Well that's too bad 'cause I love you. And by tomorrow I'll be able to love you several times faster!
Where I am at the moment I only have my powerbook g4 12" with me, and the iphone, and as much as I think this is the best form factor/design lappie every released, it would sure do great with an ssd, too bad the runcore ide ssd's are only marginally better than an hd...
Btw how come you went with a stock ssd, considering things like runcores and intel ssds run circles around them?
In any case this is the future, ssd's in our desktops big raid hds in our nas servers.
Btw how come you went with a stock ssd, considering things like runcores and intel ssds run circles around them?
Runcore is a shady company with shady benchmarks. The Intel ones are great and all, but their costs far outweigh their benefits in my view. The Samsung is a great all rounder, which compared to a regular spinning HD may as well be branded a Ferrari HD.
Before I bought one I read this little article here.
There is nothing wrong with working offline, but the point is: how you gonna do it as long as you're out of wire/wireless coverage and you cannot access the "cloud" where all the apps are running? You can eventually cache some music, maybe even some apps, but again, if everything is processed inside the cloud, then when offline, we're fcuked.
Even in EU/US we don't have 100% coverage (not to mention emerging countries), and if roaming in EU, that's gonna kill yr wallet, so you don't wanna do it.
The idea of this OS is good, but until 100% coverage is achieved and affordable, I don't want to pay my internet provider (operator) for accessing the cloud to just processing my documents and listening MY OWN music. So, local storage is needed. Most probably some local processing power and apps are needed as well.
Well, let's just wait and see how it will actually work.
I didn?t see anything that made Chrome OS work more like a dumb terminal than a proper OS. I?m looking at it like WebOS. It uses an interface that is completely built with HTML, CSS and JS on a linux kernel.
All those Google apps and anything else with HTML5 w/the local DB storage will work offline. Some (browser) apps that you usually access when you go to a site will be part of the basic install. Much more should be available by the time Chrome OS launches. If you check out the video in the link Ireland supplied you see that it?s looking pretty good so far. This won?t replace a full fledged OS for people with money or needing more powerful apps but it?s not suppose to.
The WebKit Team has been working on Page Caching and OpenGL for HW acceleration within the browser are being worked on. These two things came up after Google announced Chrome OS and seem more suited to assist them than anyone else.
I see nothing that will disallow accessing a local networked drive or attached drive. I could be wrong, but the limitation of only using an SSD for the OS itself wouldn?t be applicable to any other drive so you could have as much local storage as you want. Maybe by the time Chrome OS really gets going using SD cards like microSD cards are used in smartphones will be the way these users will store their data. \
Chrome OS sounds like a great idea except for one BIG problem: what happens if the Internet connection goes down.
I'd like to be able to use the computer even if the Internet connection is down. It appears Chrome OS relies a LOT on online connectivity, and that kind of scares me.
...I for myself I'll be simple waiting 2~3 more years to see the MBA getting improved (I'm not gonna list my expectations), as that's the right product for the next 5~10 years...
The issue (I work part-time for an Apple reseller) with MBA can be people being way too rough and breaking the screen hinge. As you go thinner and thinner you do compromise (despite unibody construction, which is great) on strength and rigidity.
Which essentially means for "super thin and light" the only next direction they can go between 2010 to 2020 is that flexible, polymer stuff. Environmentally, boy, it ain't as sweet as Aluminium, but I'm sure they can figure out something. Humans are smart enough. Time for flexible, polymer tablet/ ultra-thin-light "laptops" *made* from recycled material *and* easily recylable. Oh, and the killer feature: integrated batteries within the same flexible, polymer construction.
Runcore is a shady company with shady benchmarks. The Intel ones are great and all, but their costs far outweigh their benefits in my view. The Samsung is a great all rounder, which compared to a regular spinning HD may as well be branded a Ferrari HD.
Before I bought one I read this little article here.
Anandtech is the king of SSD web reporting and Intel is the king in SSDs right now but yeah the midrange has definite advantages. I would be willing to blow $300 on an SSD for my MacBook but reports of compatibility issues (eg. from Anandtech as well) concern me... and a decent 256GB SSD at $300 doesn't exist yet.
