I don't know why people on here are so threatened by this.
I don't know about threatened, but certainly skeptical. This computing model is as old as computing itself. It's not some new thing. It years past, the company's name was Sun or Novell, instead of Google. It certainly works in the right environments and the right orgs. But humanity seems to prefer, need individualized, personalized computing models than cloud computer, client-server or mainframe models.
We will see if it can meet these preferences, needs.
That what Google is attempting to do is wrestle some goodly number of PC users from Windows to non-Widows so that Google can assure that these users use Google Services, free and paid, to satisfy Googles objectives -- to the detriment of Microsoft's objectives.
Whew!
It seems, that in order to do this, Google must supply a combination of online services and offline local apps.
In retrospect, the best time to have done this was several years ago when the XP to Vista transition stalled, then failed.
Meanwhile, it is reported, that Windows 7 is quite good -- even on older or less-powerful machines.
For sake of argument, let's say that Google needs/takes until the end of 2011 to flesh (not Flash) out its ChromeOS, Cloud Apps, Cloud Services, Local Apps, ChromeOS hardware (3rd party) offerings.
Let's assume they do this -- and do it well.
So, come enterprise budget time (Sep-Nov) 2011 they have a pretty good story to tell -- for sales in 2012.
But, what is MS going to do. Do you think they will sit back and do nothing?
Consider:
-- Windows 7 runs quite well
-- Widows Explorer is essentially a browser-like front end to Windows OS (analogous to Chrome OS)
-- Windows 7 already has all the local apps that everyone uses
-- Windows browser (IE) can already access MS or other cloud apps and services
... So, MS has this honkin' OS...
What if MS could offer Windows 7 Fat Client edition that slimmed down the OS system while still supporting the local apps that most people use.
If they so desired, MS could consolidate Windows Explorer with IE for a uniform UX -- that opened an app window in a tab.
What if they could show this in the Sep-Nov 2011 enterprise budget time frame?
Sure. And nobody's betting their house on the concept. But come on. Some people are just writing off the idea because of its origins.
Setting aside Google, I think the idea of a web centric OS has merit. Maybe thin clients didn't work out in the past. But we didn't have the connectivity and the processing power we do today.
People talk about what you can't do with this machine. But how many folks here have tried to edit videos with a $300-$400 netbook. Windows on netbooks just plain sucks. It's clearly obvious that a slimmed down OS is needed in that price/performance range.
Whether Chrome OS gains traction or not, is a different story. But kudos to Google for trying.
IT NOT A REPLACEMENT FOR A TRADITIONAL COMPUTER FOR THE TRADITIONAL USER!!!
Don’t me drive up there and beat you with a chromebook on June 15th. I’m not that far away!
You won't be able to -- you'll only have an order number (or maybe a ticket)!
But, ca'mon up anyway -- you can have at me with your ChromeBook order acknowledgement -- and I'll wap you with my copy of Google Catalog.. or was it Google Shared Stuff...
Edit: Don't mess with me... I have a genuine PC/jr Chiclet Keyboard!
What if they could show this in the Sep-Nov 2011 enterprise budget time frame?
If they could, it would be great for users everywhere. The problem is that netbooks suck. And the only reason, most people buy them is to surf the web. Google is simply taking that concept to its logical conclusion. Chrome OS is the ultimate netbook. That's what people are not understanding.
If MS can come up with an optimized Windows version for netbooks, that would be amazing. It would sell really well. But I'm not holding my breath.
That what Google is attempting to do is wrestle some goodly number of PC users from Windows to non-Widows so that Google can assure that these users use Google Services, free and paid, to satisfy Googles objectives -- to the detriment of Microsoft's objectives.
Whew!
It seems, that in order to do this, Google must supply a combination of online services and offline local apps.
Yes, a competitor to the low end PC that struggles to run Windows and has no need to run Windows. Their business model is dead simple.
Quote:
In retrospect, the best time to have done this was several years ago when the XP to Vista transition stalled, then failed.
