").

Dilger's "articles" are bad jokes. The fact that he had to resort to using quotes from Ballmer pretty clearly shows that since he has consistently painted the man as a fool in previous articles.

It's refreshing to see others complaining about Dilger's crap opinion pieces appearing on AI.
post #89 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonamac View Post

Add to that the spectre of the tablet with its instant-on, ready to go browser and snuggle-up-in-a-chair-and-browse appeal and I just think Chrome OS is going to have only niche appeal. It should be scrapped, but whether it will be or not is another matter.

I would love to have a cheap web browsing tablet on my couch. And for Netflix in bed it would be great.
post #90 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

microsoft should be scared. Chrome os offers a lightweight os for atom-based and other slower machines that windows os (desktop) can't match while also being easy to use, which no version of common linux-builds on a netbook can match. I can see chrome os quickly capturing a great deal of ms' windows business in a very short time.

timed out waiting for response from server please try again later :d

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #91 of 133
Quote:
Google employees have previously stated that the company sees web apps as the future, making it more likely that Android would merge into Chrome OS.

I don't see this happening.

Android has the installed base and momentum. It can also run web apps.
post #92 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Microsoft should be scared. Chrome OS offers a lightweight OS for Atom-based and other slower machines that Windows OS (desktop) can't match while also being easy to use, which no version of common Linux-builds on a netbook can match. I can see Chrome OS quickly capturing a great deal of MS' Windows business in a very short time.

Chrome OS as it stands = EPIC FAIL
post #93 of 133
So many odd posts here.

I say a browser-based OS has a chance to run on slower HW than the resource heavy Windows and I get attacked that Google is controlling everything you do so it can’t work, despite proof that Android, Gmail, search etc. are all working, though that’s besides the point since my comment wasn’t about how you feel about a company.

Then there are posts saying that a browser-based OS can’t work because if you’re not online you can’t do anything, despite (what should be known to everyone on this site) HTML5’s local DB options. Then there are the repeated demos and info about Google Docs and other browser-based apps being used completely offline.

Perhaps oddest of all is the post saying that people don’t use or understand how to navigate a web browser, which is proof a browser-based OS will fail.

A little common sense people. There is only one way that Windows marketshare will fall significantly. It’s not the crappy Linux distros that have existed in the pats and that most people can’t use. It’s not Mac OS X, which Apple doesn’t license and only sells on their HW at the premium end of the market. The only option is a cheaper and lighter OS that can saturate the low end of the market. So quit with your pointless anti-Google rhetoric, put down your pitchforks, extinguish your torches, and look at the technology that is being produced and has been produced by others. A little objectivity can go a long way.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #94 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Firefly7475 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Microsoft should be scared. Chrome OS offers a lightweight OS for Atom-based and other slower machines that Windows OS (desktop) can't match while also being easy to use, which no version of common Linux-builds on a netbook can match

Is that confirmed or an assumption? Has anyone actually released benchmarks of this vs the same hardware running W7 Starter?
I just can't shake the feeling that if a website runs like a dog in W7 Starter it's going to run like a dog in ChromeOS as well.

OK. So out of interest I installed a W7 Starter copy to a VM.

The standard desktop boot chews up 321MB of RAM which is actually really surprising to me (normal Windows can easily use over 1GB without opening an application).

The HDD usage is disappointing at 6.5GB. That's about the same as a standard Windows install.

CPU cycles are pretty much flat-lining which is to be expected in a stripped down OS like this.

The cold boot time is nothing to write home about. At around 40 seconds it's not any faster than a normal Windows 7 installation.

I can't test a sleep/wake cycle as it's running in a VM.

Every else seems to be as responsive as a normal Windows 7 installation, but it's using around a GB less RAM and no extra CPU cycles managing a bunch of background processes.

I'll have to try and get my hands on a copy of ChromeOS so I can benchmark them against each other on the same hardware.
post #95 of 133
Quote:
"I don't know if they can't make up their mind or what the problem is over there, but the last time I checked, you don't need two client operating systems [Android and Chrome OS]. It's good to have one."

...well as long as you have a Basic, Home, Professional and Ultimate versions in both 32-bit and 64-bit flavors. Right?

Do not overrate what you have received, nor envy others.
15" Matte MacBook Pro: 2.66Ghz i7, 8GB RAM, GT330m 512MB, 512GB SSD

iPhone 5 Black 32GB

iPad 3rd Generation, 32GB

Mac Mini Core2Duo 2.26ghz,...

