That's great but I make my living using InDesign, Quark and Photoshop. Then there are all the other ancillary apps like FileMaker and tens of others, which help me run my life and business.
Then Google's Chrome OS isn't for you (me either).
It's supposed to be a light weight web-centric OS for netbooks, and netbooks are limited service, usually secondary, computers. Netbooks today run WinXP Home (too bloated) or Linux (too geeky for most ordinary users). The idea for Chrome OS is that you turn on the netbook and it boots almost instantaneously into a browser window that give access to the web and to whatever net-based services Google chooses to offer. You probably won't go through the Desktop first ? heck, there may not even be a Desktop.
1) The government should never, ever, ever subsidize computer sales. I'm a frickin' socialist, and I think that's WAAAAY outside the realm of where government should be involved in our lives.
2) Many (Most?) working class and poor people can afford a $300 computer. It's the $60 a month for half-assed, limited "broad"-band that's not practical.
so you're saying it's ok to subsidize internet access but not computer sales to the poor and people who can't afford it? just trying to follow your logic. what you're reasoning for that? what do you think the difference is?
That's great but I make my living using InDesign, Quark and Photoshop.
If Chrome OS could VNC into your Mac, then you could do almost anything from anywhere. I currently use this technique all the time just because I don't want to move a huge inDesign project across the internet to make a small change. I simply log into my office machine with my MacBookPro and manipulate the inDesign or Photoshop file, then export the low res pdf and send to the client.
The added benefit is that I'm not making lots of duplicate copies of the project that are in various versions which avoids confusion later when you need to reuse the files.
so you're saying it's ok to subsidize internet access but not computer sales to the poor and people who can't afford it? just trying to follow your logic. what you're reasoning for that? what do you think the difference is?
Where did I say that the government should subsidize internet access? Oh that's right: I didn't.
They were two separate points (hence the separate numbers): government subsidies are not necessary or appropriate, and internet access is by far the bigger expense — and therefore the bigger impediment to more widespread use of PCs — than buying a computer.
Thin clients have not been successful in the past. Maybe Google can do it, but history is not on their side. I personally think the obsession with server side solutions puts ease of deployment ahead of other, more important concerns. Server side is Fail because:
- More expensive hardware
Servers must be reliable enough to run 24/7, and usually have expensive support contracts. Compare with a cheap Dell desktop.
- More Expensive software
Software to support multiple users is typically heavily threaded and can have no memory leaks because it must run 24/7. That is a lot harder to write and debug than a simple client side Mac or Windows program that runs a few hours with one user and then quits.
- More Expensive infrastructure
A big data centre uses massive power and network resources. Having the load spread over many clients solves this problem.
I think a sensible compromise is to have client side apps but server side data. Or even better: server side sync, where the data is still local (for best user experience) but all clients periodically and transparently sync it to the cloud.
Most large enterprises have already committed to just such a strategy. While it might not be the best solution for every user within an organization, I could see my company replacing thousands of secretaries' computers with the chrome OS.
It also sounds perfect for my mother. She doesn't need to use an OS just a web browser.
There seems to be a trend (at least attempted) towards making things web based and residing on a "server in the clouds." Microsoft just dropped Money, Quicken may be heading towards their online services as the primary one.
Do we really want to trust everything we have to a corporation? I admit, I've done some of this myself. We all do when we use credit cards online.
We had very, very simple O/S's in the early days, We now have complex, powerful multiuser systems like OS X at home that are capable of running webservers themselves and many very complex tasks. I for one wouldn't give up all that power to a dumb "web terminal" in the future. Granted it does take the technical overhead off the average person, who probably doesn't want it anyway.
I wouldn't be happy being totally dependent on Google for every computing need, communication and financial transaction.
The announcement of the impending release of a Google operating system would generate more interest if their software development team was as quick and resourceful as the PR department. When Sergey Brin can use the Chrome browser on his MacBoook, I'll take Google more seriously. It has been more than a year and the boss' computer still can't make the previous product work!
Such announcements likely have more to do with financial negotiations and tweaking the beak of Microsoft, than with products ready to improve the lives of consumers. With Chrome browsers remaining vaporware to Macs and Linux platforms, Google news limits their impact to Window aficionados.
Where did I say it was okay to subsidize internet access? Oh that's right: I didn't.
ok, maybe you didn't say that, but schools subsidize computer/software sales to students. Plus many schools offer internet access to it's student population as well. Why not make this subsidy available to people in the low-income bracket?