That's like saying the best time for Apple to release the iPhone was a decade earlier. WebKit was ready then. HTML5 and JS wasn't ready then. Chrome OS wasn't then. The 60k CR-48 test books only came out last year.
Quote:
Meanwhile, it is reported, that Windows 7 is quite good -- even on older or less-powerful machines.
It's better than Vista, but neither Windows nor Mac OS are well suited for Atom's performance level. Chrome OS is designed with Atom and ARM in mind, much the way iOS was designed with ARM in mind.
It boots in 8 seconds and apps launch immediately. Jargosta claims that boot time and apl launch times are pointless metrics because they should always be on but we both know that isn't true and thy it will reduce your resources even lore on Atom. Why you think Windows has comparable speed to Chrome on Atom just sounds like you are trying to reasons that don't exist.
Google Calendar is accessible offline if you configure it to use with a desktop client such as Outlook. "
You can continue to work offline as you do now using a client such as Outlook. Additionally, Google offers some offline capability, but please read the information relating to such functionality carefully as it may contain some limitations." (apparently, the only offline functionality involves searching your hard drive, but since your data isn't on the crapbook, that doesn't help.
Quote:
Google Calendar is accessible offline if you configure it to use with a desktop client such as Outlook.
Heck, you can't even use your calendar if you don't have Internet access.
Admittedly, Google says that at some point in the future, they'll have the ability to work offline, but since that hasn't even been demonstrated, one would have to be a truly moronic CIO to authorize switching to a platform on the basis of vague promises.
Another interesting point from this same source:
Quote:
Some data is scanned in order for Google to provide high-quality services such as spam filtering and indexing
It's better than Vista, but neither Windows nor Mac OS are well suited for Atom's performance level. Chrome OS is designed with Atom and ARM in mind, much the way iOS was designed with ARM in mind.
True, but considering that you can buy a full fledged computer for the same price or less, what's the advantage?
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
It boots in 8 seconds and apps launch immediately. Jargosta claims that boot time and apl launch times are pointless metrics because they should always be on
As usual, since you're losing the argument, you make up claims that no one ever said.
What I said was that if startup time is so important to you that you can let your computer sleep instead of shutting it off. But for most people, startup time is a non-issue. They hit the start button when they come in every morning and then do something else for a couple of minutes.
Not to mention, of course, that it would be truly inane for a CIO to switch his company to the crapbook merely to save a couple of minutes of startup time - considering all the extra expense, loss of security, loss of functionality, and so on that goes with the change.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
but we both know that isn't true and thy it will reduce your resources even lore on Atom. Why you think Windows has comparable speed to Chrome on Atom just sounds like you are trying to reasons that don't exist.
"thy it will reduce your resources even lore on Atom"
I was going to make fun of this, but it actually makes just as much sense as most of your other posts.
Why are you still trying to compare Windows on Atom? I've shown repeatedly that you can buy a real laptop with 12-15" screen and multi GHz Athlon or Intel CPU and a few GB of RAM running Windows for the same or lower cost than the crapbook. So why would I care about how efficient CrapOS is?
It boots in 8 seconds and apps launch immediately. Jargosta claims that boot time and apl launch times are pointless metrics because they should always be on but we both know that isn't true and thy it will reduce your resources even lore on Atom. Why you think Windows has comparable speed to Chrome on Atom just sounds like you are trying to reasons that don't exist.
If they could, it would be great for users everywhere. The problem is that netbooks suck. And the only reason, most people buy them is to surf the web. Google is simply taking that concept to its logical conclusion. Chrome OS is the ultimate netbook. That's what people are not understanding.
Oh, I understand completely. And I agree with the way you're phrasing it now. Let me choose the highlights in this post:
Quote:
"Netbooks suck."
I agree completely.
Quote:
"Chrome OS is the ultimate netbook"
I agree with that, too.
So the ultimate conclusion is that Chrome OS is the ultimate in suckiness.
It's not a blasted thin client! It can be used when not connected to a network.