Reply

Do not overrate what you have received, nor envy others.
15" Matte MacBook Pro: 2.66Ghz i7, 8GB RAM, GT330m 512MB, 512GB SSD

iPhone 5 Black 32GB

iPad 3rd Generation, 32GB

Mac Mini Core2Duo 2.26ghz,...

Reply
post #96 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

So many odd posts here.

I say a browser-based OS has a chance to run on slower HW than the resource heavy Windows and I get attacked that Google is controlling everything you do so it cant work, despite proof that Android, Gmail, search etc. are all working, though thats besides the point since my comment wasnt about how you feel about a company.

Then there are posts saying that a browser-based OS cant work because if youre not online you cant do anything, despite (what should be known to everyone on this site) HTML5s local DB options. Then there are the repeated demos and info about Google Docs and other browser-based apps being used completely offline.

Perhaps oddest of all is the post saying that people dont use or understand how to navigate a web browser, which is proof a browser-based OS will fail.

A little common sense people. There is only one way that Windows marketshare will fall significantly. Its not the crappy Linux distros that have existed in the pats and that most people cant use. Its not Mac OS X, which Apple doesnt license and only sells on their HW at the premium end of the market. The only option is a cheaper and lighter OS that can saturate the low end of the market. So quit with your pointless anti-Google rhetoric, put down your pitchforks, extinguish your torches, and look at the technology that is being produced and has been produced by others. A little objectivity can go a long way.

as mobile devices become more and more important the winner is going to be the one that gives us the most seamless experience between desktop and mobile device. a web browser won't cut it on its own. Google has always been stupid in producing products that require EVERYONE to be on a google account. so we get fail, fail, fail one after the other.
gmail is NOT the big dog in email. it is big but last i checked it wasn't even number 2.
i have to say MS has the best offering for cloud. more storage, more options, better privacy? but sweet jesus could someone go in and redesign that awful interface?
uh, losing my focus here...too many allergy meds.....f*** it all, i went with ubuntu and will probably go with ubuntu netbook edition soon and would even go with ubuntu phone os (if they had one).
if ubuntu-one had email i would go with that and drop gmail.
post #97 of 133

deleted


Edited by MacRulez - 5/4/12 at 1:10pm
post #98 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

So many odd posts here.

So quit with your pointless anti-Google rhetoric, put down your pitchforks, extinguish your torches, and look at the technology that is being produced and has been produced by others. A little objectivity can go a long way.

Seems to me the alarm against Google, the world's most pervasive and abusive data miner, can't be sounded loud enough or long enough.
post #99 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

Does Netflix run on Android tablets? It isn't available for Linux because of its dependency on Microsoft's Silverlite.

At least runs on Google TV
post #100 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Microsoft should be scared. Chrome OS offers a lightweight OS for Atom-based and other slower machines that Windows OS (desktop) can't match while also being easy to use, which no version of common Linux-builds on a netbook can match. I can see Chrome OS quickly capturing a great deal of MS' Windows business in a very short time.

Actually, given the momentum of Android, if I were Google I'd kill off Chrome as soon as possible and bring Android 3 up to full spec for everything from phones to netbooks. Chrome seems like it is in no man's land, particularly going up against Windows 7 and iOS/MacOSX.

Chrome's reliance on the cloud is a little silly still at this stage IMO... Go to a meeting, oops, no Internet for some reason... Chaos. Yes there is local caching and what not but still, I don't think it is clear how it will pan out. Plus, is Google expecting everyone to now start developing for Chrome as well? Something doesn't add up.

If anything, why is there no credible Office replacement on any platform? Sure, we can now almost have any OS and any device, but a core reason people are stuck in Windows is for MS Office. Google should focus on Android 3 "full spec" and start building an Office better than MS Office but still 110% compatible.
post #101 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post

Actually, given the momentum of Android, if I were Google I'd kill off Chrome as soon as possible and bring Android 3 up to full spec for everything from phones to netbooks. Chrome seems like it is in no man's land, particularly going up against Windows 7 and iOS/MacOSX..

What youre suggesting is making Android a desktop OS, which means adding a mouse pointer, which means a completely different UI and different I/O to control it. Apple didnt use the Mac OS X UI for the iPhone or iPad because it wouldnt work. They also didnt have two UIs into the same OS. Just like Android, Chrome OS is based off of Linux, just as Mac OS X and iOS are based off of Darwin, but with disparate Uis for different input methods. Chrome OS is a desktop OS.

Quote:
hrome's reliance on the cloud is a little silly still at this stage IMO... Go to a meeting, oops, no Internet for some reason... Chaos. Yes there is local caching and what not but still, I don't think it is clear how it will pan out. Plus, is Google expecting everyone to now start developing for Chrome as well? Something doesn't add up..