Can you provide a link to the SSD you got? And from where? It's not from Apple, right?
Anandtech is the king of SSD web reporting and Intel is the king in SSDs right now but yeah the midrange has definite advantages. I would be willing to blow $300 on an SSD for my MacBook but reports of compatibility issues (eg. from Anandtech as well) concern me... and a decent 256GB SSD at $300 doesn't exist yet.
Can you provide a link to the SSD you got? And from where? It's not from Apple, right?
I?m right there with you. I was waiting for it but then decided to get a 7200RPM 500GB HDD instead. That whole thing with the SATA 1.5Gbps firmware update not officially supporting 3.0Gbps is pretty lame.
PS: Did you read the previous article where he speculated that the reason Apple didn?t use Intel?s first SSDs was because it would have lowered the ?green rating? but that the current versions don?t have that drawback due to a material change? It?s been more than enough time and Apple and Intel still have a friendship, as far as I can tell, so I?d like to know what?s up. I?m sure I?d go with an Intel drive if Apple offered it.
Chrome OS sounds like a great idea except for one BIG problem: what happens if the Internet connection goes down.
I'd like to be able to use the computer even if the Internet connection is down. It appears Chrome OS relies a LOT on online connectivity, and that kind of scares me.
You keep working and any changes are saved locally. Next time you connect it syncs with your cloud storage. Easy peezy.
... I don?t agree that it?s not scalable for the average consumer doing minimal work. I?d separate the netbook from Chrome OS in your mind. I will be putting Chrome OS on my MBP but I won?t be buying a netbook to use it. Surely I can get more juice for web browsing out of Chrome OS than Mac OS X on the same machine. With flights pushing more and more for WiFi this is important to me. ...
Well, it's still early days in that no one has really used it yet and it's still basically an alpha, but ...
the more I think about it the stupider it seems to me. Your MacBook for instance would be ridiculously overpowered for such an OS, you wouldn't be using a fraction of the capabilities of the machine.
I also *do* think that it isn't scaleable in that the size of the screen and how many tabs you can put in your browser is very finite. I suppose it would allow for as many tabs open as anyone can have open in a full screen browser anyway, but then on the other hand a big chunk of them will be used up by apps, that in a "normal" OS situation, one would switch to outside of the browser.
Suppose I'm working on the web for instance, and writing at the same time. I have the full compliment of tabs open in the browser, and a similar number of documents open in the word processor. In Chrome OS, I would only be able to have half as many, because the word processing is being done in the browser as well.
It was that comment someone made about Palms WebOS that really got me thinking though. If each document is a browser window or tab, it seems to me that WebOS is a much better thought out implementation of that basic idea. Instead of tabs, there are "cards" and the management of those cards is much better implemented. It's also touch enabled and designed for a modern mobile, instead of being designed for yesterday's netbook, which is about to get eclipsed by the tablet.
The guy even said before he started his presentation that Chrome OS *is* Chrome the browser.
I think that's the best way to think about it. It's not really an OS in the sense that it's a design that helps you manage your data, or your documents, or your contacts, or anything really. It's a browser. Period. The apps are not only not really a part of the OS, they aren't even necessarily designed for the OS, or the device that it sits on.
I think Apple's integrated approach with the OS closely designed to the hardware, and the apps to the OS, is going to leave this thing in the dust by the side of the road.
Well, it's still early days in that no one has really used it yet and it's still basically an alpha, but ...
the more I think about it the stupider it seems to me.
I?ve been expecting this type of OS to come out for well over a decade and having it come from Google as a dedicated internet appliance for about a decade now. OS agnostic computing is the future for the majority of consumers. Most of the world?s population don?t have any computer or any internet. This simple OS could change that. If not this, then something built off the foundations this builds.
Quote:
Your MacBook for instance would be ridiculously overpowered for such an OS, you wouldn't be using a fraction of the capabilities of the machine.
Absolutely, which is why I?d want to use this very simple OS with very simple power requirements when I?m trying to conserve battery power for as long as possible while still trying to use the internet or do some other basic function that a browser-based app can do.