The Acer and Samsung Chromebooks have 16 GB SSDs. After the disk format, OS install, you'll have what, 13 GB? We haven't lived with 16 GB drives in laptops in what 8 years?
Yeah, I think a lot of people's data will reside in the cloud with such limited hard drive space. So, what would one do with it in such a scenario?
And here is the real battle. This is what Google is prepping for. With Microsoft moving into the Cloud, Google had to move into the OS space. Ultimately, Chrome OS is simply another way for Google to get users onto Google Apps. Just like Android was a way to preserve Google's presence in the mobile space.
That said, you will still be able to use Microsoft's cloud services from any browser. So you'll still be able to use MS Office from a Chrome laptop, if you're willing to subscribe to Office 365/Office Live.
The Acer and Samsung Chromebooks have 16 GB SSDs. After the disk format, OS install, you'll have what, 13 GB? We haven't lived with 16 GB drives in laptops in what 8 years?
Yeah, I think a lot of people's data will reside in the cloud with such limited hard drive space. So, what would one do with it in such a scenario?
Many of the same things a lot of people do with iPads now (which come with 8 GB of storage and a higher price tag), just with a more traditional laptop form factor.
Ironically, this gives a lot of credit to Steve Job's original vision of the iPhone. All apps on the web accessed through a browser.
You're trolling and you know it. If I applied the same logic to the iPad before it launched....
Tablets suck.
iPad is a tablet.
iPad will be the ultimate in suckiness.
Would you consider that to have been a fair assessment?
No. The iPad was nothing like previous tablets - and I wouldn't have even called it a tablet. Now that the iPad is out, the concept of 'tablet' has been redefined around the iPad, so the term applies today, but doesn't apply to what people meant by 'tablet' 14 months ago.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jetz
It's clear that Windows based netbooks because Windows is just too obese for a netbook.
I agree. That's why I'm comparing Real, live, honest-to-god laptops.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jetz
I don't even why I bother debating anything with you. You're clear not interested in a fair or reasonable discussion of any sort.
Sure I am. You're just unable to counter any of my arguments, so you play the 'troll' card.
Many of the same things a lot of people do with iPads now (which come with 8 GB of storage and a higher price tag), just with a more traditional laptop form factor.
Ironically, this gives a lot of credit to Steve Job's original vision of the iPhone. All apps on the web accessed through a browser.
And Apple quickly learned that that was not a very good way to to do it and that it's preferable to have applications run on the device without requiring web access.
The Acer and Samsung Chromebooks have 16 GB SSDs. After the disk format, OS install, you'll have what, 13 GB? We haven't lived with 16 GB drives in laptops in what 8 years?
Yeah, I think a lot of people's data will reside in the cloud with such limited hard drive space. So, what would one do with it in such a scenario?
*sigh* These can't be serious questions. Hat do you do when you don't have enough internal space on any computer and it's too big to store on the net? You attach a USB connected drive. Don't even try to play that you had no idea it had USB ports or access to external drives.
You guys are really scrapping the barrel now with reasons to hate a product that hasn't launched despite being no threat to Apple and a big threat to chipping away at Windows low end.
Comments
I don't know why people on here are so threatened by this.
I don't know about threatened, but certainly skeptical. This computing model is as old as computing itself. It's not some new thing. It years past, the company's name was Sun or Novell, instead of Google. It certainly works in the right environments and the right orgs. But humanity seems to prefer, need individualized, personalized computing models than cloud computer, client-server or mainframe models.
We will see if it can meet these preferences, needs.
This computing model is as old as computing itself. It's not some new thing.
It's not a blasted thin client! It can be used when not connected to a network.
That what Google is attempting to do is wrestle some goodly number of PC users from Windows to non-Widows so that Google can assure that these users use Google Services, free and paid, to satisfy Googles objectives -- to the detriment of Microsoft's objectives.
Whew!
It seems, that in order to do this, Google must supply a combination of online services and offline local apps.
In retrospect, the best time to have done this was several years ago when the XP to Vista transition stalled, then failed.
