I think Google taking a stab at the OS business is great. Why not? Maybe they hit the holy grail.
However, if they can't take some of their apps out of Beta after two years, deploy updates on a cycle that is very looooong, I am not holding my breathe for a breakthrough OS to appear anytime in the next 5 years out of their labs. I hope I am wrong but I doubt it.
Hmm... a fast, thin, virus-free OS that has been expressly designed for netbooks and other Internet devices (including tablets)? Apple has spent *years* crafting distinct OSes for the Mac and the iPhone, and they're probably not eager to craft yet another OS just for an in-between niche category. Put the two together, and you have an Apple netbook (or tablet) running the Chrome OS, probably with an OS X skin.
However, if they can't take some of their apps out of Beta after two years, deploy updates on a cycle that is very looooong, I am not holding my breathe for a breakthrough OS to appear anytime in the next 5 years out of their labs. I hope I am wrong but I doubt it.
Gmail was listed as a beta for five years. Curiously they just decided to remove that label.
Gmail was listed as a beta for five years. Curiously they just decided to remove that label.
I get a annoyed with apps and services in perpetual beta ... a month or two is long enough to test your software and make changes; 5 years is ridiculous. If the general public are using it, it's not a beta, it's a product.
For a while there, beta meant new and fresh, now it seems to me to be nothing more than a cheap disclaimer. "Something go wrong? That's fine, we're still in beta." \
... Apple has spent *years* crafting distinct OSes for the Mac and the iPhone, and they're probably not eager to craft yet another OS just for an in-between niche category. Put the two together, and you have an Apple netbook (or tablet) running the Chrome OS, probably with an OS X skin.
Actually, I think it's relatively trivial for Apple to get the core OS (Mach/BSD) of Mac OS X running on different platforms -- it took them almost no time at all to move it from Intel to PPC when Apple aquired NeXT -- which is why they've used it for Macs, iPods and iPhones. The harder part is crafting the UI for each platform so that it works as well as it does.
So, if Apple were to release a tablet/netbook-like device, I think it's pretty certain that it won't be running Chrome OS with "an OS X skin." It will be running the same core OS as every other Apple device with a UI "crafted" specifically for the qualities of the device.
GAH! Just what we need, *ANOTHER* GUI for Linux! Don't we have enough GUI's for Linux already? Yeah, like their Linux for netbooks is gonna revolutionize the world just like their Linux for smartphones did LOL!
Nothing to see here. Move along. Chrome for Netbooks is going to be just as popular as any other Linux for netbooks -- i.e., not very, because it won't play most multimedia plugins and that's what a lot of people use their netbooks for (viewing web sites that require things like Flash, Quicktime, or etc.).
I keep thinking that Apple's biggest failing is to set itself up as being better than Microsoft. While MS are the default competition, better-than-crap is no way to envision a future Apple experience. They should never again mention MS in their ads or keynotes, as if they don't exist, as the very presence of MS lowers standards. Instead consider what Google could achieve if they do everything they have announced, and beat that, and some!
Both of the following concerns are being resolved with new technologies being built into the HTML5 standard.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shamino
I think it's an interesting concept. But it is going to have to support all of the most common web plugins if the browser is the primary source of apps. Are they going to be able to have Flash support? (And a Flash implementation fast enough to play web-games, which usually doesn't exist away from the Windows platform.) How about support for QuickTime and WMV video?
HTML5 will reduce (if not eliminate) the need for browser plugins, as each browser can standardize on video codecs and also allow advanced animations (similar to Flash/Silverlight) without the need for plugins.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii
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.
Similarly, HTML5 will support client-side data caching and storage (similar to Google Gears) that will provide the ability for browser-based applications to run in a thick-client mode, only grabbing data from the server when it needs to synchronize.
To me, it seems that this new OS is a major reason why Google is so involved with finalizing the specifics of HTML5.
It should be interesting to see what happens here - luckily (for us Apple fans) Apple is in a pretty good position here, as its UNIX foundation is quite scalable (as we've seen with the iPhone OS). Given that Apple created the thin iPhoneOS, I'd be surprised if they haven't also experimented with a thin OS on laptops and workstations.
