I think that people who think that they "just want the internet" will be angry when they find out that their "computer" doesn't work when they don't have an internet connection.
If your internet isn?t working and you wan to use the internet you are in the same boat with any computer. Chrome is no different. You?ll either have to settle with what it stored locally or get internet access.
And while you can hope for vaporware dreams that someday those apps will save data to your SD card, that's currently not the case among real apps (which is why there's no real games, certainly none that weigh in at 200MB or more!)
So, how Copilot and their maps or Spotify and their offline songs are stored?
Don't bother to debate, Gwydion. I played a FPS the other night with data stored on the SD card, but I guess I just dreamed... The author does certainly know Android very accurately and own a device since a long time cause he wrote ten pages about it...
Don't bother to debate, Gwydion. I played a FPS the other night with data stored on the SD card, but I guess I just dreamed... The author does certainly know Android very accurately and own a device since a long time cause he wrote ten pages about it...
It?s certainly possible to store app components that way, but it?s not ideal. This is an issue for Android as a platform if it ever wishes to be used and loved by the average user. However, the simple solution is for vendors to simply include more on-board Flash. That will likely be what we?ll see future Android devices.
It?s certainly possible to store app components that way, but it?s not ideal. This is an issue for Android as a platform if it ever wishes to be used and loved by the average user. However, the simple solution is for vendors to simply include more on-board Flash. That will likely be what we?ll see future Android devices.
Yes, it's an issue and Google is trying to resolve the problem of storing apps (not only the data) in SD cards or flash memory.
But the truth it's that you can have more than 256MB of apps+data in Android
Yes, it's an issue and Google is trying to resolve the problem of storing apps (not only the data) in SD cards or flash memory.
But the truth it's that you can have more than 256MB of apps+data in Android
You don?t need a microSD card in the slot to use the phone and there is no minimum card size so devs have to consider this possibility when making apps. This will mean that apps will tend to be smaller until this is resolved.
You don?t need a microSD card in the slot to use the phone and there is no minimum card size so devs have to consider this possibility when making apps. This will mean that apps will tend to be smaller until this is resolved.
Yes, you need a microSD. Photos taken with the phone are stored in the microSD not in internal memory.
Yes, you can use it, but essential applications like camera needs a SD card to work.
That is my point. This is an area that customers don?t want to deal with and developers have to code for in case there is no card in the phone. These issues won?t help the Android Marketplace until the vendors start including a decent amount of on-baord flash.
That is my point. This is an area that customers don?t want to deal with and developers have to code for in case there is no card in the phone. These issues won?t help the Android Marketplace until the vendors start including a decent amount of on-baord flash.
Yes, the Samsung Galaxy was a good example of what you're saying.
If your internet isn?t working and you wan to use the internet you are in the same boat with any computer. Chrome is no different. You?ll either have to settle with what it stored locally or get internet access.
You're only in the "same boat" if you arbitrarily limit any other OS to internet-centric functionality, which is kind of the point.
Yes, the Samsung Galaxy was a good example of what you're saying.
It's cheaper SD cards or flash memory?
I can't figure this out. Are you saying that you think the Galaxy is a cool phone and that because it has a card slot that makes the case for same?
And "cheaper" isn't really the metric that's being discussed; it's no bargain if developers have to write to an unknown (but necessarily lowest common denominator) memory footprint, or risk having their customers tell them their app is "broken."
You're only in the "same boat" if you arbitrarily limit any other OS to internet-centric functionality, which is kind of the point.
We need to separate the browser from requiring an internet connection to be functional. It?s what we?re used but it?s not how modern browsers work any more. allow for anything that can be rendering with HTML, CSS and JS to be run in a web-browser even when not connected to the internet.
I can't figure this out. Are you saying that you think the Galaxy is a cool phone and that because it has a card slot that makes the case for same?
No, I think that it's a good example because it has 8 GB of flash memory.
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox
And "cheaper" isn't really the metric that's being discussed; it's no bargain if developers have to write to an unknown (but necessarily lowest common denominator) memory footprint, or risk having their customers tell them their app is "broken."
