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.
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).
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.
Hey, thanks for the explanation...it a little over my head but i think i understand. Guy "A" thinks his stuff stink less than guy "B". Then the app writers and the end users have to do the dirty work of making their stuff work both ways. Sounds like the end-users (Us) get the sh*t end of the stick, as usual (pardon the colorful metaphor). Just doesn't seem right, it's like they're intentially trying to create a monopoly or a niche market when they could be spending that time making a darn good product for the greater good. That's probably why i like Google's idea to open it up to the public or "open-source". Let everyone put their two-cents into the pot for the greater good. Kind of the Wikipedia approach. Of course there's flaws in that as well.
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.
Here here. $99 for PS Elements is fine with me. Premiere Element is nice too but not as functional as i'd like.
...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.
You've come a long way, and don't worry, things will turn up eventually, at least you're getting checks.
$2400? Wow, must've been a 386DX. My first PC was a 286, which my dad paid for.
To add to your next-to-last post, Macs can also run other OS' (and thus apps for other OS) using Virtual machines such as Parallels and VMWare Fusion for Intel Macs, and Virtual PC for PowerPC Macs. Java is another way to run the same app (which must be written in the Java language) on different OS' or machines. Last, companies can engineer their software so that the same code base can produce programs for different OS' or machines (eg, Firefox, VueScan, Adobe Acrobat, Photoshop, among others.)
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.
Google ANNOUNCED the Chrome OS today but I'm sure it has been in development in their labs for a long time.
Also I keep hearing people refer to it as a web based OS.
It is a LINUX-BASED OS.
The closest thing we have seen to this is Palm's WebOS (which is also Linux-based).
You've come a long way, and don't worry, things will turn up eventually, at least you're getting checks.
$2400? Wow, must've been a 386DX. My first PC was a 286, which my dad paid for.
To add to your next-to-last post, Macs can also run other OS' (and thus apps for other OS) using Virtual machines such as Parallels and VMWare Fusion for Intel Macs, and Virtual PC for PowerPC Macs. Java is another way to run the same app (which must be written in the Java language) on different OS' or machines. Last, companies can engineer their software so that the same code base can produce programs for different OS' or machines (eg, Firefox, VueScan, Adobe Acrobat, Photoshop, among others.)
you have a better memory than I do. I believe it was a 386DX. I was told that this machine was capable of handling AutoCad (since i was going to school for Architecture)...something to do with a math co-processor?
Yeah, i've heard of the whole virtual PC thing but i've heard it's fairly slow. I do kind of the same thing with 2 PC's. I've got AutoCad running on a XP machine (Dell Optiplex, Pent 2 866 Dual processor from 2001) and i remote desktop into it from my XP machine which is a year old. It's incredibly slow on the UI. What you're describing is possibly better than that. I'm only doing that because the 2006 Cad isn't compatible with Vista (uhg!).
yeah, unemployment sucks...5 months and counting. Stupid banks. Screwed the building industry and Architecture realm pretty awful. 40% Unemployed architects in California I've heard.
Hey, thanks for the explanation...it a little over my head but i think i understand. Guy "A" thinks his stuff stink less than guy "B". Then the app writers and the end users have to do the dirty work of making their stuff work both ways. Sounds like the end-users (Us) get the sh*t end of the stick, as usual (pardon the colorful metaphor). Just doesn't seem right, it's like they're intentially trying to create a monopoly or a niche market when they could be spending that time making a darn good product for the greater good. That's probably why i like Google's idea to open it up to the public or "open-source". Let everyone put their two-cents into the pot for the greater good. Kind of the Wikipedia approach. Of course there's flaws in that as well.
To draw comparisons to the real world, making an application that works on different OSes would be similar to trying to make a vehicle part which works on a Mini Cooper, a Hummer and a Ferrari.
While each vehicle has similar parts inside, they tend to be different sizes and designed differently for the different needs of each vehicle. If you design your new part to fit one model, it won't fit the others. And even if you can make it fit sizewise, it may not suit the design of that vehicle (just like the user interface for Windows applications doesn't necessarily suit Mac OS X).
