Google is leveraging their strengths to do what Apple is oft praised, they are removing all the complex elements that 1) make it difficult to use, and 2) make even powerful HW feel slow.
There is no way to tell if Google plans will succeed. There is just too much uncharted territory with what they are doing*— CHROME OS IS NOT THIN CLIENT — but the premise is sound.
I agree with removing complexity and bloat.
But the Google alternative, however desirable, must co-exist with the Windows/Office megalopoly -- at least for several years. To that end, whatever is on the Chrome [desktop], OS, browser or apps must be able to seamlessly ingest, process and output Office-compatible files -- whether online or offline.
If they can do this from the outset (June- September?) then I believe they have a chance at success.
There also needs to be a capability (if not an SDK) for users (enterprises) to write custom apps to satisfy special requirements -- for both online and offline use... But this can come later.
Without the capability to directly process Office files, I do not see this Google Chrome OS attaining the critical mass necessary for success.
I certainly would not like to be in the shoes of an IT executive who recommended a Chrome OS solution -- and have Google discontinue development 2 or 3 years down the road.
I certainly would not like to be in the shoes of an IT executive who recommended a Chrome OS solution -- and have Google discontinue development 2 or 3 years down the road.
What?s you?re premise that open standards web code (HTML5/CCS3/JS) could be discontinued in 2-3 years? We are not on the same wave length if you think that is possible.
Remember, this isn?t an all or nothing solution. This isn?t like having to make the arduous decision to keep using a DEC minicomputer or invest in an AS/400. Chrome OS, like the iPhone before it, will be tested to see if it fits the needs of some users in certain fields. If it works out they will invest more, if not, they won?t. If it does work out it won?t replace all, or the majority of Windows-based machines. It?s just a simple alternative for access that require hardly any client side processing. Basic data entry is one of them.
Are you really arguing that we shouldn't use any parts of HTML5 until it's completely ratified? You better step away from every modern browser until then.
No i'm simply saying they don't control that critical piece of their ecosystem anymore like they did with gears. Nice avoidance if the main part of the post for this side issue. Do I have to post as if you are a troll?
I've been experimenting with Chrome browser and Google Docs (with both Chrome and Safari browsers).
1) Online works OK, but I am concerned with, bandwidth large file upload times, storage costs, security and availability (no access to the Internet or the Service is down).
2) I don't believe that local processing is robust enough (yet) to satisfy my, or most people's, needs -- Google Docs needs the ability to directly input/output the common file formats in use today.
3) What I really did like was when the [online] service was available -- it was great to login and have all those [currently active] lfiles available and processable in one central place -- as opposed to fiddling with File Sharing or Screen Sharing.
It was real convenient -- even if a little slow due to latency and bandwidth.
Now, what if someone were to package that concept with a local server, instead of( or anlong with) a Cloud server.
Google could do it if they want to get into the hardware business -- or bundle the software with 3rd-party hardware manufacturers,
Apple could do it with slight modifications to their local consumer, prosumer and even Pro apps.
Google has the Cloud component but not the local component.
Apple has (or easily could have) the local network component -- but lacks the Cloud component.
No i'm simply saying they don't control that critical piece of their ecosystem anymore like they did with gears. Nice avoidance if the main part of the post for this side issue. Do I have to post as if you are a troll?
Implying that all parts of HTML5 is unreliable because parts are still being worked on is pushing into that area.
What’s you’re premise that open standards web code (HTML5/CCS3/JS) could be discontinued in 2-3 years? We are not on the same wave length if you think that is possible.
Remember, this isn’t an all or nothing solution. This isn’t like having to make the arduous decision to keep using a DEC minicomputer or invest in an AS/400. Chrome OS, like the iPhone before it, will be tested to see if it fits the needs of some users in certain fields. If it works out they will invest more, if not, they won’t. If it does work out it won’t replace all, or the majority of Windows-based machines. It’s just a simple alternative for access that require hardly any client side processing. Basic data entry is one of them.
No, No -- nothing to do with open standards or HTML5.
Rather, it is: does Google have the commitment to follow through.
So far Google is using words like "many" and "soon" and "stay tuned" to define what the Google Chrome OS package "can" be -- not what is.