You did suggest in your statement that the problem lies in the high-cost of broadband access, so i assumed you were inferring that perhaps some assistance could be applied to that instead of hardware/software sales. My mistake, i just wanted to hear your reasoning why you thought that was a bad idea?
I was just curious as to the difference here. Computers and the internet need to be accessible to everyone is my stance and i think with the direction Google is going with their products and services, why not make it fully accessible to people who can't afford it?
I'm not talking about people that make more than minimum wage and require no government assistance.
It's funny to think that the current buzz of cloud computing and web apps harkens back to the thin-client architecture of X11 and multi-user UNIX systems which always kept user settings, documents, etc on a central server. It's really come full circle with a new round of entrepreneurs trying to sell the concepts under a set of different names and patents. Maybe it'll catch on this time, who knows?
I personally feel that the current mish-mash of technologies it takes to build a large, complex web app is far uglier than writing an equivalent cross-platform desktop app (if you know how to structure things properly), but maybe Google will help clean that up and make a believer out of me. Currently, I just don't have the stomach for the non-standard (and often buggy) interfaces of most web apps (plus having adverts all around me as I use them). I guess most people just want free and are willing to put up with poor usability and advertisements to get it.
There seems to be a trend (at least attempted) towards making things web based and residing on a "server in the clouds." Microsoft just dropped Money, Quicken may be heading towards their online services as the primary one.
Do we really want to trust everything we have to a corporation? I admit, I've done some of this myself. We all do when we use credit cards online.
(?)
Anyone else feel like this?
I totally see your point, and I'm inclined to agree, but I don't see why this would necessarily and exclusively rely on cloud computing.
As someone suggested earlier, you could VNC to your home Mac (which you could, because it's a web app), you could be using your files and applications from your desktop ? not from some cloud server. You're turning your netbook into a web terminal for your home computer, as opposed to Google's servers.
Sure, you can do that already ? but a slim OS optimized for exactly that sort of task could do it better and faster. I see potential here.
The announcement of the impending release of a Google operating system would generate more interest if their software development team was as quick and resourceful as the PR department. When Sergey Brin can use the Chrome browser on his MacBoook, I'll take Google more seriously. It has been more than a year and the boss' computer still can't make the previous product work!
Such announcements likely have more to do with financial negotiations and tweaking the beak of Microsoft, than with products ready to improve the lives of consumers. With Chrome browsers remaining vaporware to Macs and Linux platforms, Google news limits their impact to Window aficionados.
Limits being the key word, but you are correct -- Google needs to finish some of the projects they started long ago before launching big new projects like this one. Once again Google seems to be a company with ADD.
There seems to be a trend (at least attempted) towards making things web based and residing on a "server in the clouds." Microsoft just dropped Money, Quicken may be heading towards their online services as the primary one.
Do we really want to trust everything we have to a corporation? I admit, I've done some of this myself. We all do when we use credit cards online.
We had very, very simple O/S's in the early days, We now have complex, powerful multiuser systems like OS X at home that are capable of running webservers themselves and many very complex tasks. I for one wouldn't give up all that power to a dumb "web terminal" in the future. Granted it does take the technical overhead off the average person, who probably doesn't want it anyway.
I wouldn't be happy being totally dependent on Google for every computing need, communication and financial transaction.
Anyone else feel like this?
I kind of see your point, but i'd have to say that whenever you do a transaction online you're depending on a "server in the clouds" to responsibly handle your information. you said it yourself. I'm not following you as to why having programs that handle your safe information is any different. those programs (like money or quicken) are basically record keeping programs but they still sync with your bank records, which is online and in that floating cloud everyone is referring too. sure we need some way to store that info on our PC's in the case that the bank gets the information wrong, but i think the future will show that this system will still be necessary.
Just a general comment about this Google OS that sparked up an issue i've had between OS's over the years, and i'd like to hear everyone's thoughts on this.
So I understand that different OS's use different languages or whatever to operate your computer and applications. I get that much. I problem has always been with compatibility. I've been a PC/Windows user most of my life but would love to switch to MAC or a more efficient alternative, mainly because i think Windows is plauged with problems. No, perhaps that's because they are too open to all types of programs or just aren't very good at managing the magnitude of programs that are written for Windows, i'm not sure. And, i kind of realize that OS X is more stable because if the restrictions it has on application that it accepts.
My issue is in compatibily. I'd switch over to Mac if OS X could run all the programs that i use professionally. It does not. And, yes, i could partition OS's to a mac (or whatever you want to call is), but that's more work than i really want to do, since i'm not an IT wiz; i would consider myself a fairly average computer user.