Google's idea isn't to "open" up the OS (the UNIX world already did that a long time ago) -- their idea is to assume that everything you'll ever want to do with your computer can be done in a web browser and so they want to just make your computer desktop be a giant web browser (and all of your applications be web apps). That way applications don't need to be "ported" to different OSes since web apps aren't tied to any one OS. It also benefits them because their entire business model is based off of getting you onto the web viewing their advertisements (which will likely be embedded or streamed in the web apps).
Wow, two and half pages and nearly everyone misunderstood what this "OS" is.
It is not another linux distribution. It is a Linux kernel plus a browser and that's it no APIs or libraries, nothing. You want to develop apps for this "OS"? You can't! Go write a web application instead.
In case you need persuading as to how much of a truly horrendous idea this is, imagine taking your Mac/PC and removing every single application (including Finder/Windows Explorer) apart from Safari/IE. That's it. That's the only thing you're allowed to use.
Let's consider a netbook. Want to use Open Office? Nope, you can't do that. Need to use a website that'll only work in IE? Nope, you can't do that. Want to use your netbook as a portable TV with a USB TV stick? Nope, you can't do that. Etc. etc. etc.
Now, this of course is assuming that what Google said about Chrome is true. Maybe they're hiding something. Failing that, Chrome "OS" will be a massive FAIL.
To draw comparisons to the real world, making an application that works on different OSes would be similar to trying to make a vehicle part which works on a Mini Cooper, a Hummer and a Ferrari.
While each vehicle has similar parts inside, they tend to be different sizes and designed differently for the different needs of each vehicle. If you design your new part to fit one model, it won't fit the others. And even if you can make it fit sizewise, it may not suit the design of that vehicle (just like the user interface for Windows applications doesn't necessarily suit Mac OS X).
Google's idea isn't to "open" up the OS (the UNIX world already did that a long time ago) -- their idea is to assume that everything you'll ever want to do with your computer can be done in a web browser and so they want to just make your computer desktop be a giant web browser (and all of your applications be web apps). That way applications don't need to be "ported" to different OSes since web apps aren't tied to any one OS. It also benefits them because their entire business model is based off of getting you onto the web viewing their advertisements (which will likely be embedded or streamed in the web apps).
Gotcha, so i remember reading on this blog (maybe about 9 months ago) that Adobe was thinking of (or developing) an online version of all their software. Possibly for this reason alone! Very interesting. But how the heck can you write a web version of Photoshop? Ah, here's the post i remember reading...It called "Photoshop Express".
This is a criticism of the thought Chrome OS may fail. 1.) It's way to early to judge without a product, and 2.) the target audience of Chrome OS is not people who use professional apps (Adobe CS4, Web designers, programmers, etc.).
Consider the business strategy I think Google is pursuing. I believe the target audience is average joe who uses a computer to primarily access the internet and view information (that information may be audio, video, text). From Google's rhetoric, I think they will NOT be developing a kernal that boots the machine instantly into Chrome web browser. I think Google has more ambitious goals. I feel the goal is to eliminate the complexity of software with modern hardware and software solutions, something like Google Wave. Google Wave eliminates the server as a buffer between the sender and recipient of messages, making the computer the sender uses a server. Chrome OS will do something similar, eliminating the platform of the OS and making the platform the Web. That doesn't mean that storage is no longer meaningful, or games won't work etc. It means that the way apps are based on the computer and then connected will be eliminated, the app will be a part of in the internet and the computer, like a server functions. Chrome OS will simultaneously interact on the hard drive and the web. Google wants to kill the server and make joe schmoe school bus driver a server. How Google will do this, I have no idea. I do think, that this is the natural outgrowth of Google's software and webware releases, like Earth, Picasa, Maps, Docs, search etc. Google will simply merge the 2 into a hybrid.
This does, however, cut into MS's core audience of average users. It also cuts into small businesses who don't need networks. Finally, it could hurt large business who would rely on MS networked servers for many needs. MS needs to drop the idea that software is a platform, and adopt the idea that the computer is the platform - software drives the platform. Apple caught on to this with OS X making it easy to use and app centric. Google will change the focus from apps to the web. I doubt that effects Apple's average audience of users who need more than the internet, dealing with all kinds of media, from music to video to text. Apple will just need to clean up OS X and make it more interoperable with the web for the average user. That will probably be 10.7. Google will attack all those cheap bastards who just want something to get Pandora and Google News, killing a good quarter of who buy MS cheap machines right now. I predict a function focused GUI like Moblin, but not as cool, using a modified GNOME desktop.