It would be the same for any PC where youve stored your data remotely, dont have a local copy and then realize you dont have access to the internet. Chrome OS has local storage via HTML5 DBs. It can also store and read files from HDDs that could be internal (though Google suggests NAND for booting), but this could be an external HDD, a separate internal HDD, or simply your most recent spreadsheet document saved in the native HTML5 DB. Browser-based OS ≠ Internet required.

Quote:
If anything, why is there no credible Office replacement on any platform? Sure, we can now almost have any OS and any device, but a core reason people are stuck in Windows is for MS Office. Google should focus on Android 3 "full spec" and start building an Office better than MS Office but still 110% compatible.

Windows is around for many reasons, but a simple to use, lightweight and cheap browser-based OS is the real threat to MS Windows empire. Id think more people around here would be happy about that. I think this will spark MS trying to do the same to maintain its hegemony, and well see Apple release a web-based version of iTunes that completely renders in a web-page. That isnt to say that MS will drop their normal version of Windows or Apple will kill their regular versions of iTunes, but this will be an alternative.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #102 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by GmanMac View Post

Seems to me the biggest issue will be the effect, especially on Microsoft, of Google this OS away for "free", as surely they will.

I wonder if that will trigger any type of anti trust.
post #103 of 133
If Google and Microsoft werent so out of touch, theyd realize netbooks are dead, and tablets are the future. Android wont be tablet-ready until mid-2011, and WP7 might never beBallmer is still trying to push Windows 7 on tablets.

Meanwhile, Apple will continue to sell millions of iPads a quarter, no competition in sight.
post #104 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

What youre suggesting is making Android a desktop OS, which means adding a mouse pointer, which means a completely different UI and different I/O to control it. Apple didnt use the Mac OS X UI for the iPhone or iPad because it wouldnt work. They also didnt have two UIs into the same OS. Just like Android, Chrome OS is based off of Linux, just as Mac OS X and iOS are based off of Darwin, but with disparate Uis for different input methods. Chrome OS is a desktop OS.


It would be the same for any PC where youve stored your data remotely, dont have a local copy and then realize you dont have access to the internet. Chrome OS has local storage via HTML5 DBs. It can also store and read files from HDDs that could be internal (though Google suggests NAND for booting), but this could be an external HDD, a separate internal HDD, or simply your most recent spreadsheet document saved in the native HTML5 DB. Browser-based OS ≠ Internet required.


Windows is around for many reasons, but a simple to use, lightweight and cheap browser-based OS is the real threat to MS Windows empire. Id think more people around here would be happy about that. I think this will spark MS trying to do the same to maintain its hegemony, and well see Apple release a web-based version of iTunes that completely renders in a web-page. That isnt to say that MS will drop their normal version of Windows or Apple will kill their regular versions of iTunes, but this will be an alternative.

I thought iTunes already used a web based interface... but I could be wrong.
post #105 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdonisSMU View Post

I thought iTunes already used a web based interface... but I could be wrong.

Nope. You have to use the native app if you want to sync to iDevice, store, organize or play your content. You might be thinking of the iTunes Store content pages that will take you to that product in the iTunes Store portal within the iTunes app.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #106 of 133
Dan's articles certainly are provocative. no question he is a longtime Apple fan, and loves to bash MS most of all. now Android too. his articles are one-sided, often take cheap shots at their targets, and frequently make overly broad statements without including crucial qualifications. i wish he'd let someone else edit his pieces before posting to clean this up somewhat. and like anyone writing about such complex topics, he gets facts wrong sometimes.

all that said, he is also very insightful and in particular always addresses the essential history of "how we got here." which very few other blogs ever do. most blogs today are incompetently superficial in their so-called analyses that are really just bull sessions with no deep background or research at all. look around ...

so i find DED a great fun read, often informative, and always thought provoking. sure, that draws out the a-holes in the comments too. if i were the moderator i'd set a stricter standard and delete/ban the personal attacks to chase those guys away. but that's not my call ...

without DED, frankly, AI would be really boring. almost all the other AI pieces are re-packaging news items reported first someplace else. anyone can just go to MDN for that.

why does AI carry DED's pieces? because i assume they generate a lot of hits. duh. they sure generate a lot of comments.
post #107 of 133
Those are some good points. I never trust the 'cloud' to any data that is confidential or important. The only things I place on servers outside of my control are pieces of information that I am willing to share publicly anyway.

The uniformed public isn't going to understand the precarious nature of data security, privacy & reliability.