,
Apple fans tend to be a little spoiled --Usually Apple announces a finished product, with [mostly *] complete specs, hands-on demos and/or imminent availability. I think that we must be careful not to assume that competitive announcements are as realistic as Apple announcements -- if for only the reason that Apple controls the hardware, the software, the marketing and the ecosystem
* For Wizard69
If I were an IT director, I'd have difficulty committing resources, of any significance, to such a system as Google has presented -- too many unanswered questions. Sure, I'd evaluate it for its potential -- but would not, likely, deploy based on what has been shown and promised so far.
You and I SWAGGED ChromeBook unit sales for Calendar Year 2011:
I estimated < 300,000
You estimated 4-5 million
If Google can deliver a robust-enough system to install 2 million by Dec 31, 2011 -- I believe they have a chance going forward -- that's ~= 300,000 per month.
It wouldn?t be great for them, which is why they are pushing this as a cheap alternative to companies and schools leasing considerably more expensive HW for mostly simple tasks. Part of the lease fee is to get more access to Google Docs.
Outside of that, the cost of 12? notebook with a full-sized keyboard and oversized multitouch trackpad for $349 that can launch into a browser in 8 seconds is fast and convenient. No 3rd-party browser can even start in that time frame on such an inexpensive device. THIS IS NOT THE MACHINE FOR ANY OF US ON THIS SITE.
But I digress, even if a customer isn?t using Google Docs they would still be using Google for search and likely Google for email. I?d think this would be more than enough for Google to find it worthwhile.
I don't disagree on the value proposition for certain users. I'm just pretty sure Google is mainly focused on extending use of their services and servers. I don't think they get that much out of Google being the default search, since they pretty much already get that on most machines.
Quote:
Now consider their Android system. vendors and carriers can completely trash anything relating to Google on that system. Google gets nothing. Google only profits if their default services are used or if their additional services are purchased. So the same argument permits between the two: What does Google get out of it?
Well, given the recent revelations arising out of the Skyhook case, I don't think we can say anymore that vendors and carriers are actually free to trash the system-- at least not in a way that deprecates Google services. We now know that Google has the power to prevent handsets from shipping if the manufacturer changes things up in a way that materially affects Google's revenue streams. That pretty much supports the idea that Google isn't content to just hope folks will use some of their stuff-- they're willing to play hardball to make sure they do.
I'll wager we can expect the same thing from anyone bringing a Chromebook to market-- any effort to decouple from the mothership will be dealt with harshly.
Quote:
Again, this is not an OS for anyone on this site, nor likely for anyone we know. We just don?t fit the demographic. At the same time writing it off as a foolish idea because we?re now at war with Google (We?ve always been at war with Google) or because we can?t see how WebKit can be used as a UI despite the clear evidence to the contrary isn?t being objective.
Again, I'm not arguing against the use case to be made for certain users, or the technical feasibility of using Chrome OS offline. I'm arguing that Google isn't going to leave it to chance when it comes to leveraging their OS to steer people to their servers. Again, that's how they make their money, there is absolutely no reason for them not to.
Quote:
Google is leveraging their strengths to do what Apple is oft praised, they are removing all the complex elements that 1) make it difficult to use, and 2) make even powerful HW feel slow.
But the reason they're doing that is what I'm talking about. Apple works to make simple hardware and easy to use software because they believe that provides the best user experience and gives them a competitive advantage. Google does that because it removes barriers between the user and Google's servers. So they can get more info about you. To sell.
Maybe I'm just old fashioned, but the motivation matters to me. I think it has long term results in terms of how the hardware and software actually work. I would prefer to give my business to the company that is invested in making the best possible experience for me in order to gain competitive advantage, not the company that is interested in getting the most information possible out of me, and for whom making good software is simply a means to that end. Because I can't be sure about what "good" ultimately means, to Google. I know exactly what it means to Apple.
Quote:
There is no way to tell if Google plans will succeed. There is just too much uncharted territory with what they are doing*? CHROME OS IS NOT THIN CLIENT ? but the premise is sound.
I don't disagree with any one point so there is no point in me quoting your reply. Although I do think I'm looking at this lightweight OS much differently than most others on this site. To me this feels very circa 2009 when I was getting demure for saying that an Apple tablet wouldn't work with Mac OS.
I guess I have years vested in this concept. Not in Chrome OS, but the idea that a lightweight OS that is designed to access the web brilliantly and will work on inexpensive PCs and appliances the world round would finally rise to take a chunk of Windows marketshare. Around here it's oft believed that Mac OS will ruse up and crush Windows, but that means Apple has to license their OS or that Apple has to outsell in units every other Windows-based PC vendor. That's unrealistic.