My questions (or proposition) is, why can't all these OS's just come to a compromise and use a language that works for all software, so if you did want to switch you could simply install all your same programs without having to have a "window's" version to a "Mac" version to a "Linux" version?
This way the OS manufactures could just quibble about which is more stable and service the broader market more effectively? It just seems too cumbersome to the end-user and creates more competition than is necessary. If i have a PC with Photoshop and and Revit or even MS Office and i want to switch to Mac, I find is a load of BS that i have to re-purchase the proper OS X version of these programs.
please correct me if i am living in a dream world here. Compatibly seems like the one aspect of computing that should not be the resposibility of the end-user. My guess is also that Google is working on this with their OS and I hope that is true.
I was just curious as to the difference here. Computers and the internet need to be accessible to everyone is my stance and i think with the direction Google is going with their products and services, why not make it fully accessible to people who can't afford it?
Making broadband internet fully accessible is all well and good, but my argument is that broadband access is only as expensive as it is because the broadband companies are milking their customers. Offer a GOOD service, for a GOOD price, and people will buy it. That's what capitalism is about, isn't it?
Americans' cost for broadband access is much higher per person than in many other countries (Japan and most of Europe, in particular), and for no good reason. They don't deserve subsidies. They deserve a swift kick in the butt.
I doubt Apple cares too much about todays announcement by google. It will be old news to them anyway. It was clear a long time ago this was going to happen, and I wouldn't be surprised to find the two companies have colluded together to take out the common enemy.
Apple and Google have two polarized business models, I do not consider them competitors, and I'm sure neither of them do either.
Making broadband internet fully accessible is all well and good, but my argument is that broadband access is only as expensive as it is because the broadband companies are milking their customers. Offer a GOOD service, for a GOOD price, and people will buy it. That's what capitalism is about, isn't it?
Americans' cost for broadband access is much higher per person than in many other countries (Japan and most of Europe, in particular), and for no good reason. They don't deserve subsidies. They deserve a swift kick in the butt.
Point taken, i think we both agree on the swift-kick part. Then the question should be why is this allowed to happen? but i think we all have at least 3 or 4 thoughts on that. for the same reasons Michael Bay keeps making crappy movies for one...Sugar-coated mediocrity is what comes naturally to most companies today.
Comments
That's great but I make my living using InDesign, Quark and Photoshop. Then there are all the other ancillary apps like FileMaker and tens of others, which help me run my life and business.
Then Google's Chrome OS isn't for you (me either).
It's supposed to be a light weight web-centric OS for netbooks, and netbooks are limited service, usually secondary, computers. Netbooks today run WinXP Home (too bloated) or Linux (too geeky for most ordinary users). The idea for Chrome OS is that you turn on the netbook and it boots almost instantaneously into a browser window that give access to the web and to whatever net-based services Google chooses to offer. You probably won't go through the Desktop first ? heck, there may not even be a Desktop.
It's going to be interesting...
1) The government should never, ever, ever subsidize computer sales. I'm a frickin' socialist, and I think that's WAAAAY outside the realm of where government should be involved in our lives.
2) Many (Most?) working class and poor people can afford a $300 computer. It's the $60 a month for half-assed, limited "broad"-band that's not practical.
so you're saying it's ok to subsidize internet access but not computer sales to the poor and people who can't afford it? just trying to follow your logic. what you're reasoning for that? what do you think the difference is?
That's great but I make my living using InDesign, Quark and Photoshop.
If Chrome OS could VNC into your Mac, then you could do almost anything from anywhere. I currently use this technique all the time just because I don't want to move a huge inDesign project across the internet to make a small change. I simply log into my office machine with my MacBookPro and manipulate the inDesign or Photoshop file, then export the low res pdf and send to the client.
The added benefit is that I'm not making lots of duplicate copies of the project that are in various versions which avoids confusion later when you need to reuse the files.
Microsoft will go after them like the US gov't after Saddam Hussein
No, Microsoft will go after them like the US gov't after Osama bin Laden.
so you're saying it's ok to subsidize internet access but not computer sales to the poor and people who can't afford it? just trying to follow your logic. what you're reasoning for that? what do you think the difference is?
Where did I say that the government should subsidize internet access? Oh that's right: I didn't.
They were two separate points (hence the separate numbers): government subsidies are not necessary or appropriate, and internet access is by far the bigger expense — and therefore the bigger impediment to more widespread use of PCs — than buying a computer.
Thin clients have not been successful in the past. Maybe Google can do it, but history is not on their side. I personally think the obsession with server side solutions puts ease of deployment ahead of other, more important concerns. Server side is Fail because:
- More expensive hardware
Servers must be reliable enough to run 24/7, and usually have expensive support contracts. Compare with a cheap Dell desktop.