I will always choose to have a platform where I can install and run apps locally, and have local control over all my data. I don't mind connections to the internet for convenience, but it should be optional as opposed to required for operation. This means that for me, ChromeOS is a non-starter.

On another note, I don't understand why Google is wasting time on ChromeOS. Android is the clear market leader, and I am uncertain anyone is willing to adopt a 2nd offering from Google. Seems to me that it would make more sense to put all that engineering effort into improving Android.
post #108 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by mytdave View Post

On another note, I don't understand why Google is wasting time on ChromeOS. Android is the clear market leader, and I am uncertain anyone is willing to adopt a 2nd offering from Google. Seems to me that it would make more sense to put all that engineering effort into improving Android.

Should Apple drop Mac OS X and only focus on iOS? I certainly hope not.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #109 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac View Post

Dude, you're taking this way to personally. Chrome OS isn't designed for you in the first place. It's for the ludites. There are plenty of them out there. Many people just use there computer to update facebook and check email. They don't need windows or even OSX to do this.

Just for the record, Luddites resist the advance of technology and science, while "ludites" are probably, what, tranquilizer ("ludes") abusers...

Even so, I think people here are missing most of Google's marketing plan here. These things are hardly just for Grandma's emailing. They're going to have huge cost benefits for a lot of corporations. First, in cost. Upfront, no drive means less of other things as well - power supply, battery size, chips, case material, etc. And fewer things to go wrong - less parts to fail, no (or certainly less) viruses and worms of the traditional sort, etc., etc.

(This also means smaller form factors without all the expensive engineering to produce a jewel box like the MB Air). Also, no "Windows tax."

So the cost of acquisition per thousand savings should be very significant and appealing to companies watching their IT budgets.

But the big appeal for companies comes AFTER purchase. If a user breaks or loses his Chrome, IT just hands out another one and he/she is back to work on the latest web-saved version of their work. Zero down time for the worker. No trouble-shooting and diagnosis, no files to transfer, no security worries about what was stored on the existing machine, no lost work.

And for all but the simplest problems, no repair. No parts bins on site. Expense the non-functioning machine, and with no drives to wipe, simple to sell palettes of 'em to companies who will refurbish and just keep fresh ones on the shelf.

Support costs will plummet and TCO will make a very attractive value proposition.

The multi-user and guest features also have their pluses in the corporate scenario.

Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac View Post

The big missing element seems to be apps. I've not seen any good reviews of the apps available at this point. Obviously that will change in time if Chrome OS gains any traction.

Most of the apps for business will be deployed as web front ends to their own corporate ones and you won't see those in any App Market.

Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac View Post

Chrome OS fills a need that netbooks have identified but don't quite satisfy. Windows based net books have always seemed like a really mediocre experience to me in the times I've used them. Chrome OS may make it better by eliminating a lot of the headaches.

Quote:
Originally Posted by _kovos_ View Post

Chrome OS hat it's users which just don't need more than it has to offer... so i'm pretty sure it will take a nice 20% bite out of the windows market within 12-24 months after release.

Yup. See above.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robodude View Post

Compared to iOS and Android it seems redundant, but this thing is looking to eventually displace Windows. On multi-vendor hardware at an affordable price, I don't see many reasons for Chrome not to do well. They'll roll it out on Netbooks at first, but down the line we'll be seeing it on full fledged desktop computers.

Contrary to your point, I reckon that Chrome will be for the least technical users, as just about everyone knows how to use a web browser. I'd argue that the browser is probably the most familiar application for most users so making an OS based on it doesn't seem a bad idea by any stretch.

No Finder and no Disk Utility on Macs, and on Win, no My Computer (I used to train people on this and know how daunting it is for many), no Control Panel, MSConfig, etc., etc., etc.

And after a few months on Chrome as a browser, it's tons easier to use than FireFox - and I've adapted to having fewer config options. I do miss Cool Previews, tho'.

So yes, a much less steep learning curve for newbies.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robodude View Post

A shame Google didn't actually introduce any paradigm shift in terms of how we interact with the thing though, except for removing the caps lock.

FOR LOTS OF SELF-IMPORTANT PEOPLE I KNOW REMOVING THE CAPS LOCK KEY is A MAJOR PARADIGM SHIFT!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by monstrosity View Post

A hybrid of both local and cloud based computing combining the best features of each concept would always be the best solution IMO. Both local and cloud have advantages and disadvantages so why not use both?

Why should those who don't (always) need those other advantages pay for 'em?

It's like telephones - first each small town and neighborhood had a few. Then each home had a standard Bell receiver. Then "Princess" phones for the teens. Then cordless and then wireless and now a whole range of phones from tethered and stuuu-pid to highly mobile and reallyreally smart.