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.
It does seem likely Apple is in a position to do something similar on short notice, however I hope they don't.
What I suspect people like about Netbooks is not the "Net" part but the small size and low price. Apple is already the king of making things small, and there have been rumors they are attempting to lower prices. The popularity of the new 13" MBP is a sign I think that Apple can defeat Netbooks without actually having to make one.
It does seem likely Apple is in a position to do something similar on short notice, however I hope they don't.
What I suspect people like about Netbooks is not the "Net" part but the small size and low price. Apple is already the king of making things small, and there have been rumors they are attempting to lower prices. The popularity of the new 13" MBP is a sign I think that Apple can defeat Netbooks without actually having to make one.
Another way to look at it is that Apple has already done something similar and it's called the iPhone/iPod touch platform.
There have been mobile devices for ages and several mobile-oriented OS's, but Apple has conquered them all because they understand that they are not actually making a phone, they are defining and promoting a whole new computing platform.
So far, Microsoft has not even responded to this other than to try to shoehorn their giant Windows OS onto a mobile device in the most inelegant, non-integrated, "not really a platform" kind of way. Other netbook manufacturers have tried to shoehorn the clumsiness of various flavours of Linux onto the same sort of devices in a similar sort of way.
The other mobile/phone manufacturers are busy trying to evolve their ancient phone-based OS's into a platform, but having such a hard time of it that most are willing to use Android instead because there just isn't that much time to re-invent the wheel when a new platform is emerging.
Google, (with Android and now Chrome OS), is possibly the only company other than Apple that's smart enough to see the writing on the wall. This is a platform war similar to when Microsoft pushed all the other platforms out of the way in the battle for desktop dominance. Apple is way ahead, and Google is smartly taking over number two spot. Microsoft won't even have an entry for the race until Win Mobile 7 comes out in a year or two, and all the Symbians and so forth don't even seem to be aware that it's about the platform. So I guess they are playing the role IBM played in the desktop battles.
My personal choice for the number two spot based on logic and utility alone would be WebOS, but it's almost impossible to predict what will happen there.
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?
It is interesting. IT people love centralized servers - it allows them to control what gets installed, when updates are applied, etc. To an IT person, the ideal world is a bunch of huge managed servers and users with little more than terminals.
It never works out this way because requirements keep on outstripping capabilities. Every time the terminals and bandwidth get powerful enough to implement last year's paradigm, something new has arrived that won't work without yet another generation of hardware development.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ulfoaf
A web based operating system?
No. A Linux-based operating system with a web browser as the primary (only?) means for running apps.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macrosheep
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.
That's the hype. I'll believe it when I see it.
With all the debate/argument/fighting going on over Ogg Theora vs. H.264, and the fact that HTML5 doesn't mandate any particular codec, we're only one step closer to the vision (of plugin-free multimedia). We still have a long way to go before we actually get there, and it will require the efforts of lawyers and businesspeople, not just software developers.
That being said, Flash is required for more than just playing movies. I play many web-based games, and most use Flash. (For some reason, the gaming sites seem to be moving away from Java.)
What I suspect people like about Netbooks is not the "Net" part but the small size and low price. Apple is already the king of making things small, and there have been rumors they are attempting to lower prices. The popularity of the new 13" MBP is a sign I think that Apple can defeat Netbooks without actually having to make one.
Besides: OSX runs very nicely on NetBooks, thank you!
Where a NetBook/OSX combo falls short – besides the obvious stuff like HD space, RAM, and processor – is with graphical image (photo and video) and audio applications (and of course gaming). Managing and editing your photo and video collection on a NetBook is not really a viable option. Not even with OSX.
OS competition is always good as long as it doesn't turn into a monopoly like Microsoft.
Remember that, next time you go to Wal Mart. I sit in the middle of the fence most of the time. Never spent a dime in a Wal Mart store. Plan to keep it that way. They are too fat and happy already. But I also support the survival of the fittest idea. I don't like Microsoft, and I really don't like Comcast. When a company is after only the money, I get . I find it frustrating that the maker of my favorite OS is satisfied to be a distant #2 in the OS game. I think this Google thing is sorta lame. Why not get on board with the power of Linux, namely Ubuntu, and give Apple something to worry about. Look at Chrome the browser. It has been updated for Windows, but still no Mac or Linux. I'm going to go back to sleep now. Wake me up when Mozilla plans to create an OS!