- More Expensive software
Software to support multiple users is typically heavily threaded and can have no memory leaks because it must run 24/7. That is a lot harder to write and debug than a simple client side Mac or Windows program that runs a few hours with one user and then quits.
- More Expensive infrastructure
A big data centre uses massive power and network resources. Having the load spread over many clients solves this problem.
I think a sensible compromise is to have client side apps but server side data. Or even better: server side sync, where the data is still local (for best user experience) but all clients periodically and transparently sync it to the cloud.
Most large enterprises have already committed to just such a strategy. While it might not be the best solution for every user within an organization, I could see my company replacing thousands of secretaries' computers with the chrome OS.
It also sounds perfect for my mother. She doesn't need to use an OS just a web browser.
There seems to be a trend (at least attempted) towards making things web based and residing on a "server in the clouds." Microsoft just dropped Money, Quicken may be heading towards their online services as the primary one.
Do we really want to trust everything we have to a corporation? I admit, I've done some of this myself. We all do when we use credit cards online.
We had very, very simple O/S's in the early days, We now have complex, powerful multiuser systems like OS X at home that are capable of running webservers themselves and many very complex tasks. I for one wouldn't give up all that power to a dumb "web terminal" in the future. Granted it does take the technical overhead off the average person, who probably doesn't want it anyway.
I wouldn't be happy being totally dependent on Google for every computing need, communication and financial transaction.
Anyone else feel like this?
Such announcements likely have more to do with financial negotiations and tweaking the beak of Microsoft, than with products ready to improve the lives of consumers. With Chrome browsers remaining vaporware to Macs and Linux platforms, Google news limits their impact to Window aficionados.
Where did I say it was okay to subsidize internet access? Oh that's right: I didn't.
ok, maybe you didn't say that, but schools subsidize computer/software sales to students. Plus many schools offer internet access to it's student population as well. Why not make this subsidy available to people in the low-income bracket?
You did suggest in your statement that the problem lies in the high-cost of broadband access, so i assumed you were inferring that perhaps some assistance could be applied to that instead of hardware/software sales. My mistake, i just wanted to hear your reasoning why you thought that was a bad idea?
I was just curious as to the difference here. Computers and the internet need to be accessible to everyone is my stance and i think with the direction Google is going with their products and services, why not make it fully accessible to people who can't afford it?
I'm not talking about people that make more than minimum wage and require no government assistance.
It's funny to think that the current buzz of cloud computing and web apps harkens back to the thin-client architecture of X11 and multi-user UNIX systems which always kept user settings, documents, etc on a central server. It's really come full circle with a new round of entrepreneurs trying to sell the concepts under a set of different names and patents. Maybe it'll catch on this time, who knows?
I personally feel that the current mish-mash of technologies it takes to build a large, complex web app is far uglier than writing an equivalent cross-platform desktop app (if you know how to structure things properly), but maybe Google will help clean that up and make a believer out of me. Currently, I just don't have the stomach for the non-standard (and often buggy) interfaces of most web apps (plus having adverts all around me as I use them). I guess most people just want free and are willing to put up with poor usability and advertisements to get it.
A web based operating system?
There seems to be a trend (at least attempted) towards making things web based and residing on a "server in the clouds." Microsoft just dropped Money, Quicken may be heading towards their online services as the primary one.
Do we really want to trust everything we have to a corporation? I admit, I've done some of this myself. We all do when we use credit cards online.
(?)
Anyone else feel like this?
I totally see your point, and I'm inclined to agree, but I don't see why this would necessarily and exclusively rely on cloud computing.
As someone suggested earlier, you could VNC to your home Mac (which you could, because it's a web app), you could be using your files and applications from your desktop ? not from some cloud server. You're turning your netbook into a web terminal for your home computer, as opposed to Google's servers.
Sure, you can do that already ? but a slim OS optimized for exactly that sort of task could do it better and faster. I see potential here.
The announcement of the impending release of a Google operating system would generate more interest if their software development team was as quick and resourceful as the PR department. When Sergey Brin can use the Chrome browser on his MacBoook, I'll take Google more seriously. It has been more than a year and the boss' computer still can't make the previous product work!
Such announcements likely have more to do with financial negotiations and tweaking the beak of Microsoft, than with products ready to improve the lives of consumers. With Chrome browsers remaining vaporware to Macs and Linux platforms, Google news limits their impact to Window aficionados.