Anyway, it seems apparent that Google is setting itself up to be the new face of Linux and they're targeting netbooks, where Microsoft has been unable to go with Vista.
Windows 7 is fundamentally the same OS as Vista, so it's going to have an interesting time competing with Google's FREE alternatives in the cheap netbook category, one of the only segments of growth in the over-saturated PC market (the other growth sector being the premium computer market in which Apple's Macs are doing very well).
If Apple just wanted to waste a few million dollars but get the satisfaction of chiding Gates, Ballmer and MS, they should do a MS-like tv add, you know, the ones where a person is asked to find a laptop with a large screen, fast processor, huge hard drive etc. for under "X" amount of dollars. You find it, you keep it! Congratulations, it's a PC" but no mention of the Vista OS even though it is a ad by Microsoft.
Apple can create an add based kind of like the post above where the announcer says "Lauren needs an OS that is allows her to get to her email instantly, without wasting time waiting for their computers to boot and browsers to start. She wants her computer to always run as fast as when first bought." You find it, you keep it!
Lauren goes searching, looks at MS Vista, says "this is slow and complicated and still needs registrations and requires a computer with a lot of RAM and IE8, yech!" See Lauren next to Chrome, Lauren says, "wow, fast, easy to get to my e-mail, browser always on, no need for huge amount of RAM! I love it!" - Congratulations, Lauren, it's Chrome!
Yay, no more worries about data backups! Just give yourself to Google. Don't wait for Chrome OS! Start today, by entrusting both your personal and corporate e-mail to gmail. Let Google track your every search and browser click. Open a Grand Central account to ensure your phone calls are monitored. This is just the start of the good life Orwell said we'd enjoy.
this brings up the age-old dilemma over how to get a computer to EVERYONE. not just the people that can afford it. I think Netbooks are the first step. Getting a computer under $300 that could possibly be subsidized by the government to working-class and the poor needs to happen. And, with Google coming out with a free, open-source, web-based OS with these computers is a wave i hope crashes on the shores and makes a huge impact on the idea that computers and the web need to be for everyone, not just the people who can afford it. I truly hope this is the direction that Google goes with it's OS. The real problem with then be, how to get the web to these people's machines without a fee. Perhaps the land-lines will some-day integrate internet into the basic phone service...
Age-old dilemma? Maybe for somebody under the age of 25 it seems like an age-old dilemma. Cheap used PCs are really easy to get.
ironic that all the apps come out of beta the same day as the OS announcement
Yes, that was a strange coincidence. Maybe somebody at Google finally got the idea that having so many unfinished projects on the boards makes the company look unfocused.
Now that the battery in my MBP is near enough dead I have finally got round to buying a Netbook. I wanted something smaller anyway as my 15" MBP has never been the most portable of machines.
I did, for a second, toy with the idea of a 13" MBP, but $1899 (AU) was really too much when I thought about what I wanted a portable laptop for. Instead I got an eeePC S101H for $700. I have to say it was a fantastic purchase, it really is the coolest little notebook I have ever owned. I use it now most of the time when in the house, the battery lasts easily for 5 hours have have not found it to be a slow computer for general, everyday needs. I even run a couple of fairly heavy database apps that seem to get on okay, not as fact as my MBP of course, but good enough.
Anyway, my point is that I was trying to decide what browser to use, I was all set to put Safari and mobile me onto my netbook when I decided to give Chrome a go. It is brilliant, it really is the best browser I have ever used. I thought Safari was great but I am afraid to say that Chrome beats the pants of it for speed, usability, features and GUI.
I was even going to put OSX on it, and have already got all the install files together but have canned that idea for now, Windows XP is not brilliant, but it is not bad. I would have put linux on it but there is one application I use everyday that will not run on Linux, I might dual boot into luinux for everyday stuff though.
I am going to be very interested in seeing what Google come up with because if they pull it off it could be very interesting indeed.
I have decided not to renew mobile me this year, I fail to see the point of spending $99 a year on something that Google does for free, and better.
Apple has not lost a customer yet, I will want to replace my MBP next year, but next year is a long away away and things could change yet. I would like to think I am running Google OS on my netbook this time next year.