Quote:
I also *do* think that it isn't scaleable in that the size of the screen and how many tabs you can put in your browser is very finite. I suppose it would allow for as many tabs open as anyone can have open in a full screen browser anyway, but then on the other hand a big chunk of them will be used up by apps, that in a "normal" OS situation, one would switch to outside of the browser.
Most users aren?t actively using an excessive number of apps on their computers now. Windows has trained people to close out apps before they open another.
That said, the apps you use, like Facebook, Gmail, Chess, whatever can be represented by a single identifiable icon. If that becomes a real problem there is nothing stopping this from having sectioned off tabs with multiple rows or scrolling tab rows. The possibilities are endless at this point. If you watch the demo you see they have more tabs open than people typical use.
Quote:
Suppose I'm working on the web for instance, and writing at the same time. I have the full compliment of tabs open in the browser, and a similar number of documents open in the word processor. In Chrome OS, I would only be able to have half as many, because the word processing is being done in the browser as well.
I?m not following why you?d have half the tabs open that you need. Just like in a regular browser the tabs alter sizes as needed. This isn?t supposed to be a work horse OS so i you need something more robust then a a more powerful system with a more powerful OS is always available. This is an option for an consumer that has been overlooked for a very long time.
Quote:
It was that comment someone made about Palms WebOS that really got me thinking though. If each document is a browser window or tab, it seems to me that WebOS is a much better thought out implementation of that basic idea. Instead of tabs, there are "cards" and the management of those cards is much better implemented. It's also touch enabled and designed for a modern mobile, instead of being designed for yesterday's netbook, which is about to get eclipsed by the tablet.
With a phone sized display ?cards? do make more sense. The iPhone?s Safari has ?pages? but they essentially the same thing. There is nothing stopping this open software from making a ?card? type browser so that it can swipe an entire browser of tabs to an entirely new browser of different tabs. Just like virtual desktops in KDE, Gnome and Mac OS X, having the same thing in Chrome OS is not too a big deal for those that need it. The browser window is the desktop.
Quote:
I think that's the best way to think about it. It's not really an OS in the sense that it's a design that helps you manage your data, or your documents, or your contacts, or anything really. It's a browser. Period. The apps are not only not really a part of the OS, they aren't even necessarily designed for the OS, or the device that it sits on.
Still in the development stage I?ve seen some amazing things done with HTML5, CSS and JS. I can?t think of anything people typically do with computers cannot be done in a web-based environment. WebOS is proof that OS rendered in web-code can be viable? even if Palm is fudging things up. (Pre being sold for as low as $80 and Pixie already at $25)
Quote:
I think Apple's integrated approach with the OS closely designed to the hardware, and the apps to the OS, is going to leave this thing in the dust by the side of the road.
Yes and no, it depends on what type of computing we?re talking about. If I need to plug in a SD card to run Chrome OS while flying from Miami to Madrid so I can have internet for the entire trip and then some I will likely do that, especially if wanting to play videos that require Flash. I should be able to see and access my files on my local HDD, too, once the OS has booted from a solid-state drive.
I plan on compiling the OS this weekend to see what features are there but the demo looked pretty good.
i get the fundamental "cloud" orientation of the Chrome OS. but ...
- isn't that how the Pre apps are supposed to work too? it hasn't exactly caught on ... neither did web apps on the iPhone 2G.
- aren't many iPhone apps in fact hybrid local/cloud apps? doesn't that better combine the advantages of both?
- what about all those little split-second lags the internet keeps throwing into your workflow? won't people find that too annoying when it happens to everything you do, all the time?
- safe to assume you can always create a local backup of everything stored in your cloud? (otherwise, forget it!).
i get the fundamental "cloud" orientation of the Chrome OS. but ...
- isn't that how the Pre apps are supposed to work too? it hasn't exactly caught on ... neither did web apps on the iPhone 2G.
- aren't many iPhone apps in fact hybrid local/cloud apps? doesn't that better combine the advantages of both?
- what about all those little split-second lags the internet keeps throwing into your workflow? won't people find that too annoying when it happens to everything you do, all the time?