Meanwhile, it is reported, that Windows 7 is quite good -- even on older or less-powerful machines.
For sake of argument, let's say that Google needs/takes until the end of 2011 to flesh (not Flash) out its ChromeOS, Cloud Apps, Cloud Services, Local Apps, ChromeOS hardware (3rd party) offerings.
Let's assume they do this -- and do it well.
So, come enterprise budget time (Sep-Nov) 2011 they have a pretty good story to tell -- for sales in 2012.
But, what is MS going to do. Do you think they will sit back and do nothing?
Consider:
-- Windows 7 runs quite well
-- Widows Explorer is essentially a browser-like front end to Windows OS (analogous to Chrome OS)
-- Windows 7 already has all the local apps that everyone uses
-- Windows browser (IE) can already access MS or other cloud apps and services
... So, MS has this honkin' OS...
What if MS could offer Windows 7 Fat Client edition that slimmed down the OS system while still supporting the local apps that most people use.
If they so desired, MS could consolidate Windows Explorer with IE for a uniform UX -- that opened an app window in a tab.
What if they could show this in the Sep-Nov 2011 enterprise budget time frame?
Skepticism is warranted.
Sure. And nobody's betting their house on the concept. But come on. Some people are just writing off the idea because of its origins.
Setting aside Google, I think the idea of a web centric OS has merit. Maybe thin clients didn't work out in the past. But we didn't have the connectivity and the processing power we do today.
People talk about what you can't do with this machine. But how many folks here have tried to edit videos with a $300-$400 netbook. Windows on netbooks just plain sucks. It's clearly obvious that a slimmed down OS is needed in that price/performance range.
Whether Chrome OS gains traction or not, is a different story. But kudos to Google for trying.
IT NOT A REPLACEMENT FOR A TRADITIONAL COMPUTER FOR THE TRADITIONAL USER!!!
Don’t me drive up there and beat you with a chromebook on June 15th. I’m not that far away!
You won't be able to -- you'll only have an order number (or maybe a ticket)!
But, ca'mon up anyway -- you can have at me with your ChromeBook order acknowledgement -- and I'll wap you with my copy of Google Catalog.. or was it Google Shared Stuff...
Edit: Don't mess with me... I have a genuine PC/jr Chiclet Keyboard!
What if they could show this in the Sep-Nov 2011 enterprise budget time frame?
If they could, it would be great for users everywhere. The problem is that netbooks suck. And the only reason, most people buy them is to surf the web. Google is simply taking that concept to its logical conclusion. Chrome OS is the ultimate netbook. That's what people are not understanding.
If MS can come up with an optimized Windows version for netbooks, that would be amazing. It would sell really well. But I'm not holding my breath.
It occurs to me...
That what Google is attempting to do is wrestle some goodly number of PC users from Windows to non-Widows so that Google can assure that these users use Google Services, free and paid, to satisfy Googles objectives -- to the detriment of Microsoft's objectives.
Whew!
It seems, that in order to do this, Google must supply a combination of online services and offline local apps.
Yes, a competitor to the low end PC that struggles to run Windows and has no need to run Windows. Their business model is dead simple.
In retrospect, the best time to have done this was several years ago when the XP to Vista transition stalled, then failed.
That's like saying the best time for Apple to release the iPhone was a decade earlier. WebKit was ready then. HTML5 and JS wasn't ready then. Chrome OS wasn't then. The 60k CR-48 test books only came out last year.
Meanwhile, it is reported, that Windows 7 is quite good -- even on older or less-powerful machines.
It's better than Vista, but neither Windows nor Mac OS are well suited for Atom's performance level. Chrome OS is designed with Atom and ARM in mind, much the way iOS was designed with ARM in mind.
It boots in 8 seconds and apps launch immediately. Jargosta claims that boot time and apl launch times are pointless metrics because they should always be on but we both know that isn't true and thy it will reduce your resources even lore on Atom. Why you think Windows has comparable speed to Chrome on Atom just sounds like you are trying to reasons that don't exist.