Limits being the key word, but you are correct -- Google needs to finish some of the projects they started long ago before launching big new projects like this one. Once again Google seems to be a company with ADD.
A web based operating system?
There seems to be a trend (at least attempted) towards making things web based and residing on a "server in the clouds." Microsoft just dropped Money, Quicken may be heading towards their online services as the primary one.
Do we really want to trust everything we have to a corporation? I admit, I've done some of this myself. We all do when we use credit cards online.
We had very, very simple O/S's in the early days, We now have complex, powerful multiuser systems like OS X at home that are capable of running webservers themselves and many very complex tasks. I for one wouldn't give up all that power to a dumb "web terminal" in the future. Granted it does take the technical overhead off the average person, who probably doesn't want it anyway.
I wouldn't be happy being totally dependent on Google for every computing need, communication and financial transaction.
Anyone else feel like this?
I kind of see your point, but i'd have to say that whenever you do a transaction online you're depending on a "server in the clouds" to responsibly handle your information. you said it yourself. I'm not following you as to why having programs that handle your safe information is any different. those programs (like money or quicken) are basically record keeping programs but they still sync with your bank records, which is online and in that floating cloud everyone is referring too. sure we need some way to store that info on our PC's in the case that the bank gets the information wrong, but i think the future will show that this system will still be necessary.
A very thin layer of polished metal to cover the ugly metal beneath. Great name there... Must have borrowed Microsoft's marketing geniuses.
hehe
So I understand that different OS's use different languages or whatever to operate your computer and applications. I get that much. I problem has always been with compatibility. I've been a PC/Windows user most of my life but would love to switch to MAC or a more efficient alternative, mainly because i think Windows is plauged with problems. No, perhaps that's because they are too open to all types of programs or just aren't very good at managing the magnitude of programs that are written for Windows, i'm not sure. And, i kind of realize that OS X is more stable because if the restrictions it has on application that it accepts.
My issue is in compatibily. I'd switch over to Mac if OS X could run all the programs that i use professionally. It does not. And, yes, i could partition OS's to a mac (or whatever you want to call is), but that's more work than i really want to do, since i'm not an IT wiz; i would consider myself a fairly average computer user.
My questions (or proposition) is, why can't all these OS's just come to a compromise and use a language that works for all software, so if you did want to switch you could simply install all your same programs without having to have a "window's" version to a "Mac" version to a "Linux" version?
This way the OS manufactures could just quibble about which is more stable and service the broader market more effectively? It just seems too cumbersome to the end-user and creates more competition than is necessary. If i have a PC with Photoshop and and Revit or even MS Office and i want to switch to Mac, I find is a load of BS that i have to re-purchase the proper OS X version of these programs.
please correct me if i am living in a dream world here. Compatibly seems like the one aspect of computing that should not be the resposibility of the end-user. My guess is also that Google is working on this with their OS and I hope that is true.
I was just curious as to the difference here. Computers and the internet need to be accessible to everyone is my stance and i think with the direction Google is going with their products and services, why not make it fully accessible to people who can't afford it?
Making broadband internet fully accessible is all well and good, but my argument is that broadband access is only as expensive as it is because the broadband companies are milking their customers. Offer a GOOD service, for a GOOD price, and people will buy it. That's what capitalism is about, isn't it?
Americans' cost for broadband access is much higher per person than in many other countries (Japan and most of Europe, in particular), and for no good reason. They don't deserve subsidies. They deserve a swift kick in the butt.
I doubt Apple cares too much about todays announcement by google. It will be old news to them anyway. It was clear a long time ago this was going to happen, and I wouldn't be surprised to find the two companies have colluded together to take out the common enemy.
Apple and Google have two polarized business models, I do not consider them competitors, and I'm sure neither of them do either.
Making broadband internet fully accessible is all well and good, but my argument is that broadband access is only as expensive as it is because the broadband companies are milking their customers. Offer a GOOD service, for a GOOD price, and people will buy it. That's what capitalism is about, isn't it?
Americans' cost for broadband access is much higher per person than in many other countries (Japan and most of Europe, in particular), and for no good reason. They don't deserve subsidies. They deserve a swift kick in the butt.
Point taken, i think we both agree on the swift-kick part. Then the question should be why is this allowed to happen? but i think we all have at least 3 or 4 thoughts on that. for the same reasons Michael Bay keeps making crappy movies for one...Sugar-coated mediocrity is what comes naturally to most companies today.
Of course clouds can turn into tornados. Clouds can become thunderstorms.
To torture the analogy further: Clouds can also dissipate (along with your data!)