- safe to assume you can always create a local backup of everything stored in your cloud? (otherwise, forget it!).
The Pre?s WebOS apps are locally installed. They use HTML, CSS and JS, but they are stored locally and run locally. They only need the internet if the app calls for it just like with any Windows or Mac OS X app.
i get the fundamental "cloud" orientation of the Chrome OS. but ...
- what about all those little split-second lags the internet keeps throwing into your workflow? won't people find that too annoying when it happens to everything you do, all the time?
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
The Pre?s WebOS apps are locally installed. They use HTML, CSS and JS, but they are stored locally and run locally. They only need the internet if the app calls for it just like with any Windows or Mac OS X app.
When using Google Spreadsheets online, it does Autosave every few changes to autosync with the cloud. I imagine this could be problematic if it happens over cellular data. Of course, they could/would tweak various things with Chrome OS.
Personally I have no desire at all to have all my data in the cloud, this for me kills the idea of Chrome OS. I would have preferred that Google got behind a Linux distro and one of the UI kits and really attacted the industry. Given the right configuration Linux can be very snappy on low end hardware, it is interesting that Samsung is targetting the low end with Enlightenment. At least the is the rumor, the point is the capability to run local apps and store local data make for some very interesting capabilities.
Frankly I have a good way to run web apps with Safari or Firefox. So why limit myself with yet another device. At the rate we are going you would need anE-Book reader machine and a web browsing machine and even another to run local productivity apps. A good laptop is just a cheaper solution.
I’m right there with you. I was waiting for it but then decided to get a 7200RPM 500GB HDD instead. That whole thing with the SATA 1.5Gbps firmware update not officially supporting 3.0Gbps is pretty lame.
PS: Did you read the previous article where he speculated that the reason Apple didn’t use Intel’s first SSDs was because it would have lowered the “green rating” but that the current versions don’t have that drawback due to a material change? It’s been more than enough time and Apple and Intel still have a friendship, as far as I can tell, so I’d like to know what’s up. I’m sure I’d go with an Intel drive if Apple offered it.
According to Anandtech it just wasn't whether it was 1.5 or 3.0Gbps, some SSDs simply do not work with a MacBook/Pro if it ain't from Apple -- I probably need to research more anyways on what SSDs Apple is actually using...!
I didn't read the article about the "green rating" but I think it is possible Intel SSDs would be what Apple would use if they had the "green" light. Though cost-wise, Intel SSDs are generally the most expensive.
As for the Intel-Apple partnership, now that more or less everything in 2nd half of 2010 onwards will be Intel-chipset and Intel-CPU based (Core i3, i5, i7, Nehalem Xeon)... yeah, I guess I kinda hope that means Intel SSDs. But it is also *important* for third-party SSDs to be compatible with Macs ~ why don't things "just work" like platter drives? Now that TRIM and so on is the newest thing in SSD-land, that also throws a few complications into the mix.
When using Google Spreadsheets online, it does Autosave every few changes to autosync with the cloud. I imagine this could be problematic if it happens over cellular data. Of course, they could/would tweak various things with Chrome OS.
Isn?t that how the Google docs work in general, without HTML5 utilizing any local DBD storage. Of all the potential issues that a browser-based OS I can?t see local storage capabilities as being one of them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008
According to Anandtech it just wasn't whether it was 1.5 or 3.0Gbps, some SSDs simply do not work with a MacBook/Pro if it ain't from Apple -- I probably need to research more anyways on what SSDs Apple is actually using?!
Oh yeah, it was even worse after the firmware update. I have to agree that of any single component a storage device should just work, regardless.
Quote:
I didn't read the article about the "green rating" but I think it is possible Intel SSDs would be what Apple would use if they had the "green" light. Though cost-wise, Intel SSDs are generally the most expensive.
The first Intel SSDs used halogen in the controller which would mean they couldn?t be BFR-free.
This definitely has a market... My mother-in-law thinks her computer IS the internet.
But then I look at my computer and see Photoshop, GTA, my gigabytes of media... Web-computing will not be viable for the masses for quite some time.