So I understand that different OS's use different languages or whatever to operate your computer and applications.
Here's a simplistic breakdown of how it works:
The CPU in your computer/device executes very simple instructions (e.g. set a memory location to a numerical value, add/subtract two numerical values, etc). Every CPU uses a different instruction set.
Because CPU instructions are so very simplistic, it would be extremely tedious and time consuming to create a large application with them.
So software developers use "higher level" instructions (i.e. computer languages) to create applications. These higher level instructions are then turned into those simple CPU instructions via a compiler or an interpreter. Most computer languages can be used on many OSes.
Even still, these higher level instructions/languages only allow you to do fairly basic things which are common across all computers, which is why they can be used on a number of different OSes. So developers also need to use "libraries" or "bundles" of other functionality which have been created by the OS developers and bundled with their operating system (e.g. to draw a window on the screen, draw text on the screen, etc). Every operating system has it's own set of "libraries" or "bundles" for doing these types of things.
Hence the reason why a program written for one operating system is incompatible with another operating system. Because the "libraries" of functionality it uses to perform tasks are specific to the operating system it was written for.
There's a couple more complex reasons why a piece of software written for one OS can't be run on another one (e.g. how the OS organizes memory), but that's the gist of it.
Quote:
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 educated guess at the reason why Mac OS X is generally more stable than Windows:
Apple didn't try to reinvent the wheel for everything and instead used existing, well designed, time-proven technology for OS X (BSD kernel, UNIX security model, Apache, Samba, WebKit, etc). There's a history of philosophical differences between Microsoft/Bill Gates and academia/the UNIX developer community, and thus they tend to try and cut their own path for everything, often at the peril of ignoring the lessons of the past and/or not considering the future. The reason they do this is because they intend to lock users into their own (often buggy and ill-conceived) technologies. Which is good for business, but not necessarily good for the end user or the future of technology.
Over time, the lack of foresight or care taken in designing certain technologies catches up with Microsoft, and they are forced to make a choice between abandoning the technology and trying to come up with a replacement (since they refuse to budge on their distaste for adopting open technologies) or spending an inordinate amount of time patching the holes and problems in their existing technology (as they usually do). Whereas Apple tends to choose the first option more often than not (replacing older technology with open, proven alternatives and hiring the person/people who created it).
Quote:
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?
As I pointed out above, it's not the "language" which is the problem, it's the set of "libraries" which are bundled with the OS that's the problem. These are things which the OS creators have spent a lot of time and money on developing, and are what differentiate their OS from others, and so they aren't likely to want to give them away for the sake of compatibility (Linux aside, of course).
That's the reason why Web apps tend to be popular for creating simple apps. Because you write the app once and it runs in all web browsers which support the technology the app is built with (JavaScript, Flash, Java, etc). Unfortunately, due to the mish-mash of different web technologies running on different OSes/browsers, you end up with app developers not knowing how to and/or being able to create the best user interface for a particular platform and you end up with every app looking different (or not working the way users on that platform would expect). Much like Java applications always felt a bit out of place, but even worse IMO.
What Google is banking on is that, if you make the entire OS a web browser, and make all the web technologies look the same, you'll get some level of consistency (since nothing exists outside of the web browser). However, I'm still not convinced that forcing all applications to run in a web browser will allow all types of applications to work well.
I totally agree with you here. I've been battling this argument for the last 8 years at the firm i worked at up until a few months ago during the huge lay-offs (TMI). Anyway us architects do rely on Photoshop pretty heavily for graphics intense renderings and analytical drawings for clients. But, Photoshop CS has so much in it that is not necessary for our work that it makes using Photoshop Elements much more attractive. But, the snotty kids coming out of school only know CS and have this huge chip on their shoulders about Elements being sub-standard to them. I've used Elements for in around 5 years and have never had a problem or found that it is inferior or inadequate for what we're using it for. Sure i'd love to be able to modify text in the way that CS does (since elements is fairly basic in the text realm) and several other issues i have with the way filters are very dumbed down. But, i've always found a way around it and it's worked fine for me. And i've been using Photoshop since 1998. Thanks for not confirming my thoughts that people are just not open-minded enough about what they really need verses what works.