It's not a blasted thin client! It can be used when not connected to a network.
Really? Says who? Google disagrees with you.
Google's FAQs for Google Apps says that you can only work offline if you have a different app like Outlook.
http://www.uah.edu/itsolutions/about/googlefaqs.pdf
Google Calendar is accessible offline if you configure it to use with a desktop client such as Outlook. "
You can continue to work offline as you do now using a client such as Outlook. Additionally, Google offers some offline capability, but please read the information relating to such functionality carefully as it may contain some limitations." (apparently, the only offline functionality involves searching your hard drive, but since your data isn't on the crapbook, that doesn't help.
Google Calendar is accessible offline if you configure it to use with a desktop client such as Outlook.
Heck, you can't even use your calendar if you don't have Internet access.
Admittedly, Google says that at some point in the future, they'll have the ability to work offline, but since that hasn't even been demonstrated, one would have to be a truly moronic CIO to authorize switching to a platform on the basis of vague promises.
Another interesting point from this same source:
Some data is scanned in order for Google to provide high-quality services such as spam filtering and indexing
Google admits that they're scanning your data.
It's better than Vista, but neither Windows nor Mac OS are well suited for Atom's performance level. Chrome OS is designed with Atom and ARM in mind, much the way iOS was designed with ARM in mind.
True, but considering that you can buy a full fledged computer for the same price or less, what's the advantage?
It boots in 8 seconds and apps launch immediately. Jargosta claims that boot time and apl launch times are pointless metrics because they should always be on
As usual, since you're losing the argument, you make up claims that no one ever said.
What I said was that if startup time is so important to you that you can let your computer sleep instead of shutting it off. But for most people, startup time is a non-issue. They hit the start button when they come in every morning and then do something else for a couple of minutes.
Not to mention, of course, that it would be truly inane for a CIO to switch his company to the crapbook merely to save a couple of minutes of startup time - considering all the extra expense, loss of security, loss of functionality, and so on that goes with the change.
but we both know that isn't true and thy it will reduce your resources even lore on Atom. Why you think Windows has comparable speed to Chrome on Atom just sounds like you are trying to reasons that don't exist.
"thy it will reduce your resources even lore on Atom"
I was going to make fun of this, but it actually makes just as much sense as most of your other posts.
Why are you still trying to compare Windows on Atom? I've shown repeatedly that you can buy a real laptop with 12-15" screen and multi GHz Athlon or Intel CPU and a few GB of RAM running Windows for the same or lower cost than the crapbook. So why would I care about how efficient CrapOS is?
It boots in 8 seconds and apps launch immediately. Jargosta claims that boot time and apl launch times are pointless metrics because they should always be on but we both know that isn't true and thy it will reduce your resources even lore on Atom. Why you think Windows has comparable speed to Chrome on Atom just sounds like you are trying to reasons that don't exist.
No hidden meaning...
Why does it take 8 seconds to boot? From what?
An iPad takes 30-50 seconds to cold boot,
An iPad takes less than a second to instant ON.
Why wouldn't the ChromeBook have similar specs?
It seems odd!
Really? Says who? Google disagrees with you.
Google's FAQs for Google Apps says that you can only work offline if you have a different app like Outlook.
http://www.uah.edu/itsolutions/about/googlefaqs.pdf
That's a sheet on Google Apps, not Chrome OS.
Google has specifically stated that Chrome OS will have offline functionality for apps like Docs, Calendar, etc.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/22772...ogle_apps.html
If they could, it would be great for users everywhere. The problem is that netbooks suck. And the only reason, most people buy them is to surf the web. Google is simply taking that concept to its logical conclusion. Chrome OS is the ultimate netbook. That's what people are not understanding.
Oh, I understand completely. And I agree with the way you're phrasing it now. Let me choose the highlights in this post:
"Netbooks suck."
I agree completely.
"Chrome OS is the ultimate netbook"
I agree with that, too.