Note that Chrome OS can be compiled for ARM or Atom and their apps will run the same on each. Note the AppleTV is only $99. Now imagine all those impoverished countries and people in the world that would love to have some basic connection to the inherent and world at large in the privacy of gher home thy we were okay with dial up and layer slow DSL/Cable years ago. That $99 box coupled with a cheap CRT is more affordable than anything else that run as fast with Windows. Stepping stones. Millions of stepping stones that don't affect MS' short term bottom line but eat away at the bottom end of their market share.
I don't disagree with any one point so there is no point in me quoting your reply. Although I do think I'm looking at this lightweight OS much differently than most others on this site. To me this feels very circa 2009 when I was getting demure for saying that an Apple tablet wouldn't work with Mac OS.
I guess I have years vested in this concept. Not in Chrome OS, but the idea that a lightweight OS that is designed to access the web brilliantly and will work on inexpensive PCs and appliances the world round would finally rise to take a chunk of Windows marketshare. Around here it's oft believed that Mac OS will ruse up and crush Windows, but that means Apple has to license their OS or that Apple has to outsell in units every other Windows-based PC vendor. That's unrealistic.
Note that Chrome OS can be compiled for ARM or Atom and their apps will run the same on each. Note the AppleTV is only $99. Now imagine all those impoverished countries and people in the world that would love to have some basic connection to the inherent and world at large in the privacy of gher home thy we were okay with dial up and layer slow DSL/Cable years ago. That $99 box coupled with a cheap CRT is more affordable than anything else that run as fast with Windows. Stepping stones. Millions of stepping stones that don't affect MS' short term bottom line but eat away at the bottom end of their market share.
Nothing wrong with what you say.
Though, idealistically why do you need the web. The lightweight OS and apps can run on the same $99 box.
Take that $99 box and activate the USB port add iWork apps $30 and less than 200 MB SDD space and you've got a standalone powerhouse that can read and process Office files.
Implying that all parts of HTML5 is unreliable because parts are still being worked on is pushing into that area.
The point of that comment was that the standard is slow moving and about to enter a period of even slower evolution as they try to get the spec ready for recommendation in 2014.
This is a key aspect for the success of ChromeOS and Google will either stick with the spec and not be able to tailor caching to its specific needs or introduce non-compliant extensions to their version app caching and catch heat for it and not be assured that those extension end up in the next iteration of the spec.
The other point is that by adopting HTML5 over gears is that they cost themselves a good year in terms of evolving their offline capabilities. Wherever they are in June 2011 they probably could have reached sometime in 2010. This isn't too critical as long as caching works better than it did with gears.
What?s you?re premise that open standards web code (HTML5/CCS3/JS) could be discontinued in 2-3 years? We are not on the same wave length if you think that is possible.
You didn't waste a few months of your work life in Google Wave. This isn't about HTML5/CSS3/JS being discontinued but a Google product line that is largely duplicative with Android.
Quote:
Remember, this isn?t an all or nothing solution. This isn?t like having to make the arduous decision to keep using a DEC minicomputer or invest in an AS/400. Chrome OS, like the iPhone before it, will be tested to see if it fits the needs of some users in certain fields. If it works out they will invest more, if not, they won?t. If it does work out it won?t replace all, or the majority of Windows-based machines. It?s just a simple alternative for access that require hardly any client side processing. Basic data entry is one of them.
That cloud based apps will be part of the enterprise is a given. That there will be more lightweight clients in the future is a given.
That enterprise or even education will massively adopt ChromeOS is a completely different question and being skeptical of that claim doesn't imply we don't get it. It just means we're not too sure about either Google's execution of the concept or it's long term commitment to the platform should it encounter the same sorts of issue as Wave.
On the enterprise front at most you'll see is a few scattered small scale trials here and there this year. Google is missing too many capabilities to warrant anything more...just like iOS was missing lots of enterprise capabilities in the beginning.
The key difference is that success of iOS in the enterprise is far more important to Apple (despite claims to the contrary) than the success of ChomeOS is to Google at all unless you feel that Android is in danger of collapse. Unless Oracle is going to pull a rabbit out of its hat that is highly unlikely.