Totally agree.
The issue is that Photoshop has everything you would need to do web graphics, but also the everything you need to publish a book, to be an architect, to do games design, etc. etc. when more focused tools would be a better design, and when the average user has no need for any of that.
In my case I need CS4 at work for compatibility reasons, but at home I do games design, cartooning, some writing and occasional photo retouching. I've been able to completely get rid of Adobe products from my home computer by using a combination of simple drawing programs (that actually work better for cartooning than PShop), iWork and Scrivener for basic writing tools, and Pixelmator for games graphics. My stress level is way down, I have a few hundred gigabytes of hard drive space back and I don't have to spend thousands of dollars a year on software. Most of the newer programs are 50 bucks or free.
Age-old dilemma? Maybe for somebody under the age of 25 it seems like an age-old dilemma. Cheap used PCs are really easy to get.
my age is 34...and i'm not talking about used PC's here. If i were under 24 i wouldn't be complaining. PC's have come down in the last 5-7 years.
In H.S. my computer (if you can call it that) was a Brother word processor that cost $200. My first PC (1993) was a Gateway 33 mhz and it cost me around $2400, and i used it up until 1999. I came from a low income household and had to finance it during my undergrad and post-grad years, of which i paid for myself as well. It's taken me many years (and many more to pay off) the education I've earned to get to a point where i can call myself middle-class. And most people who are from worse backgrounds than I don't have the drive to even get that far. Which is all TMI and pointless now since i'm unemployed.
PC's have come down in price (i think a rock bottom Dell laptop starts at $499 and the 10" netbook at $299) but once you start adding things like MS Office and other software you need and a printer, it becomes less and less affordable to those people. Sure that's much more affordable than when i was a kid but we weren't on government assistance. A household of under $30k/yr can't afford even that. And those are the people how could really benefit from a computer.
I seem to recall that Larry Ellison of Oracle tried to do something like this a few years ago.... Basically it was the 'Vax on steroids' idea. I don't think I like that too much. There is a huge issue of exposing ourselves to catastrophe if we, as a world community, all go toward centralized data storage and server farms, etc. Right now, all cyber attacks usually do is just kill your internet connection for a while. But what if your data is all stored on the internet? I don't care how many generators you have at your doomsday bunker, if the rest of the net is down, yer screwed.
My stress level is way down, I have a few hundred gigabytes of hard drive space back and I don't have to spend thousands of dollars a year on software. Most of the newer programs are 50 bucks or free.
CS3 (I'm on my work computer) takes up less than three GB of hard drive space and it's only $600 for Creative Suite upgrades ? which, if you make your living off of it, is not really very much.
Exaggerating just makes it look like you're making shit up, man.
You're right, however, that more focused programs might be better at their specific thing, but if you wear a lot of different hats (say, you're a print production artist, illustrator, photographer and a photo retoucher), would you really want to have to learn two, three, four image editing programs to do everything that Photoshop already does very well?
Comments
However, if they can't take some of their apps out of Beta after two years, deploy updates on a cycle that is very looooong, I am not holding my breathe for a breakthrough OS to appear anytime in the next 5 years out of their labs. I hope I am wrong but I doubt it.
However, if they can't take some of their apps out of Beta after two years, deploy updates on a cycle that is very looooong, I am not holding my breathe for a breakthrough OS to appear anytime in the next 5 years out of their labs. I hope I am wrong but I doubt it.
Gmail was listed as a beta for five years. Curiously they just decided to remove that label.
Gmail was listed as a beta for five years. Curiously they just decided to remove that label.
I get a annoyed with apps and services in perpetual beta ... a month or two is long enough to test your software and make changes; 5 years is ridiculous. If the general public are using it, it's not a beta, it's a product.
For a while there, beta meant new and fresh, now it seems to me to be nothing more than a cheap disclaimer. "Something go wrong? That's fine, we're still in beta."
Many may disagree, but that's my 2c.
Jimzip
... Apple has spent *years* crafting distinct OSes for the Mac and the iPhone, and they're probably not eager to craft yet another OS just for an in-between niche category. Put the two together, and you have an Apple netbook (or tablet) running the Chrome OS, probably with an OS X skin.