The same thing's happening with digital devices. I'm always gonna need a computer to do heavy-duty Photoshopping level tasks, but as a writer/surfer, a light, cheap second machine with the whole web and Google Docs that I don't even have to worry about obsessively - with a real keyboard I don't have to pack separately + my phone is perfect for day-tripping around town or short trips.
Quote:
Originally Posted by monstrosity View Post

I feel a Cloud style OS would be deliberately disabling a computing device for ideological reasons rather than practical.

I truly doubt Google's doing this for religious or political reasons. I've already gone over G's excellent business case for these machines which has nothing to do with how one "feels" about "cloud computing." And there multiple personal cases.
Quote:
Originally Posted by monstrosity View Post

Can we really make a device much cheaper using a Cloud OS ?

Yes. See above.
Quote:
Originally Posted by monstrosity View Post

The processor is gonna have to pack some punch to run HTML5 anywhere near the speed of a Cocoa app. And a cocoa app is already very well equipped to store data in and retrieve content from the cloud. I just don't see any potential advantage.

And doesn't the speed of light pose response problems? No fixing that one sonny jim.

I can't create Google Docs or populate a spreadsheet at the speed of light anyway. And I believe that's "Sunny Jim."

And as long as it plays web vids and audio acceptably, enough "punch" for me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pmz View Post

Nice to see someone here has a brain. How anyone can conclude from the volumes of evidence available, that Google is in any way a safe entity to be involved, is beyond me.

They are not good. Who they really work for I can't say, but it's not the user. It's the complete opposite.

Privacy - what's left of it in the world, at least - is still getting a bit of support, and Google has some restraints on its behavior. See the latest court decision: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/1...ls-court-holds

It's hardly just Google, anyway...

Quote:
Originally Posted by pwj View Post

A far scarier prospect for me has always been the cellular telcos and Facebook. The telcos essentially know your location all the time that your phone is on their network; we have no privacy of location any more. But I never see people bitching at their cell phone company for keeping records of their location

Same with Facebook. Half a billion people around the world are actively giving Facebook intimate details about their likes, interests, social conversations, activities (tagged bar photos, anyone?), etc. Total loss of privacy in your personal life
And Facebook has a terrible track record with privacy. Absolutely terrible

The price of technologic progress is privacy. That's just how it is.

Note to all you MobileMe and Ping users: Apple also has YOUR data. And on the App Store, it's also your censor and nanny.

And then there's Twitter, Flickr, and a whole list of etc.'s.

As for why someone might choose a ChromeBook over an iPad....

Quote:
Originally Posted by pwj View Post

Theoretically, a Chrome OS device could be used as a primary computer. From my perspective as a student, I could do serious word processing on some online document service and survive; I can't imagine writing a 4200 word paper on an iPad.

I agree. Plus a bridge to the "Flashless web" Apple's started to bring about, but which ain't here yet.

An iPhone, a Leatherman and thou...  ...life is complete.

Reply

An iPhone, a Leatherman and thou...  ...life is complete.

Reply
post #110 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

It would be the same for any PC where you’ve stored your data remotely, don’t have a local copy and then realize you don’t have access to the internet. Chrome OS has local storage via HTML5 DBs. It can also store and read files from HDDs that could be internal (though Google suggests NAND for booting), but this could be an external HDD, a separate internal HDD, or simply your most recent spreadsheet document saved in the native HTML5 DB. Browser-based OS ≠ Internet required.


Windows is around for many reasons, but a simple to use, lightweight and cheap browser-based OS is the real threat to MS’ Windows empire. I’d think more people around here would be happy about that. I think this will spark MS trying to do the same to maintain its hegemony, and we’ll see Apple release a web-based version of iTunes that completely renders in a web-page. That isn’t to say that MS will drop their normal version of Windows or Apple will kill their regular versions of iTunes, but this will be an alternative.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AdonisSMU View Post

I thought iTunes already used a web based interface... but I could be wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Nope. You have to use the native app if you want to sync to iDevice, store, organize or play your content. You might be thinking of the iTunes Store content pages that will take you to that product in the iTunes Store portal within the iTunes app.

Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Should Apple drop Mac OS X and only focus on iOS? I certainly hope not.

Two topics here:

1) Browser (web-based) iTunes

1) Browser-based OS.


As to the Browser (web-based) iTunes

Technologically this is pretty easy to do. About 5 years ago, I wanted to access my entire iTunes library on my iMac at home from my AlBook G4, while out and about.