No, my question is to know if there is a reason to give a SD card because is cheaper that the same amount of flash ram.
We need to separate the browser from requiring an internet connection to be functional. It?s what we?re used but it?s not how modern browsers work any more. allow for anything that can be rendering with HTML, CSS and JS to be run in a web-browser even when not connected to the internet.
Sure, but that doesn't appear to be what Google is actually angling for with Chrome. From what I've seen, local storage is treated as a stopgap till a connection is restored and data can be pushed to the cloud.
That's why Chrome specs SSD storage-- they don't expect you to keep much on your computer. Chrome resembles nothing so much as a thin client with Google as your mainframe.
A lot of players have toyed with cloud computing over the years; Google has baked into their OS. But cloud computing without a cloud is a pretty hamstrung experience.
Sure, but that doesn't appear to be what Google is actually angling for with Chrome. From what I've seen, local storage is treated as a stopgap till a connection is restored and data can be pushed to the cloud.
That's why Chrome specs SSD storage-- they don't expect you to keep much on your computer. Chrome resembles nothing so much as a thin client with Google as your mainframe.
A lot of players have toyed with cloud computing over the years; Google has baked into their OS. But cloud computing without a cloud is a pretty hamstrung experience.
They are also marketing it towards netbooks, but I assure you that will not be it's primary place among HW.
I think they are going with SSD because there is a lot thy can do to speed up operation if they can focus on solid-state drives. They are future despite HDDs being around for the foreseeable future. It'll be a year before Chrome OS even gets onto a retail device. Add a few more years for it to really take shape and you have simple Internet appliances with more than NAND for the basic user's secondary interneting device and likely have Apple only selling SSD in their notebooks ad with a new small case that the 7mm high drives allow for.
As it stands now, the first public alpha of Chrome OS can't do anything without Internet connectivity. Not even access to the settings. This will change.
I think the table showing Apple's experience over Google's is missing a key component: its NeXT (UNIX) engineering experience. I think Apple's NeXT experience easily puts it on par with Google in terms to developing all aspects of the application stack.
They are also marketing it towards netbooks, but I assure you that will not be it's primary place among HW.
I think they are going with SSD because there is a lot thy can do to speed up operation if they can focus on solid-state drives. They are future despite HDDs being around for the foreseeable future. It'll be a year before Chrome OS even gets onto a retail device. Add a few more years for it to really take shape and you have simple Internet appliances with more than NAND for the basic user's secondary interneting device and likely have Apple only selling SSD in their notebooks ad with a new small case that the 7mm high drives allow for.
As it stands now, the first public alpha of Chrome OS can't do anything without Internet connectivity. Not even access to the settings. This will change.
I'm sure it will, but so will the rest of the industry. "Simple internet appliances" only have a leg up on devices running full, local operating systems if they are cheaper and simpler.
The iPhone, for instance, is a great example of how a "real" OS can be made simple 'n cheap (although I actually don't think that the OS installed on a device drives the price up, much), and it looks like Apple will be making some more devices that move in this direction.
More generally, if you can have a simple, quick booting, easy to use OS on relatively inexpensive devices that also delivers the local functionality that people have become used to, what's the upside of Chrome?
It's like the debate about Apple's original web apps proposal for the iPhone, or the drawbacks of the Pre, recast for the desktop OS. Google has written an OS that seems to be counting on a reversal of Moore's Law-- that hardware will get less capable and more constrained, so the future belongs to whoever can operate on the least silicon, even though doing so requires some compromises. I can't see that as a great bet.
Or, to bring the discussion round to the thread topic, Android appears to be more functional than Chrome, so......
More generally, if you can have a simple, quick booting, easy to use OS on relatively inexpensive devices that also delivers the local functionality that people have become used to, what's the upside of Chrome?
For users like us, not much, except for some secondary devices, but for others this will be a big hit. I see this being the first OS to hurt MS? marketshare. I see emerging countries getting more connected and simple applicances with Chrome OS connected to cheap monitors or TV will be the gateway to the internet with Google touching every aspect of what they do. If a user needs to output data instead of just injesting it then there will be Windows and Mac computers for them, but this is a commodity OS for the rest of the world.