The Internet giant offers an abundance of popular free services and now plans to create its own computer operating system. What the company is capable of raises concern.
David Lazarus
July 9, 2009
At first glance, Google's latest plan for global domination sounds very cool.
Everyone's favorite pedal-to-the-metal, innovate-or-die tech company is throwing its Mensa-level brainpower behind the development of a computer operating system to rival Microsoft's Windows.
But that's why you want to be worried.
"They have so much market power, you've got to be concerned that they'll use that power in a way others can't compete with," said Gary Reback, a Silicon Valley antitrust lawyer best known for spearheading opposition to Microsoft Corp.'s once-market-dominating practices.
Google may give away its Chrome operating system for free, just as it does its Chrome browser, its Gmail Web mail, its Google Maps, its Google News and, of course, its team-to-beat search engine.
Google also gives away access to YouTube and all sorts of other nifty offerings, including Google Earth, Google Docs, Google Groups and its Android operating system for cellphones.
Google's your best tech buddy.
Until, that is, it's not.
"Google accounts for an ungodly share of the money that flows through the Web space," Reback said. "That creates a lot of concern."
Besides: OSX runs very nicely on NetBooks, thank you!. ..
It runs, but I'm not sure I agree with you on "runs very nicely." The hardware has some serious drawbacks and the speed is slower than Leopard running on my old 12" G4. Given that the G4 is more capable and not much more to carry, I'd still say it's a better deal all around for small form factor portable OS-X.
I've yet to see OS-X running on netbook hardware that is any more useable in the real world than Apple's own hardware even though the G4 is many years old at this point. OS-X on a netbook is still more of a gimmick to me than a real choice IMO.
Comments
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.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).
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.
Hey, thanks for the explanation...it a little over my head but i think i understand. Guy "A" thinks his stuff stink less than guy "B". Then the app writers and the end users have to do the dirty work of making their stuff work both ways. Sounds like the end-users (Us) get the sh*t end of the stick, as usual (pardon the colorful metaphor). Just doesn't seem right, it's like they're intentially trying to create a monopoly or a niche market when they could be spending that time making a darn good product for the greater good. That's probably why i like Google's idea to open it up to the public or "open-source". Let everyone put their two-cents into the pot for the greater good. Kind of the Wikipedia approach. Of course there's flaws in that as well.
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.
Here here. $99 for PS Elements is fine with me. Premiere Element is nice too but not as functional as i'd like.
...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.
You've come a long way, and don't worry, things will turn up eventually, at least you're getting checks.
$2400? Wow, must've been a 386DX. My first PC was a 286, which my dad paid for.
To add to your next-to-last post, Macs can also run other OS' (and thus apps for other OS) using Virtual machines such as Parallels and VMWare Fusion for Intel Macs, and Virtual PC for PowerPC Macs. Java is another way to run the same app (which must be written in the Java language) on different OS' or machines. Last, companies can engineer their software so that the same code base can produce programs for different OS' or machines (eg, Firefox, VueScan, Adobe Acrobat, Photoshop, among others.)
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.
Google ANNOUNCED the Chrome OS today but I'm sure it has been in development in their labs for a long time.
Also I keep hearing people refer to it as a web based OS.
It is a LINUX-BASED OS.
The closest thing we have seen to this is Palm's WebOS (which is also Linux-based).
You've come a long way, and don't worry, things will turn up eventually, at least you're getting checks.
$2400? Wow, must've been a 386DX. My first PC was a 286, which my dad paid for.
To add to your next-to-last post, Macs can also run other OS' (and thus apps for other OS) using Virtual machines such as Parallels and VMWare Fusion for Intel Macs, and Virtual PC for PowerPC Macs. Java is another way to run the same app (which must be written in the Java language) on different OS' or machines. Last, companies can engineer their software so that the same code base can produce programs for different OS' or machines (eg, Firefox, VueScan, Adobe Acrobat, Photoshop, among others.)
you have a better memory than I do. I believe it was a 386DX. I was told that this machine was capable of handling AutoCad (since i was going to school for Architecture)...something to do with a math co-processor?