I was using ColdFusion at the time and, for testing used my home iMac as a Web Server and ColdFusion/Java Web Application Server (ColdFusion compiles to Java ByteCode).

The hardest part was parsing the iTunes XML file (I had about 7,000 entries) which took a little time (a couple of minutes). I set this up so the XML parsing occurred only once, at startup of the Web App Server.

Then, from the client browser, you could access the web site and see/play any items in the home iTunes library.

To improve performance, XML was NOT USED for data interchange between the client and server.

JavaScript was used to sort and initiate searches.


Another difficulty was accessing the iTunes store. the Store used the same XML, but it was encrypted. A friend was able to break the encryption, so we were able to get access. But performance could be abysmal -- A search of the iTMS for "elvis" would return the XML for thousands of records. We mitigated this somewhat by parsing the returned XML on the Web Application Server then delivering a more efficient data stream to the browser. (We had a faster connection between Apple iTMS and the Web Application Server than between the web application server and the browser).

To improve performance further, we instituted an automatic drill-down. If the iTMS returned more than 50 hits, only the 1st 50 were sent to the browser - and JavaScript next/prev was used to access other groups of 50.

All-in -all it performed quite well.

As an aside, the current iTMS uses a similar drill-down with groups of 200 served at a time.

We did some experimenting and determined that if Apple were to replace XML with a more efficient transmission/presentation format, the data could be presented to the browser (or the desktop iTunes app) with less than 10% of the bandwidth and packet size than is currently used,

So a Browser (web-based) iTunes iTunes is very much a possibility.



As to a Browser-based OS

HTML 5 was not available when we did the iTunes Browser App (above). But it was possible in a Browser App running on the Mac to access the underlying OS (File System, MetaData, SQLite Database, etc.). You did this using similar constructs that are used to write a Widget.

In fact, you could take the ColdFusion App discussed above, package it with a Apache Web Server, J2EE Web Application Server, ColdFusion Runtime, embedded SQL server. This was a very small package (a few megabytes for everything but the data) and ran quite efficiently.

You simply downloaded the app and copied it to your desktop (Applications Folder) -- double-click and you were running a client-server web app on your desktop.

Likely you can do similar things with HTML 5 -- more efficiently and without the need for all the server-side components.


Given that, it seems that the advantage; of Chrome (or any browser-based OS) it that it:

-- has built in web access
-- allows custom web apps to be installed on the desktop (or equivalent)
-- allows app access to the underlying OS components
-- provides a common UI across apps -- be they browser or desktop
-- by its very nature (few, concurrent, single-function, simple apps), can run efficiently on lite hardware.
-- simplifies the user-hardware interface (the OS is invisible)

So the Browser-based OS cold be considered an OS lite!


Then, Chrome OS could be considered Google OS Lite -- paid for by advertising


What if Apple were to introduce a Browser-based OS based on OS X (Mac and iOS) that was paid for by hardware and/or app/content sales.

Certainly, this Apple OS Lite could be made to run on any existing hardware -- and provide a market for Apple apps (iWork iLife, etc.) and 3rd-party Developer apps.

And, yes, that iTunes app would run from the web or the desktop... and so would Mail, and Pages, and Numbers, and iPhoto, and iMovie, and GarageBand, and Keynote....
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #111 of 133
It's hardly just Google, anyway...

that makes it all right then yay!


Google Chrome OS = neat idea, so was google Wave. it will suffer the same fate. people aren't ready for it, and it ain't ready for people.
post #112 of 133
iTunes is very instructive for the cloud vs. local topic.

when you are acessing the iTunes Store or Ping or Genius or your account and some other iTunes functions, you are in fact working within a web browser accessing Apple's cloud running its UI inside your local program that may be doing other local things at the same time - like playing music.

when you are copying files from a CD or re-sizing files for various uses or editing your library metadata (a data base), etc., in iTunes you are doing classic local data crunching with the Quicktime engine.

when you are sharing iTunes media around your house via Apple TV or other computers or AirPlay, you are running a network LAN media server (and this may be extended via the web beyond the LAN oneday).

when you sync/update/backup etc. your iOS hardware you are running a complex hardware management utility program.

and if you auto backup all your iTunes content via TimeMachine to separate storage, you have a secure copy of all your stuff with no dependecy on any third party and their unknown future requriements and circumstances.

all this makes iTunes the most sophisticated consumer software (that is not an OS) in the world - a platform unto itself really. part cloud, part local, part network, part peripherals, all integrated. but the genius of it is, you never think about that. all this just works within a single window on your desktop. the only tricky part are some preferences settings.

that is what is wrong with any one approach alone - cloud browser or local or network. none can do everything, and all its parts are never all unified by a single front end interface for the user.