Until we get there, however, Apple should really consider "cloud-ing" iTunes, and SOON! I should be able to access and play my iTunes purchases (as well as home media) from any authenticated terminal.
Comments
Well that's too bad 'cause I love you. And by tomorrow I'll be able to love you several times faster!
Where I am at the moment I only have my powerbook g4 12" with me, and the iphone, and as much as I think this is the best form factor/design lappie every released, it would sure do great with an ssd, too bad the runcore ide ssd's are only marginally better than an hd...
Btw how come you went with a stock ssd, considering things like runcores and intel ssds run circles around them?
In any case this is the future, ssd's in our desktops big raid hds in our nas servers.
Well that's too bad 'cause I love you. And by tomorrow I'll be able to love you several times faster!
But you love me fast time, not long time.
Btw how come you went with a stock ssd, considering things like runcores and intel ssds run circles around them?
Runcore is a shady company with shady benchmarks. The Intel ones are great and all, but their costs far outweigh their benefits in my view. The Samsung is a great all rounder, which compared to a regular spinning HD may as well be branded a Ferrari HD.
Before I bought one I read this little article here.
There is nothing wrong with working offline, but the point is: how you gonna do it as long as you're out of wire/wireless coverage and you cannot access the "cloud" where all the apps are running? You can eventually cache some music, maybe even some apps, but again, if everything is processed inside the cloud, then when offline, we're fcuked.
Even in EU/US we don't have 100% coverage (not to mention emerging countries), and if roaming in EU, that's gonna kill yr wallet, so you don't wanna do it.
The idea of this OS is good, but until 100% coverage is achieved and affordable, I don't want to pay my internet provider (operator) for accessing the cloud to just processing my documents and listening MY OWN music. So, local storage is needed. Most probably some local processing power and apps are needed as well.
Well, let's just wait and see how it will actually work.
I didn?t see anything that made Chrome OS work more like a dumb terminal than a proper OS. I?m looking at it like WebOS. It uses an interface that is completely built with HTML, CSS and JS on a linux kernel.
All those Google apps and anything else with HTML5 w/the local DB storage will work offline. Some (browser) apps that you usually access when you go to a site will be part of the basic install. Much more should be available by the time Chrome OS launches. If you check out the video in the link Ireland supplied you see that it?s looking pretty good so far. This won?t replace a full fledged OS for people with money or needing more powerful apps but it?s not suppose to.
The WebKit Team has been working on Page Caching and OpenGL for HW acceleration within the browser are being worked on. These two things came up after Google announced Chrome OS and seem more suited to assist them than anyone else.
I see nothing that will disallow accessing a local networked drive or attached drive. I could be wrong, but the limitation of only using an SSD for the OS itself wouldn?t be applicable to any other drive so you could have as much local storage as you want. Maybe by the time Chrome OS really gets going using SD cards like microSD cards are used in smartphones will be the way these users will store their data.
I'd like to be able to use the computer even if the Internet connection is down. It appears Chrome OS relies a LOT on online connectivity, and that kind of scares me.
...I for myself I'll be simple waiting 2~3 more years to see the MBA getting improved (I'm not gonna list my expectations), as that's the right product for the next 5~10 years...
The issue (I work part-time for an Apple reseller) with MBA can be people being way too rough and breaking the screen hinge. As you go thinner and thinner you do compromise (despite unibody construction, which is great) on strength and rigidity.
Which essentially means for "super thin and light" the only next direction they can go between 2010 to 2020 is that flexible, polymer stuff. Environmentally, boy, it ain't as sweet as Aluminium, but I'm sure they can figure out something. Humans are smart enough. Time for flexible, polymer tablet/ ultra-thin-light "laptops" *made* from recycled material *and* easily recylable. Oh, and the killer feature: integrated batteries within the same flexible, polymer construction.
Jonny Ive, let's take it to the next level.
Runcore is a shady company with shady benchmarks. The Intel ones are great and all, but their costs far outweigh their benefits in my view. The Samsung is a great all rounder, which compared to a regular spinning HD may as well be branded a Ferrari HD.
Before I bought one I read this little article here.