It wouldn?t be great for them, which is why they are pushing this as a cheap alternative to companies and schools leasing considerably more expensive HW for mostly simple tasks. Part of the lease fee is to get more access to Google Docs.
I dunno...watching kids with their laptops I don't believe that the use cases are as limited as Chromebook proponents claim. Or let me rephrase that better...if all you have are chromebooks in the classroom you've just hobbled your best and brightest with the lowest common denominator.
Quote:
Outside of that, the cost of 12? notebook with a full-sized keyboard and oversized multitouch trackpad for $349 that can launch into a browser in 8 seconds is fast and convenient. No 3rd-party browser can even start in that time frame on such an inexpensive device. THIS IS NOT THE MACHINE FOR ANY OF US ON THIS SITE.
Because we don't want instant on? Please. However, this user requirement can be met with something like Splashtop or deep sleep modes like on the MBA that lasts 30 days.
Not sure why folks keep touting boot time as that key a metric as opposed to how quickly you can resume work when you flip open the lid.
Quote:
But I digress, even if a customer isn?t using Google Docs they would still be using Google for search and likely Google for email. I?d think this would be more than enough for Google to find it worthwhile.
Now consider their Android system. vendors and carriers can completely trash anything relating to Google on that system. Google gets nothing. Google only profits if their default services are used or if their additional services are purchased. So the same argument permits between the two: What does Google get out of it?
Given the Skyhook fiasco this is a questionable assertion.
Quote:
Again, this is not an OS for anyone on this site, nor likely for anyone we know. We just don?t fit the demographic. At the same time writing it off as a foolish idea because we?re now at war with Google (We?ve always been at war with Google) or because we can?t see how WebKit can be used as a UI despite the clear evidence to the contrary isn?t being objective.
That whole "this isn't an OS for anyone here" thing has always struck me as a questionable assertion even when I say it. Name one thing in that category that actually had widespread appeal?
No, iOS isn't a candidate...it's useful for many folks or it wouldn't be successful. Folks that said iOS wasn't for them were wrong.
You keep claiming objectivity while being hugely defensive and accusing folks of lying or shortsightedness. Coupled with ignoring inconvenient limitations of ChomeOS you're not being objective at all.
Quote:
Google is leveraging their strengths to do what Apple is oft praised, they are removing all the complex elements that 1) make it difficult to use, and 2) make even powerful HW feel slow.
I wouldn't call win7 on a netbook teh snappy but it's not slow either. Nor would I call win7 all that hard to use. Meh, this whole thing strikes me as a lot of latent microsoft bashing more than anything to do with Apple.
Something not achievable with any Windows netbook or cheap notebook you keep touting as a superior option for any and all needs. The quick boot and instant on go right to the heart of the OS being optimized for the HW (but since you have disallowed iOS as a prime example of such a feat I guess I can mention that again of how this is a goo thing over Windows).
Quote:
You keep claiming objectivity while being hugely defensive and accusing folks of lying or shortsightedness. Coupled with ignoring inconvenient limitations of ChomeOS you're not being objective at all.
I called you a liar for making a statement as fact despite knowing (or ignoring) that it was a false claim. Maybe it was unintentional and you just aren't following the thread closely because I've clearly mentioned the limitations of Chrome OS many, many, many times in this thread.
This hardly leaves you as an unbiased and objective observer.
Quote:
Not in Chrome OS, but the idea that a lightweight OS that is designed to access the web brilliantly and will work on inexpensive PCs and appliances the world round would finally rise to take a chunk of Windows marketshare.
Who the cares about taking a chunk of Windows marketshare? Zealots.
Quote:
Around here it's oft believed that Mac OS will ruse up and crush Windows,
Really? Who the hell believes that?
Quote:
but that means Apple has to license their OS or that Apple has to outsell in units every other Windows-based PC vendor. That's unrealistic.
Which is why most sane mac fans don't give a shit about Windows market share. So long as OSX maintains a healthy share to support the developer base it is completely immaterial.
Quote:
Note that Chrome OS can be compiled for ARM or Atom and their apps will run the same on each. Note the AppleTV is only $99. Now imagine all those impoverished countries and people in the world that would love to have some basic connection to the inherent and world at large in the privacy of gher home thy we were okay with dial up and layer slow DSL/Cable years ago. That $99 box coupled with a cheap CRT is more affordable than anything else that run as fast with Windows. Stepping stones. Millions of stepping stones that don't affect MS' short term bottom line but eat away at the bottom end of their market share.