Yeah, i've heard of the whole virtual PC thing but i've heard it's fairly slow. I do kind of the same thing with 2 PC's. I've got AutoCad running on a XP machine (Dell Optiplex, Pent 2 866 Dual processor from 2001) and i remote desktop into it from my XP machine which is a year old. It's incredibly slow on the UI. What you're describing is possibly better than that. I'm only doing that because the 2006 Cad isn't compatible with Vista (uhg!).
yeah, unemployment sucks...5 months and counting. Stupid banks. Screwed the building industry and Architecture realm pretty awful. 40% Unemployed architects in California I've heard.
This is simply the same approach Apple is taking with iPhone OS and is very sensible.
The days of selling everyone a Mack Truck when what they need is a Smart Car are over.
That will be Microsoft's ultimate Waterloo. They've tried to shove their enormous OS into everything even when its not necessary.
The Mack Truck won't go away, but people won't be forced into using one when what they they need is a 50 MPG commute car.
Best car analogy in a computer thread ever!
Hey, thanks for the explanation...it a little over my head but i think i understand. Guy "A" thinks his stuff stink less than guy "B". Then the app writers and the end users have to do the dirty work of making their stuff work both ways. Sounds like the end-users (Us) get the sh*t end of the stick, as usual (pardon the colorful metaphor). Just doesn't seem right, it's like they're intentially trying to create a monopoly or a niche market when they could be spending that time making a darn good product for the greater good. That's probably why i like Google's idea to open it up to the public or "open-source". Let everyone put their two-cents into the pot for the greater good. Kind of the Wikipedia approach. Of course there's flaws in that as well.
To draw comparisons to the real world, making an application that works on different OSes would be similar to trying to make a vehicle part which works on a Mini Cooper, a Hummer and a Ferrari.
While each vehicle has similar parts inside, they tend to be different sizes and designed differently for the different needs of each vehicle. If you design your new part to fit one model, it won't fit the others. And even if you can make it fit sizewise, it may not suit the design of that vehicle (just like the user interface for Windows applications doesn't necessarily suit Mac OS X).
Google's idea isn't to "open" up the OS (the UNIX world already did that a long time ago) -- their idea is to assume that everything you'll ever want to do with your computer can be done in a web browser and so they want to just make your computer desktop be a giant web browser (and all of your applications be web apps). That way applications don't need to be "ported" to different OSes since web apps aren't tied to any one OS. It also benefits them because their entire business model is based off of getting you onto the web viewing their advertisements (which will likely be embedded or streamed in the web apps).
It is not another linux distribution. It is a Linux kernel plus a browser and that's it no APIs or libraries, nothing. You want to develop apps for this "OS"? You can't! Go write a web application instead.
In case you need persuading as to how much of a truly horrendous idea this is, imagine taking your Mac/PC and removing every single application (including Finder/Windows Explorer) apart from Safari/IE. That's it. That's the only thing you're allowed to use.
Let's consider a netbook. Want to use Open Office? Nope, you can't do that. Need to use a website that'll only work in IE? Nope, you can't do that. Want to use your netbook as a portable TV with a USB TV stick? Nope, you can't do that. Etc. etc. etc.
Now, this of course is assuming that what Google said about Chrome is true. Maybe they're hiding something. Failing that, Chrome "OS" will be a massive FAIL.
To draw comparisons to the real world, making an application that works on different OSes would be similar to trying to make a vehicle part which works on a Mini Cooper, a Hummer and a Ferrari.
While each vehicle has similar parts inside, they tend to be different sizes and designed differently for the different needs of each vehicle. If you design your new part to fit one model, it won't fit the others. And even if you can make it fit sizewise, it may not suit the design of that vehicle (just like the user interface for Windows applications doesn't necessarily suit Mac OS X).
Google's idea isn't to "open" up the OS (the UNIX world already did that a long time ago) -- their idea is to assume that everything you'll ever want to do with your computer can be done in a web browser and so they want to just make your computer desktop be a giant web browser (and all of your applications be web apps). That way applications don't need to be "ported" to different OSes since web apps aren't tied to any one OS. It also benefits them because their entire business model is based off of getting you onto the web viewing their advertisements (which will likely be embedded or streamed in the web apps).