Anandtech is the king of SSD web reporting and Intel is the king in SSDs right now but yeah the midrange has definite advantages. I would be willing to blow $300 on an SSD for my MacBook but reports of compatibility issues (eg. from Anandtech as well) concern me... and a decent 256GB SSD at $300 doesn't exist yet.
Can you provide a link to the SSD you got? And from where? It's not from Apple, right?
Anandtech is the king of SSD web reporting and Intel is the king in SSDs right now but yeah the midrange has definite advantages. I would be willing to blow $300 on an SSD for my MacBook but reports of compatibility issues (eg. from Anandtech as well) concern me... and a decent 256GB SSD at $300 doesn't exist yet.
Can you provide a link to the SSD you got? And from where? It's not from Apple, right?
I?m right there with you. I was waiting for it but then decided to get a 7200RPM 500GB HDD instead. That whole thing with the SATA 1.5Gbps firmware update not officially supporting 3.0Gbps is pretty lame.
PS: Did you read the previous article where he speculated that the reason Apple didn?t use Intel?s first SSDs was because it would have lowered the ?green rating? but that the current versions don?t have that drawback due to a material change? It?s been more than enough time and Apple and Intel still have a friendship, as far as I can tell, so I?d like to know what?s up. I?m sure I?d go with an Intel drive if Apple offered it.
Chrome OS sounds like a great idea except for one BIG problem: what happens if the Internet connection goes down.
I'd like to be able to use the computer even if the Internet connection is down. It appears Chrome OS relies a LOT on online connectivity, and that kind of scares me.
You keep working and any changes are saved locally. Next time you connect it syncs with your cloud storage. Easy peezy.
Can you provide a link to the SSD you got?
This may or may not be the link you're looking for
... I don?t agree that it?s not scalable for the average consumer doing minimal work. I?d separate the netbook from Chrome OS in your mind. I will be putting Chrome OS on my MBP but I won?t be buying a netbook to use it. Surely I can get more juice for web browsing out of Chrome OS than Mac OS X on the same machine. With flights pushing more and more for WiFi this is important to me. ...
Well, it's still early days in that no one has really used it yet and it's still basically an alpha, but ...
the more I think about it the stupider it seems to me. Your MacBook for instance would be ridiculously overpowered for such an OS, you wouldn't be using a fraction of the capabilities of the machine.
I also *do* think that it isn't scaleable in that the size of the screen and how many tabs you can put in your browser is very finite. I suppose it would allow for as many tabs open as anyone can have open in a full screen browser anyway, but then on the other hand a big chunk of them will be used up by apps, that in a "normal" OS situation, one would switch to outside of the browser.
Suppose I'm working on the web for instance, and writing at the same time. I have the full compliment of tabs open in the browser, and a similar number of documents open in the word processor. In Chrome OS, I would only be able to have half as many, because the word processing is being done in the browser as well.
It was that comment someone made about Palms WebOS that really got me thinking though. If each document is a browser window or tab, it seems to me that WebOS is a much better thought out implementation of that basic idea. Instead of tabs, there are "cards" and the management of those cards is much better implemented. It's also touch enabled and designed for a modern mobile, instead of being designed for yesterday's netbook, which is about to get eclipsed by the tablet.
The guy even said before he started his presentation that Chrome OS *is* Chrome the browser.
I think that's the best way to think about it. It's not really an OS in the sense that it's a design that helps you manage your data, or your documents, or your contacts, or anything really. It's a browser. Period. The apps are not only not really a part of the OS, they aren't even necessarily designed for the OS, or the device that it sits on.
I think Apple's integrated approach with the OS closely designed to the hardware, and the apps to the OS, is going to leave this thing in the dust by the side of the road.
Well, it's still early days in that no one has really used it yet and it's still basically an alpha, but ...
the more I think about it the stupider it seems to me.
I?ve been expecting this type of OS to come out for well over a decade and having it come from Google as a dedicated internet appliance for about a decade now. OS agnostic computing is the future for the majority of consumers. Most of the world?s population don?t have any computer or any internet. This simple OS could change that. If not this, then something built off the foundations this builds.