(i know some people "hate" iTunes because of its "bloat" - all these functions.)

and iTunes is just about media. but Chrome OS would need to be about that and much more, yet it will be more limited in approach.

if you want to keep your life simple most of all, then iOS and Android are enough. what important capabilities will Chrome OS have that Android 3.0 won't?
post #113 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigpics View Post

Just for the record, Luddites resist the advance of technology and science, while "ludites" are probably, what, tranquilizer ("ludes") abusers...

....

You got me there.

Also another advantage of Chrome OS is not needing AV software. The platform is locked down and so AV SW shouldn't be necessary. That will cut down on cost, no need to purchase yearly AV SW, and the user experience will be superior.

I'm still not sure it'll be that appealing to enterprise customers as enterprise users are pretty addicted to MS office, but who knows?

Apple has shown that non-enterprise consumers have a pretty open mind about the technology they use. For the facebook, email, web surfing crowd I think Chrome OS has something to offer.
post #114 of 133

deleted


Edited by MacRulez - 5/4/12 at 1:10pm
post #115 of 133
There will always be critics of something new. Everyone laughed at the iPad before getting their hands on it, and look at where it is today.

Can a Chrome OS notebook replace a Macbook? Well, it depends on your needs. While it wouldn't work for me, it certainly would work perfectly for my mom. She needs a machine that is fast, loads her favorite websites, plays her favorite games, and never needs to worry about viruses or updates. As long as they're priced right and perform well, I can easily see her put aside her Gateway laptop for one of these Google notebooks 90% of the time.

Heck, while there are plenty of things I can do on my computer offline, most of what I use it for is on the internet. When the connection goes down in my house, I often simply turn off the machine for lack of anything to do. I think most people feel that way, too.

These notebooks won't replace your primary machine any more than an iPad would. But then again, you don't need that full machine all the time. I think Chrome notebooks are going to be in a killer market against netbooks as long as the price and performance is right. If they're as simple to use as iPads, they'll do alright.
Video editor, tech enthusiast, developer.

http://www.yuusharo.com
http://www.studioyuu.com
Reply
Video editor, tech enthusiast, developer.

http://www.yuusharo.com
http://www.studioyuu.com
Reply
post #116 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac View Post

I'm still not sure it'll be that appealing to enterprise customers as enterprise users are pretty addicted to MS office, but who knows?

Two words: Office Live.

A bunch more:

Altho' their wide suite of Windows Live products - Office, Sky Drive, Messenger, Hotmail, photos, etc. - appears to have little mind share in the popular tech press, MS's (huge and continuing) investment in this stable reflects they know they have no choice but to be there when customers migrate document creation and collaboration into the cloud.

Given how poorly I think the Google Docs experience compares to working in Word on my machine, there's a major opportunity for MS to keep its Office base thru this next paradigm change if they execute. This is enhanced because Office Live can be more closely integrated and compatible with Office than G. Docs, and both experiences can be aware and share with the other. Google has no base at all on the desktop and nothing to integrate with. Word Live has an "open with Word" button for whenever you're on a computer with Word (which can in turn, save back to the web in docx, keeping the document portable).

And, for example, I just checked in over there and without any intervention and setup on my part, I have a new view called "Hotmail Highlights" presenting integrated material from what's going on in my facebook, Hotmail and Messenger accounts - with thumbnail visual previews of (a few spicy) attachments. Pretty damn cool actually, although my personal e-mail's with Evil G.

In that sense, Chrome OS could help MS hold the enterprise document market, by driving corporations to the web version of Office sooner. Or they could get smoked. We'll see.

An iPhone, a Leatherman and thou...  ...life is complete.

Reply

An iPhone, a Leatherman and thou...  ...life is complete.

Reply
post #117 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoolook View Post

Quote:
"I don't know if they can't make up their mind or what the problem is over there, but the last time I checked, you don't need two client operating systems [Android and Chrome OS]. It's good to have one."

...well as long as you have a Basic, Home, Professional and Ultimate versions in both 32-bit and 64-bit flavors. Right?

The ones you mentioned are all basically the same OS with different components enabled/disabled. If you want to go nuts you can also add Win7 Embedded, Win7 Starter x86, Win7 Enterprise x86/x64, Home Server Vail x64, Server 2K8 Standard x86/x64, Server 2K8 Enterprise x86/x64, Server 2K8 Datacenter x86/x64, Web Server 2K8 x86/x64, Storage Server 2K8 x86/x64, SBS x64, SBS "Essentials" x64 and probably a bunch of others I don't know about.