Gotcha, so i remember reading on this blog (maybe about 9 months ago) that Adobe was thinking of (or developing) an online version of all their software. Possibly for this reason alone! Very interesting. But how the heck can you write a web version of Photoshop? Ah, here's the post i remember reading...It called "Photoshop Express".
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...years_end.html
Consider the business strategy I think Google is pursuing. I believe the target audience is average joe who uses a computer to primarily access the internet and view information (that information may be audio, video, text). From Google's rhetoric, I think they will NOT be developing a kernal that boots the machine instantly into Chrome web browser. I think Google has more ambitious goals. I feel the goal is to eliminate the complexity of software with modern hardware and software solutions, something like Google Wave. Google Wave eliminates the server as a buffer between the sender and recipient of messages, making the computer the sender uses a server. Chrome OS will do something similar, eliminating the platform of the OS and making the platform the Web. That doesn't mean that storage is no longer meaningful, or games won't work etc. It means that the way apps are based on the computer and then connected will be eliminated, the app will be a part of in the internet and the computer, like a server functions. Chrome OS will simultaneously interact on the hard drive and the web. Google wants to kill the server and make joe schmoe school bus driver a server. How Google will do this, I have no idea. I do think, that this is the natural outgrowth of Google's software and webware releases, like Earth, Picasa, Maps, Docs, search etc. Google will simply merge the 2 into a hybrid.
This does, however, cut into MS's core audience of average users. It also cuts into small businesses who don't need networks. Finally, it could hurt large business who would rely on MS networked servers for many needs. MS needs to drop the idea that software is a platform, and adopt the idea that the computer is the platform - software drives the platform. Apple caught on to this with OS X making it easy to use and app centric. Google will change the focus from apps to the web. I doubt that effects Apple's average audience of users who need more than the internet, dealing with all kinds of media, from music to video to text. Apple will just need to clean up OS X and make it more interoperable with the web for the average user. That will probably be 10.7. Google will attack all those cheap bastards who just want something to get Pandora and Google News, killing a good quarter of who buy MS cheap machines right now. I predict a function focused GUI like Moblin, but not as cool, using a modified GNOME desktop.
A very thin layer of polished metal to cover the ugly metal beneath. Great name there... Must have borrowed Microsoft's marketing geniuses.
That's very open minded of you.
Blah, blah blah. Cloud computing = giving others control over your valuable data. Cloud computing = more potential for security problems.
Of course clouds can turn into tornados. Clouds can become thunderstorms.
Whatever. I'd rather have ubiquitous access to my content.
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.
It does seem likely Apple is in a position to do something similar on short notice, however I hope they don't.
What I suspect people like about Netbooks is not the "Net" part but the small size and low price. Apple is already the king of making things small, and there have been rumors they are attempting to lower prices. The popularity of the new 13" MBP is a sign I think that Apple can defeat Netbooks without actually having to make one.
It does seem likely Apple is in a position to do something similar on short notice, however I hope they don't.
What I suspect people like about Netbooks is not the "Net" part but the small size and low price. Apple is already the king of making things small, and there have been rumors they are attempting to lower prices. The popularity of the new 13" MBP is a sign I think that Apple can defeat Netbooks without actually having to make one.
Another way to look at it is that Apple has already done something similar and it's called the iPhone/iPod touch platform.
There have been mobile devices for ages and several mobile-oriented OS's, but Apple has conquered them all because they understand that they are not actually making a phone, they are defining and promoting a whole new computing platform.
So far, Microsoft has not even responded to this other than to try to shoehorn their giant Windows OS onto a mobile device in the most inelegant, non-integrated, "not really a platform" kind of way. Other netbook manufacturers have tried to shoehorn the clumsiness of various flavours of Linux onto the same sort of devices in a similar sort of way.
The other mobile/phone manufacturers are busy trying to evolve their ancient phone-based OS's into a platform, but having such a hard time of it that most are willing to use Android instead because there just isn't that much time to re-invent the wheel when a new platform is emerging.