Your MacBook for instance would be ridiculously overpowered for such an OS, you wouldn't be using a fraction of the capabilities of the machine.
Absolutely, which is why I?d want to use this very simple OS with very simple power requirements when I?m trying to conserve battery power for as long as possible while still trying to use the internet or do some other basic function that a browser-based app can do.
I also *do* think that it isn't scaleable in that the size of the screen and how many tabs you can put in your browser is very finite. I suppose it would allow for as many tabs open as anyone can have open in a full screen browser anyway, but then on the other hand a big chunk of them will be used up by apps, that in a "normal" OS situation, one would switch to outside of the browser.
Most users aren?t actively using an excessive number of apps on their computers now. Windows has trained people to close out apps before they open another.
That said, the apps you use, like Facebook, Gmail, Chess, whatever can be represented by a single identifiable icon. If that becomes a real problem there is nothing stopping this from having sectioned off tabs with multiple rows or scrolling tab rows. The possibilities are endless at this point. If you watch the demo you see they have more tabs open than people typical use.
Suppose I'm working on the web for instance, and writing at the same time. I have the full compliment of tabs open in the browser, and a similar number of documents open in the word processor. In Chrome OS, I would only be able to have half as many, because the word processing is being done in the browser as well.
I?m not following why you?d have half the tabs open that you need. Just like in a regular browser the tabs alter sizes as needed. This isn?t supposed to be a work horse OS so i you need something more robust then a a more powerful system with a more powerful OS is always available. This is an option for an consumer that has been overlooked for a very long time.
It was that comment someone made about Palms WebOS that really got me thinking though. If each document is a browser window or tab, it seems to me that WebOS is a much better thought out implementation of that basic idea. Instead of tabs, there are "cards" and the management of those cards is much better implemented. It's also touch enabled and designed for a modern mobile, instead of being designed for yesterday's netbook, which is about to get eclipsed by the tablet.
With a phone sized display ?cards? do make more sense. The iPhone?s Safari has ?pages? but they essentially the same thing. There is nothing stopping this open software from making a ?card? type browser so that it can swipe an entire browser of tabs to an entirely new browser of different tabs. Just like virtual desktops in KDE, Gnome and Mac OS X, having the same thing in Chrome OS is not too a big deal for those that need it. The browser window is the desktop.
I think that's the best way to think about it. It's not really an OS in the sense that it's a design that helps you manage your data, or your documents, or your contacts, or anything really. It's a browser. Period. The apps are not only not really a part of the OS, they aren't even necessarily designed for the OS, or the device that it sits on.
Still in the development stage I?ve seen some amazing things done with HTML5, CSS and JS. I can?t think of anything people typically do with computers cannot be done in a web-based environment. WebOS is proof that OS rendered in web-code can be viable? even if Palm is fudging things up. (Pre being sold for as low as $80 and Pixie already at $25)
I think Apple's integrated approach with the OS closely designed to the hardware, and the apps to the OS, is going to leave this thing in the dust by the side of the road.
Yes and no, it depends on what type of computing we?re talking about. If I need to plug in a SD card to run Chrome OS while flying from Miami to Madrid so I can have internet for the entire trip and then some I will likely do that, especially if wanting to play videos that require Flash. I should be able to see and access my files on my local HDD, too, once the OS has booted from a solid-state drive.
I plan on compiling the OS this weekend to see what features are there but the demo looked pretty good.
- isn't that how the Pre apps are supposed to work too? it hasn't exactly caught on ... neither did web apps on the iPhone 2G.
- aren't many iPhone apps in fact hybrid local/cloud apps? doesn't that better combine the advantages of both?
- what about all those little split-second lags the internet keeps throwing into your workflow? won't people find that too annoying when it happens to everything you do, all the time?
- safe to assume you can always create a local backup of everything stored in your cloud? (otherwise, forget it!).
i get the fundamental "cloud" orientation of the Chrome OS. but ...
- isn't that how the Pre apps are supposed to work too? it hasn't exactly caught on ... neither did web apps on the iPhone 2G.
- aren't many iPhone apps in fact hybrid local/cloud apps? doesn't that better combine the advantages of both?