1) $99 + CRT is too expensive for impoverished countries.
2) No one really gives a shit about MS market share except MS haters and MS fanbois.
3) You're treating folks who disagree with the ChomeOS jihad against MS marketshare as heretics who are either lying or blind.
Hello...AppleInsider and not WeHateMSInsider. Wrong crusade. Being FOR Apple doesn't always imply being AGAINST Microsoft. If anything Google is Microsoft's spiritual successor so why anyone here cares that Google is eating Microsoft's lunch is beyond me.
After WebM, Flash and Skyhook trading MS dominance for Google dominance strikes me as a zero or even negative trade and frankly I hope WP7 takes a big assed chunk from Android. Microsoft screwed OEMs. Google far more likely to screw you.
Something not achievable with any Windows netbook or cheap notebook you keep touting as a superior option for any and all needs.
Should I call you a liar here for ignoring the Win7 netbooks with Instant On? I DID mention Splashtop right? Samsung has one too. Is it a requirement that it boots into Win7 if all you wanted was email and a browser?
Should I call you a liar for ignoring waking from sleep?
Quote:
The quick boot and instant on go right to the heart of the OS being optimized for the HW (but since you have disallowed iOS as a prime example of such a feat I guess I can mention that again of how this is a goo thing over Windows).
iOS doesn't have a quick boot. Reboot your iPhone and see. I'll wait...it takes a while.
Again, who gives a shit about boot time? OSX boots faster than Win7 but it's the instant on from sleep and 30 day standby time that's the killer capability on the MBA.
If you can do that it's a completely solved problem that Win7 will get around to copying.
Quote:
I called you a liar for making a statement as fact despite knowing (or ignoring) that it was a false claim. Maybe it was unintentional and you just aren't following the thread closely because I've clearly mentioned the limitations of Chrome OS many, many, many times in this thread.
You called me a liar for making a statement that I later supported and you ignored the support. My point wasn't that offline apps was impossible but that the design strategy for app development differs. Why design your ChromeOS app to run natively if the expectation is that the platform is centered around ubiquitous high-speed net access?
If you code to the platforms natural strengths then for complex apps you will get high performance at the expense of bandwidth. The downside is poor offline behavior that appcache cannot solve. I gave you examples and you STILL persist in claiming I'm lying about something even after I clarified and gave examples. Unless you refute (or even acknowledge) those examples you can't call it a "false claim". Even then I'm not a "liar" unless I already knew those examples are wrong. I'm simply wrong.
Whatever. You want to call me a liar, I'll simply think you're an asshat. Fair trade I guess.
I've been experimenting with Chrome browser and Google Docs (with both Chrome and Safari browsers).
1) Online works OK, but I am concerned with, bandwidth large file upload times, storage costs, security and availability (no access to the Internet or the Service is down).
2) I don't believe that local processing is robust enough (yet) to satisfy my, or most people's, needs -- Google Docs needs the ability to directly input/output the common file formats in use today.
3) What I really did like was when the [online] service was available -- it was great to login and have all those [currently active] lfiles available and processable in one central place -- as opposed to fiddling with File Sharing or Screen Sharing.
I've done some experimenting myself. My basic conclusion is that this thing isn't fully baked yet.
Oddly, I meant to comment on a couple of these posts -- but got distracted because my temperature was rising at the response by others to some of my posts.
The Angry Birds example in your first (above) is brilliant -- it is concise and easy to understand.
If the OS/Apps cannot save the scores and status (maintain the state) of your usage for a simple game -- how can one assume that it will do so across critical applications -- especially those involving collaboration of several users.
I remember seeing in the slides of Google's Chrome OS preso -- that they touted it was "stateless" -- and thinking at the time that this was an odd thing to tout as an advantage. How could the system maintain sync of a single user's offline and online updates to a file if it didn't maintain some sort of "state" -- let alone the case of several users collaborating.
When I posted questions related to this, I got responses that iOS or OS X don't do this and therefore it was unreasonable to expect Chrome OS to do it -- or somesuch.
In your other posts, I was (and still am) unsure of your reference to "indexed DB". I am new to Chrome and Google Docs and not familiar with its structure/implementation. I made a mental note to research "indexed DB" in Google's usage.