Actually, I think it's relatively trivial for Apple to get the core OS (Mach/BSD) of Mac OS X running on different platforms -- it took them almost no time at all to move it from Intel to PPC when Apple aquired NeXT -- which is why they've used it for Macs, iPods and iPhones. The harder part is crafting the UI for each platform so that it works as well as it does.
So, if Apple were to release a tablet/netbook-like device, I think it's pretty certain that it won't be running Chrome OS with "an OS X skin." It will be running the same core OS as every other Apple device with a UI "crafted" specifically for the qualities of the device.
Gmail was listed as a beta for five years. Curiously they just decided to remove that label.
ironic that all the apps come out of beta the same day as the OS announcement
Nothing to see here. Move along. Chrome for Netbooks is going to be just as popular as any other Linux for netbooks -- i.e., not very, because it won't play most multimedia plugins and that's what a lot of people use their netbooks for (viewing web sites that require things like Flash, Quicktime, or etc.).
I think it's an interesting concept. But it is going to have to support all of the most common web plugins if the browser is the primary source of apps. Are they going to be able to have Flash support? (And a Flash implementation fast enough to play web-games, which usually doesn't exist away from the Windows platform.) How about support for QuickTime and WMV video?
HTML5 will reduce (if not eliminate) the need for browser plugins, as each browser can standardize on video codecs and also allow advanced animations (similar to Flash/Silverlight) without the need for plugins.
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.
Similarly, HTML5 will support client-side data caching and storage (similar to Google Gears) that will provide the ability for browser-based applications to run in a thick-client mode, only grabbing data from the server when it needs to synchronize.
To me, it seems that this new OS is a major reason why Google is so involved with finalizing the specifics of HTML5.
It should be interesting to see what happens here - luckily (for us Apple fans) Apple is in a pretty good position here, as its UNIX foundation is quite scalable (as we've seen with the iPhone OS). Given that Apple created the thin iPhoneOS, I'd be surprised if they haven't also experimented with a thin OS on laptops and workstations.
Anyway, it seems apparent that Google is setting itself up to be the new face of Linux and they're targeting netbooks, where Microsoft has been unable to go with Vista.
Windows 7 is fundamentally the same OS as Vista, so it's going to have an interesting time competing with Google's FREE alternatives in the cheap netbook category, one of the only segments of growth in the over-saturated PC market (the other growth sector being the premium computer market in which Apple's Macs are doing very well).
If Apple just wanted to waste a few million dollars but get the satisfaction of chiding Gates, Ballmer and MS, they should do a MS-like tv add, you know, the ones where a person is asked to find a laptop with a large screen, fast processor, huge hard drive etc. for under "X" amount of dollars. You find it, you keep it! Congratulations, it's a PC" but no mention of the Vista OS even though it is a ad by Microsoft.
Apple can create an add based kind of like the post above where the announcer says "Lauren needs an OS that is allows her to get to her email instantly, without wasting time waiting for their computers to boot and browsers to start. She wants her computer to always run as fast as when first bought." You find it, you keep it!
Lauren goes searching, looks at MS Vista, says "this is slow and complicated and still needs registrations and requires a computer with a lot of RAM and IE8, yech!" See Lauren next to Chrome, Lauren says, "wow, fast, easy to get to my e-mail, browser always on, no need for huge amount of RAM! I love it!" - Congratulations, Lauren, it's Chrome!
Google: "All your base are belong to us."
this brings up the age-old dilemma over how to get a computer to EVERYONE. not just the people that can afford it. I think Netbooks are the first step. Getting a computer under $300 that could possibly be subsidized by the government to working-class and the poor needs to happen. And, with Google coming out with a free, open-source, web-based OS with these computers is a wave i hope crashes on the shores and makes a huge impact on the idea that computers and the web need to be for everyone, not just the people who can afford it. I truly hope this is the direction that Google goes with it's OS. The real problem with then be, how to get the web to these people's machines without a fee. Perhaps the land-lines will some-day integrate internet into the basic phone service...