So the ultimate conclusion is that Chrome OS is the ultimate in suckiness.
I agree 100%.
It's not a blasted thin client! It can be used when not connected to a network.
The Acer and Samsung Chromebooks have 16 GB SSDs. After the disk format, OS install, you'll have what, 13 GB? We haven't lived with 16 GB drives in laptops in what 8 years?
Yeah, I think a lot of people's data will reside in the cloud with such limited hard drive space. So, what would one do with it in such a scenario?
No hidden meaning...
Why does it take 8 seconds to boot? From what?
Cold boot. From off. Watch the demos.
Oh, I understand completely. And I agree with the way you're phrasing it now. Let me choose the highlights in this post:
I agree completely.
I agree with that, too.
So the ultimate conclusion is that Chrome OS is the ultimate in suckiness.
I agree 100%.
You're trolling and you know it. If I applied the same logic to the iPad before it launched....
Tablets suck.
iPad is a tablet.
iPad will be the ultimate in suckiness.
Would you consider that to have been a fair assessment?
It's clear that Windows based netbooks because Windows is just too obese for a netbook.
I don't even why I bother debating anything with you. You're clear not interested in a fair or reasonable discussion of any sort.
And here is the real battle. This is what Google is prepping for. With Microsoft moving into the Cloud, Google had to move into the OS space. Ultimately, Chrome OS is simply another way for Google to get users onto Google Apps. Just like Android was a way to preserve Google's presence in the mobile space.
That said, you will still be able to use Microsoft's cloud services from any browser. So you'll still be able to use MS Office from a Chrome laptop, if you're willing to subscribe to Office 365/Office Live.
The Acer and Samsung Chromebooks have 16 GB SSDs. After the disk format, OS install, you'll have what, 13 GB? We haven't lived with 16 GB drives in laptops in what 8 years?
Yeah, I think a lot of people's data will reside in the cloud with such limited hard drive space. So, what would one do with it in such a scenario?
Many of the same things a lot of people do with iPads now (which come with 8 GB of storage and a higher price tag), just with a more traditional laptop form factor.
Ironically, this gives a lot of credit to Steve Job's original vision of the iPhone. All apps on the web accessed through a browser.
You're trolling and you know it. If I applied the same logic to the iPad before it launched....
Tablets suck.
iPad is a tablet.
iPad will be the ultimate in suckiness.
Would you consider that to have been a fair assessment?
No. The iPad was nothing like previous tablets - and I wouldn't have even called it a tablet. Now that the iPad is out, the concept of 'tablet' has been redefined around the iPad, so the term applies today, but doesn't apply to what people meant by 'tablet' 14 months ago.
It's clear that Windows based netbooks because Windows is just too obese for a netbook.
I agree. That's why I'm comparing Real, live, honest-to-god laptops.
I don't even why I bother debating anything with you. You're clear not interested in a fair or reasonable discussion of any sort.
Sure I am. You're just unable to counter any of my arguments, so you play the 'troll' card.
Many of the same things a lot of people do with iPads now (which come with 8 GB of storage and a higher price tag), just with a more traditional laptop form factor.
Ironically, this gives a lot of credit to Steve Job's original vision of the iPhone. All apps on the web accessed through a browser.
And Apple quickly learned that that was not a very good way to to do it and that it's preferable to have applications run on the device without requiring web access.
The Acer and Samsung Chromebooks have 16 GB SSDs. After the disk format, OS install, you'll have what, 13 GB? We haven't lived with 16 GB drives in laptops in what 8 years?
Yeah, I think a lot of people's data will reside in the cloud with such limited hard drive space. So, what would one do with it in such a scenario?
*sigh* These can't be serious questions. Hat do you do when you don't have enough internal space on any computer and it's too big to store on the net? You attach a USB connected drive. Don't even try to play that you had no idea it had USB ports or access to external drives.
You guys are really scrapping the barrel now with reasons to hate a product that hasn't launched despite being no threat to Apple and a big threat to chipping away at Windows low end.