Comments
I think that people who think that they "just want the internet" will be angry when they find out that their "computer" doesn't work when they don't have an internet connection.
If your internet isn?t working and you wan to use the internet you are in the same boat with any computer. Chrome is no different. You?ll either have to settle with what it stored locally or get internet access.
And while you can hope for vaporware dreams that someday those apps will save data to your SD card, that's currently not the case among real apps (which is why there's no real games, certainly none that weigh in at 200MB or more!)
So, how Copilot and their maps or Spotify and their offline songs are stored?
Don't bother to debate, Gwydion. I played a FPS the other night with data stored on the SD card, but I guess I just dreamed... The author does certainly know Android very accurately and own a device since a long time cause he wrote ten pages about it...
It?s certainly possible to store app components that way, but it?s not ideal. This is an issue for Android as a platform if it ever wishes to be used and loved by the average user. However, the simple solution is for vendors to simply include more on-board Flash. That will likely be what we?ll see future Android devices.
It?s certainly possible to store app components that way, but it?s not ideal. This is an issue for Android as a platform if it ever wishes to be used and loved by the average user. However, the simple solution is for vendors to simply include more on-board Flash. That will likely be what we?ll see future Android devices.
Yes, it's an issue and Google is trying to resolve the problem of storing apps (not only the data) in SD cards or flash memory.
But the truth it's that you can have more than 256MB of apps+data in Android
Yes, it's an issue and Google is trying to resolve the problem of storing apps (not only the data) in SD cards or flash memory.
But the truth it's that you can have more than 256MB of apps+data in Android
You don?t need a microSD card in the slot to use the phone and there is no minimum card size so devs have to consider this possibility when making apps. This will mean that apps will tend to be smaller until this is resolved.
You don?t need a microSD card in the slot to use the phone and there is no minimum card size so devs have to consider this possibility when making apps. This will mean that apps will tend to be smaller until this is resolved.
Yes, you need a microSD. Photos taken with the phone are stored in the microSD not in internal memory.
Yes, you need a microSD. Photos taken with the phone are stored in the microSD not in internal memory.
You?re saying the phone won?t work without a microSD card in it?
You?re saying the phone won?t work without a microSD card in it?
Yes, you can use it, but essential applications like camera needs a SD card to work.
Yes, you can use it, but essential applications like camera needs a SD card to work.
That is my point. This is an area that customers don?t want to deal with and developers have to code for in case there is no card in the phone. These issues won?t help the Android Marketplace until the vendors start including a decent amount of on-baord flash.
That is my point. This is an area that customers don?t want to deal with and developers have to code for in case there is no card in the phone. These issues won?t help the Android Marketplace until the vendors start including a decent amount of on-baord flash.
Yes, the Samsung Galaxy was a good example of what you're saying.
It's cheaper SD cards or flash memory?
If your internet isn?t working and you wan to use the internet you are in the same boat with any computer. Chrome is no different. You?ll either have to settle with what it stored locally or get internet access.
You're only in the "same boat" if you arbitrarily limit any other OS to internet-centric functionality, which is kind of the point.
Yes, the Samsung Galaxy was a good example of what you're saying.
It's cheaper SD cards or flash memory?
I can't figure this out. Are you saying that you think the Galaxy is a cool phone and that because it has a card slot that makes the case for same?
And "cheaper" isn't really the metric that's being discussed; it's no bargain if developers have to write to an unknown (but necessarily lowest common denominator) memory footprint, or risk having their customers tell them their app is "broken."
You're only in the "same boat" if you arbitrarily limit any other OS to internet-centric functionality, which is kind of the point.
We need to separate the browser from requiring an internet connection to be functional. It?s what we?re used but it?s not how modern browsers work any more. allow for anything that can be rendering with HTML, CSS and JS to be run in a web-browser even when not connected to the internet.
I can't figure this out. Are you saying that you think the Galaxy is a cool phone and that because it has a card slot that makes the case for same?
No, I think that it's a good example because it has 8 GB of flash memory.