- what about all those little split-second lags the internet keeps throwing into your workflow? won't people find that too annoying when it happens to everything you do, all the time?
- safe to assume you can always create a local backup of everything stored in your cloud? (otherwise, forget it!).
The Pre?s WebOS apps are locally installed. They use HTML, CSS and JS, but they are stored locally and run locally. They only need the internet if the app calls for it just like with any Windows or Mac OS X app.
i get the fundamental "cloud" orientation of the Chrome OS. but ...
- what about all those little split-second lags the internet keeps throwing into your workflow? won't people find that too annoying when it happens to everything you do, all the time?
The Pre?s WebOS apps are locally installed. They use HTML, CSS and JS, but they are stored locally and run locally. They only need the internet if the app calls for it just like with any Windows or Mac OS X app.
When using Google Spreadsheets online, it does Autosave every few changes to autosync with the cloud. I imagine this could be problematic if it happens over cellular data. Of course, they could/would tweak various things with Chrome OS.
Frankly I have a good way to run web apps with Safari or Firefox. So why limit myself with yet another device. At the rate we are going you would need anE-Book reader machine and a web browsing machine and even another to run local productivity apps. A good laptop is just a cheaper solution.
Dave
Sorry, I like Chrome as a browser. I like a lot of the google stuff. I'm not drinking their Kool-Aid on this one.
I’m right there with you. I was waiting for it but then decided to get a 7200RPM 500GB HDD instead. That whole thing with the SATA 1.5Gbps firmware update not officially supporting 3.0Gbps is pretty lame.
PS: Did you read the previous article where he speculated that the reason Apple didn’t use Intel’s first SSDs was because it would have lowered the “green rating” but that the current versions don’t have that drawback due to a material change? It’s been more than enough time and Apple and Intel still have a friendship, as far as I can tell, so I’d like to know what’s up. I’m sure I’d go with an Intel drive if Apple offered it.
According to Anandtech it just wasn't whether it was 1.5 or 3.0Gbps, some SSDs simply do not work with a MacBook/Pro if it ain't from Apple -- I probably need to research more anyways on what SSDs Apple is actually using...!
I didn't read the article about the "green rating" but I think it is possible Intel SSDs would be what Apple would use if they had the "green" light. Though cost-wise, Intel SSDs are generally the most expensive.
As for the Intel-Apple partnership, now that more or less everything in 2nd half of 2010 onwards will be Intel-chipset and Intel-CPU based (Core i3, i5, i7, Nehalem Xeon)... yeah, I guess I kinda hope that means Intel SSDs. But it is also *important* for third-party SSDs to be compatible with Macs ~ why don't things "just work" like platter drives? Now that TRIM and so on is the newest thing in SSD-land, that also throws a few complications into the mix.
When using Google Spreadsheets online, it does Autosave every few changes to autosync with the cloud. I imagine this could be problematic if it happens over cellular data. Of course, they could/would tweak various things with Chrome OS.
Isn?t that how the Google docs work in general, without HTML5 utilizing any local DBD storage. Of all the potential issues that a browser-based OS I can?t see local storage capabilities as being one of them.
According to Anandtech it just wasn't whether it was 1.5 or 3.0Gbps, some SSDs simply do not work with a MacBook/Pro if it ain't from Apple -- I probably need to research more anyways on what SSDs Apple is actually using?!
Oh yeah, it was even worse after the firmware update. I have to agree that of any single component a storage device should just work, regardless.
I didn't read the article about the "green rating" but I think it is possible Intel SSDs would be what Apple would use if they had the "green" light. Though cost-wise, Intel SSDs are generally the most expensive.
The first Intel SSDs used halogen in the controller which would mean they couldn?t be BFR-free.PS: Those prices for the Intel SSDs are better than the price for GB than other vendors but I can?t find those prices in the real world.
But then I look at my computer and see Photoshop, GTA, my gigabytes of media... Web-computing will not be viable for the masses for quite some time.
Until we get there, however, Apple should really consider "cloud-ing" iTunes, and SOON! I should be able to access and play my iTunes purchases (as well as home media) from any authenticated terminal.
-Clive