Age-old dilemma? Maybe for somebody under the age of 25 it seems like an age-old dilemma. Cheap used PCs are really easy to get.
ironic that all the apps come out of beta the same day as the OS announcement
Yes, that was a strange coincidence. Maybe somebody at Google finally got the idea that having so many unfinished projects on the boards makes the company look unfocused.
I did, for a second, toy with the idea of a 13" MBP, but $1899 (AU) was really too much when I thought about what I wanted a portable laptop for. Instead I got an eeePC S101H for $700. I have to say it was a fantastic purchase, it really is the coolest little notebook I have ever owned. I use it now most of the time when in the house, the battery lasts easily for 5 hours have have not found it to be a slow computer for general, everyday needs. I even run a couple of fairly heavy database apps that seem to get on okay, not as fact as my MBP of course, but good enough.
Anyway, my point is that I was trying to decide what browser to use, I was all set to put Safari and mobile me onto my netbook when I decided to give Chrome a go. It is brilliant, it really is the best browser I have ever used. I thought Safari was great but I am afraid to say that Chrome beats the pants of it for speed, usability, features and GUI.
I was even going to put OSX on it, and have already got all the install files together but have canned that idea for now, Windows XP is not brilliant, but it is not bad. I would have put linux on it but there is one application I use everyday that will not run on Linux, I might dual boot into luinux for everyday stuff though.
I am going to be very interested in seeing what Google come up with because if they pull it off it could be very interesting indeed.
I have decided not to renew mobile me this year, I fail to see the point of spending $99 a year on something that Google does for free, and better.
Apple has not lost a customer yet, I will want to replace my MBP next year, but next year is a long away away and things could change yet. I would like to think I am running Google OS on my netbook this time next year.
So I understand that different OS's use different languages or whatever to operate your computer and applications.
Here's a simplistic breakdown of how it works:
- The CPU in your computer/device executes very simple instructions (e.g. set a memory location to a numerical value, add/subtract two numerical values, etc). Every CPU uses a different instruction set.
- Because CPU instructions are so very simplistic, it would be extremely tedious and time consuming to create a large application with them.
- So software developers use "higher level" instructions (i.e. computer languages) to create applications. These higher level instructions are then turned into those simple CPU instructions via a compiler or an interpreter. Most computer languages can be used on many OSes.
- Even still, these higher level instructions/languages only allow you to do fairly basic things which are common across all computers, which is why they can be used on a number of different OSes. So developers also need to use "libraries" or "bundles" of other functionality which have been created by the OS developers and bundled with their operating system (e.g. to draw a window on the screen, draw text on the screen, etc). Every operating system has it's own set of "libraries" or "bundles" for doing these types of things.
- Hence the reason why a program written for one operating system is incompatible with another operating system. Because the "libraries" of functionality it uses to perform tasks are specific to the operating system it was written for.
There's a couple more complex reasons why a piece of software written for one OS can't be run on another one (e.g. how the OS organizes memory), but that's the gist of it.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 educated guess at the reason why Mac OS X is generally more stable than Windows:
Apple didn't try to reinvent the wheel for everything and instead used existing, well designed, time-proven technology for OS X (BSD kernel, UNIX security model, Apache, Samba, WebKit, etc). There's a history of philosophical differences between Microsoft/Bill Gates and academia/the UNIX developer community, and thus they tend to try and cut their own path for everything, often at the peril of ignoring the lessons of the past and/or not considering the future. The reason they do this is because they intend to lock users into their own (often buggy and ill-conceived) technologies. Which is good for business, but not necessarily good for the end user or the future of technology.
Over time, the lack of foresight or care taken in designing certain technologies catches up with Microsoft, and they are forced to make a choice between abandoning the technology and trying to come up with a replacement (since they refuse to budge on their distaste for adopting open technologies) or spending an inordinate amount of time patching the holes and problems in their existing technology (as they usually do). Whereas Apple tends to choose the first option more often than not (replacing older technology with open, proven alternatives and hiring the person/people who created it).
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?
As I pointed out above, it's not the "language" which is the problem, it's the set of "libraries" which are bundled with the OS that's the problem. These are things which the OS creators have spent a lot of time and money on developing, and are what differentiate their OS from others, and so they aren't likely to want to give them away for the sake of compatibility (Linux aside, of course).