And "cheaper" isn't really the metric that's being discussed; it's no bargain if developers have to write to an unknown (but necessarily lowest common denominator) memory footprint, or risk having their customers tell them their app is "broken."
No, my question is to know if there is a reason to give a SD card because is cheaper that the same amount of flash ram.
We need to separate the browser from requiring an internet connection to be functional. It?s what we?re used but it?s not how modern browsers work any more. allow for anything that can be rendering with HTML, CSS and JS to be run in a web-browser even when not connected to the internet.
Sure, but that doesn't appear to be what Google is actually angling for with Chrome. From what I've seen, local storage is treated as a stopgap till a connection is restored and data can be pushed to the cloud.
That's why Chrome specs SSD storage-- they don't expect you to keep much on your computer. Chrome resembles nothing so much as a thin client with Google as your mainframe.
A lot of players have toyed with cloud computing over the years; Google has baked into their OS. But cloud computing without a cloud is a pretty hamstrung experience.
Sure, but that doesn't appear to be what Google is actually angling for with Chrome. From what I've seen, local storage is treated as a stopgap till a connection is restored and data can be pushed to the cloud.
That's why Chrome specs SSD storage-- they don't expect you to keep much on your computer. Chrome resembles nothing so much as a thin client with Google as your mainframe.
A lot of players have toyed with cloud computing over the years; Google has baked into their OS. But cloud computing without a cloud is a pretty hamstrung experience.
They are also marketing it towards netbooks, but I assure you that will not be it's primary place among HW.
I think they are going with SSD because there is a lot thy can do to speed up operation if they can focus on solid-state drives. They are future despite HDDs being around for the foreseeable future. It'll be a year before Chrome OS even gets onto a retail device. Add a few more years for it to really take shape and you have simple Internet appliances with more than NAND for the basic user's secondary interneting device and likely have Apple only selling SSD in their notebooks ad with a new small case that the 7mm high drives allow for.
As it stands now, the first public alpha of Chrome OS can't do anything without Internet connectivity. Not even access to the settings. This will change.
They are also marketing it towards netbooks, but I assure you that will not be it's primary place among HW.
I think they are going with SSD because there is a lot thy can do to speed up operation if they can focus on solid-state drives. They are future despite HDDs being around for the foreseeable future. It'll be a year before Chrome OS even gets onto a retail device. Add a few more years for it to really take shape and you have simple Internet appliances with more than NAND for the basic user's secondary interneting device and likely have Apple only selling SSD in their notebooks ad with a new small case that the 7mm high drives allow for.
As it stands now, the first public alpha of Chrome OS can't do anything without Internet connectivity. Not even access to the settings. This will change.
I'm sure it will, but so will the rest of the industry. "Simple internet appliances" only have a leg up on devices running full, local operating systems if they are cheaper and simpler.
The iPhone, for instance, is a great example of how a "real" OS can be made simple 'n cheap (although I actually don't think that the OS installed on a device drives the price up, much), and it looks like Apple will be making some more devices that move in this direction.
More generally, if you can have a simple, quick booting, easy to use OS on relatively inexpensive devices that also delivers the local functionality that people have become used to, what's the upside of Chrome?
It's like the debate about Apple's original web apps proposal for the iPhone, or the drawbacks of the Pre, recast for the desktop OS. Google has written an OS that seems to be counting on a reversal of Moore's Law-- that hardware will get less capable and more constrained, so the future belongs to whoever can operate on the least silicon, even though doing so requires some compromises. I can't see that as a great bet.
Or, to bring the discussion round to the thread topic, Android appears to be more functional than Chrome, so......
More generally, if you can have a simple, quick booting, easy to use OS on relatively inexpensive devices that also delivers the local functionality that people have become used to, what's the upside of Chrome?
For users like us, not much, except for some secondary devices, but for others this will be a big hit. I see this being the first OS to hurt MS? marketshare. I see emerging countries getting more connected and simple applicances with Chrome OS connected to cheap monitors or TV will be the gateway to the internet with Google touching every aspect of what they do. If a user needs to output data instead of just injesting it then there will be Windows and Mac computers for them, but this is a commodity OS for the rest of the world.