Microsoft do have two distinct OS's though. The "Windows 7" family (as above) and the "Windows CE" family (the thing that drives WP7). One for mobile and one for the desktop. The exact same situation as Google with Android and Chrome OS.

Moral of the story is Ballmer talks out his ass.
post #118 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Those are concerns that can be summed up with basic feelings people have had about computers for as long as Ive been alive.

The fact is people already use the internet is ways that maintain their data in form or another. contacts, email, IMs, file sharing, web searches. Then you have open WiFi hotspots and internet purchases. All Chrome OS is doing is making the slow crappy HW in netbooks (for now) be a usable system for satellite computing.

I dont see how this cant work.

It might well work, I don't claim to see the future. But I do have a different perspective.

For me, the concept is flawed. Storing everything in the cloud demands a connection to the cloud. With my iPhone, there have been numerous occasions where I'm away from a wifi hot-spot and the O2 network has crashed (it's not been good in London, although getting better now). Luckily, I've been able to work on my docs, watch a video or listen to a podcast as it's all on the device.

I'm not particularly concerned about the privacy issues, or too worried about Google loosing everything I own. They're both secondary to me. What I want to be assured of is that I can have my stuff when I want it.

Don't get me wrong, cloud computing has great potential. What I would like is to have files that live locally, but that can be edited on any of my 'computers', iPhone, iPad, Mac, Apple TV, XP box at work, etc. while always remaining as one version. For example, if I watch a video on my iphone, then get home, switch on the TV and select the same movie, I'd like to be able to watch it from the same point and with the same settings selected (volume, aspect ratio, can't think of any others). Similar for documents: Edit at work, get on the train, edit on the train on my iPad, get home, start my Mac, edit on the Mac, go back to work the next day, and have one version on my XP box of the same doc with all edits included, without me doing a thing. I suspect that this is what next year's MobileMe update and data centre are all about.

So, for me, Chrome's not the future. You'll need access to t'interweb to get at your stuff. That'll kill interest from most consumers. Apple might, however, be able to offer a kind of cloud-computing that puts the power in users' hands while taking advantage of cloud-based sync.
post #119 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by BertieBig View Post

It might well work, I don't claim to see the future. But I do have a different perspective.

For me, the concept is flawed. Storing everything in the cloud demands a connection to the cloud. With my iPhone, there have been numerous occasions where I'm away from a wifi hot-spot and the O2 network has crashed (it's not been good in London, although getting better now). Luckily, I've been able to work on my docs, watch a video or listen to a podcast as it's all on the device.

I'm not particularly concerned about the privacy issues, or too worried about Google loosing everything I own. They're both secondary to me. What I want to be assured of is that I can have my stuff when I want it.

Don't get me wrong, cloud computing has great potential. What I would like is to have files that live locally, but that can be edited on any of my 'computers', iPhone, iPad, Mac, Apple TV, XP box at work, etc. while always remaining as one version. For example, if I watch a video on my iphone, then get home, switch on the TV and select the same movie, I'd like to be able to watch it from the same point and with the same settings selected (volume, aspect ratio, can't think of any others). Similar for documents: Edit at work, get on the train, edit on the train on my iPad, get home, start my Mac, edit on the Mac, go back to work the next day, and have one version on my XP box of the same doc with all edits included, without me doing a thing. I suspect that this is what next year's MobileMe update and data centre are all about.

So, for me, Chrome's not the future. You'll need access to t'interweb to get at your stuff. That'll kill interest from most consumers. Apple might, however, be able to offer a kind of cloud-computing that puts the power in users' hands while taking advantage of cloud-based sync.

I honestly have no idea how browser-based OS means that everything is on the cloud and that without an internet connection you are dead in the water. Despite the many demos and my repeated statements of the HTML5 DBs in the WebKit browser, the USB and HDD support, the file access, and pre-installed office doc suites that can be used offline why does this repeatedly get stated that you have to be online for it to be operational?
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #120 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

I honestly have no idea how browser-based OS means that everything is on the cloud and that without an internet connection you are dead in the water. Despite the many demos and my repeated statements of the HTML5 DBs in the WebKit browser, the USB and HDD support, the file access, and pre-installed office doc suites that can be used offline why does this repeatedly get stated that you have to be online for it to be operational?

OK, maybe I'm misunderstanding.

In Chrome OS, will the user be able to open a text document, edit it, save it and close it without an internet connection? I've been looking for an authoritative answer to this, and I can't find anything definitive. Just vague assertions. Can you give me a link?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPad
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Google's Chrome OS assailed by needless, dangerous by critics