That's the reason why Web apps tend to be popular for creating simple apps. Because you write the app once and it runs in all web browsers which support the technology the app is built with (JavaScript, Flash, Java, etc). Unfortunately, due to the mish-mash of different web technologies running on different OSes/browsers, you end up with app developers not knowing how to and/or being able to create the best user interface for a particular platform and you end up with every app looking different (or not working the way users on that platform would expect). Much like Java applications always felt a bit out of place, but even worse IMO.
What Google is banking on is that, if you make the entire OS a web browser, and make all the web technologies look the same, you'll get some level of consistency (since nothing exists outside of the web browser). However, I'm still not convinced that forcing all applications to run in a web browser will allow all types of applications to work well.
I totally agree with you here. I've been battling this argument for the last 8 years at the firm i worked at up until a few months ago during the huge lay-offs (TMI). Anyway us architects do rely on Photoshop pretty heavily for graphics intense renderings and analytical drawings for clients. But, Photoshop CS has so much in it that is not necessary for our work that it makes using Photoshop Elements much more attractive. But, the snotty kids coming out of school only know CS and have this huge chip on their shoulders about Elements being sub-standard to them. I've used Elements for in around 5 years and have never had a problem or found that it is inferior or inadequate for what we're using it for. Sure i'd love to be able to modify text in the way that CS does (since elements is fairly basic in the text realm) and several other issues i have with the way filters are very dumbed down. But, i've always found a way around it and it's worked fine for me. And i've been using Photoshop since 1998. Thanks for not confirming my thoughts that people are just not open-minded enough about what they really need verses what works.
Totally agree.
The issue is that Photoshop has everything you would need to do web graphics, but also the everything you need to publish a book, to be an architect, to do games design, etc. etc. when more focused tools would be a better design, and when the average user has no need for any of that.
In my case I need CS4 at work for compatibility reasons, but at home I do games design, cartooning, some writing and occasional photo retouching. I've been able to completely get rid of Adobe products from my home computer by using a combination of simple drawing programs (that actually work better for cartooning than PShop), iWork and Scrivener for basic writing tools, and Pixelmator for games graphics. My stress level is way down, I have a few hundred gigabytes of hard drive space back and I don't have to spend thousands of dollars a year on software. Most of the newer programs are 50 bucks or free.
Age-old dilemma? Maybe for somebody under the age of 25 it seems like an age-old dilemma. Cheap used PCs are really easy to get.
my age is 34...and i'm not talking about used PC's here. If i were under 24 i wouldn't be complaining. PC's have come down in the last 5-7 years.
In H.S. my computer (if you can call it that) was a Brother word processor that cost $200. My first PC (1993) was a Gateway 33 mhz and it cost me around $2400, and i used it up until 1999. I came from a low income household and had to finance it during my undergrad and post-grad years, of which i paid for myself as well. It's taken me many years (and many more to pay off) the education I've earned to get to a point where i can call myself middle-class. And most people who are from worse backgrounds than I don't have the drive to even get that far. Which is all TMI and pointless now since i'm unemployed.
PC's have come down in price (i think a rock bottom Dell laptop starts at $499 and the 10" netbook at $299) but once you start adding things like MS Office and other software you need and a printer, it becomes less and less affordable to those people. Sure that's much more affordable than when i was a kid but we weren't on government assistance. A household of under $30k/yr can't afford even that. And those are the people how could really benefit from a computer.
c
My stress level is way down, I have a few hundred gigabytes of hard drive space back and I don't have to spend thousands of dollars a year on software. Most of the newer programs are 50 bucks or free.
CS3 (I'm on my work computer) takes up less than three GB of hard drive space and it's only $600 for Creative Suite upgrades ? which, if you make your living off of it, is not really very much.
Exaggerating just makes it look like you're making shit up, man.
You're right, however, that more focused programs might be better at their specific thing, but if you wear a lot of different hats (say, you're a print production artist, illustrator, photographer and a photo retoucher), would you really want to have to learn two, three, four image editing programs to do everything that Photoshop already does very well?