Google, (with Android and now Chrome OS), is possibly the only company other than Apple that's smart enough to see the writing on the wall. This is a platform war similar to when Microsoft pushed all the other platforms out of the way in the battle for desktop dominance. Apple is way ahead, and Google is smartly taking over number two spot. Microsoft won't even have an entry for the race until Win Mobile 7 comes out in a year or two, and all the Symbians and so forth don't even seem to be aware that it's about the platform. So I guess they are playing the role IBM played in the desktop battles.
My personal choice for the number two spot based on logic and utility alone would be WebOS, but it's almost impossible to predict what will happen there.
How much can you expect from a such a product?
This whole idea is reminiscent of JavaOS.
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?
It is interesting. IT people love centralized servers - it allows them to control what gets installed, when updates are applied, etc. To an IT person, the ideal world is a bunch of huge managed servers and users with little more than terminals.
It never works out this way because requirements keep on outstripping capabilities. Every time the terminals and bandwidth get powerful enough to implement last year's paradigm, something new has arrived that won't work without yet another generation of hardware development.
A web based operating system?
No. A Linux-based operating system with a web browser as the primary (only?) means for running apps.
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.
That's the hype. I'll believe it when I see it.
With all the debate/argument/fighting going on over Ogg Theora vs. H.264, and the fact that HTML5 doesn't mandate any particular codec, we're only one step closer to the vision (of plugin-free multimedia). We still have a long way to go before we actually get there, and it will require the efforts of lawyers and businesspeople, not just software developers.
That being said, Flash is required for more than just playing movies. I play many web-based games, and most use Flash. (For some reason, the gaming sites seem to be moving away from Java.)
What I suspect people like about Netbooks is not the "Net" part but the small size and low price. Apple is already the king of making things small, and there have been rumors they are attempting to lower prices. The popularity of the new 13" MBP is a sign I think that Apple can defeat Netbooks without actually having to make one.
Besides: OSX runs very nicely on NetBooks, thank you!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ui26Ggca4yM
Where a NetBook/OSX combo falls short – besides the obvious stuff like HD space, RAM, and processor – is with graphical image (photo and video) and audio applications (and of course gaming). Managing and editing your photo and video collection on a NetBook is not really a viable option. Not even with OSX.
OS competition is always good as long as it doesn't turn into a monopoly like Microsoft.
Remember that, next time you go to Wal Mart. I sit in the middle of the fence most of the time. Never spent a dime in a Wal Mart store. Plan to keep it that way. They are too fat and happy already. But I also support the survival of the fittest idea. I don't like Microsoft, and I really don't like
Google's OS will be FREE.
How much can you expect from a such a product?
Sometimes free can be too expensive.
Consumers could pay for Google's power
The Internet giant offers an abundance of popular free services and now plans to create its own computer operating system. What the company is capable of raises concern.
David Lazarus
July 9, 2009
At first glance, Google's latest plan for global domination sounds very cool.
Everyone's favorite pedal-to-the-metal, innovate-or-die tech company is throwing its Mensa-level brainpower behind the development of a computer operating system to rival Microsoft's Windows.
But that's why you want to be worried.
"They have so much market power, you've got to be concerned that they'll use that power in a way others can't compete with," said Gary Reback, a Silicon Valley antitrust lawyer best known for spearheading opposition to Microsoft Corp.'s once-market-dominating practices.
Google may give away its Chrome operating system for free, just as it does its Chrome browser, its Gmail Web mail, its Google Maps, its Google News and, of course, its team-to-beat search engine.
Google also gives away access to YouTube and all sorts of other nifty offerings, including Google Earth, Google Docs, Google Groups and its Android operating system for cellphones.
Google's your best tech buddy.
Until, that is, it's not.
"Google accounts for an ungodly share of the money that flows through the Web space," Reback said. "That creates a lot of concern."
[more]
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...,283957.column
Besides: OSX runs very nicely on NetBooks, thank you!. ..
It runs, but I'm not sure I agree with you on "runs very nicely." The hardware has some serious drawbacks and the speed is slower than Leopard running on my old 12" G4. Given that the G4 is more capable and not much more to carry, I'd still say it's a better deal all around for small form factor portable OS-X.
I've yet to see OS-X running on netbook hardware that is any more useable in the real world than Apple's own hardware even though the G4 is many years old at this point. OS-X on a netbook is still more of a gimmick to me than a real choice IMO.