But, at that time, my dander was up. and I went back to fiddling with the Chrome browser and Google Docks to more succinctly document my concerns at what I saw as deficiencies.
I don't believe anyone responded directly or refuted these deficiencies.
For sake of readability the post is shown below.
And I still need to research Googles use of "indexed DB" and "Stateless: operation.
Best,
Dick
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
In an effort to be objective, I have done some further experimenting with Chrome Browser on Macs.
Here are some results:
1) I was able to get Angry Birds to run, kinda' -- the default is "HD" and after a delay, the music starts playing, but the light blue screen remains. If you switch to SD, the AB startup screen appears and the app loads and plays in a very small window within the Chrome browser window. Play feels sluggish, though. It feels like something is dampening my gestures and taps -- don't know if this the Chrome UI layer or if the app is downsized for the expected Chrome hardware.
I have the AB Mac app (57 MB size) -- it runs full-screen and performs as expected.
2) I also installed Plants and Zombies. It loaded and ran, in a larger window within the Chrome window. It too, seemed sluggish when compared to the app running on the iPad.
3) On the Mac, the Chrome browser app is 100.7 MB vs Safari at 57.1 MB -- That's almost double, and it's just a browser. I wonder why?
4) Angry Birds, once loaded, worked with the Internet unavailable. Plants and Zombies would not!
5) After reconnecting to the Internet, Plants and Zombies still would not run, even after refreshing Chrome, I could not resume P&Z until I accessed the Internet through another tab. This appears to be a miscommunication between Chrome and the app -- how to determine if the Internet is available.
6) I also installed the BBC Good Food Recipes app -- When disconnected from the Internet:
-- sometimes it would run fine
-- other times it would bring up a "page not available" message within the app
-- still other times it would open a new tab with a 404 error - apparently linking to another web page
7) I played around with the apps at docs.google.com -- some pleasant surprises and disappointments
8) GoogleDocs help docs are sketchy at best -- or non-existant when the Internet is unavailable.
9) I tried to open a blank Document file and drag and drop a local .doc file in to it. This did not work. I had to Open the file with Pages, Word, etc. and copy/paste from it to the Google Document file -- 2 extra steps.
10) Oddly, I was able to drag and drop an image file directly into a Google Document file.
11) I could not drag that same image into a Google Drawing file -- it opened a new Google Browser tab and displayed the URL of the local file, e.g. file://... In the Drawing file, I clicked the Image icon and was presented with several options. One way was to select an already uploaded image. Another way was to open an image URL. I tried the file:// URL, but it would only accept http or https URLS. Obviously the Internet had to be connected to include images in the Drawing file.
12) Each time I tried something that the Google browser didn't like or a specific Google Docs app couldn't handle -- it would open another browser tab to display, say, the local image that it couldn't drag and drop.
13) Sometimes, in some Google Docs apps, you could copy from the new tab into the Google Docs app -- other times you couodn't.
14) Very quickly the Google browser's tab bar became loaded with tiny tabs containing these things that it couldn't handle -- to the point that you couldn't tell what was in the tab without mousig over it or opening it.
15) I was surprised by the robustness of the drawing program -- though it felt sluggish compared to a local app.
16) I didn't check it but there appears to be an humongous amount of packet request/responses as well as an humongous amount of data exchange going on between the local device and the Internet using Google apps. They appear to be neither fish nor fowl -- rather, they attempt to bridge the gap between local and online. I don't believe they have succeeded.
All-in-all it was a very mixed bag best described as: some are some, and some are not!
I found that if you wanted to do anything worthwhile -- you pretty much were expected to be connected to the Internet.
Google claims that, paraphrased: "Many apps will work offline".
But they don't quantify "many" nor do they attempt to define the types of things you can do offline.
It is very interesting, to me, that Google's Flagship apps do not perform consistently, or at all -- when offline.
I found the entire experience unsettling and confusing -- and I am not technically challenged.
As it stands in today's world, I suspect that a Chrome OS-ChromeBook solution would work in a very limited set of use patterns, with very specific apps and activities -- if the Internet is available.
But, anyone who has any rudimentary experience would be put off by the lack (or inconsistency) of features such as copy/paste and drag and drop. They would be fighting the system!
For an enterprise or education IT department there may be some value to embracing the Chrome OS solution for some tasks and activities -- but I don't believe it is robust enough to wholesale replace PCs within an establishment with Chrome OS and Chrome Computers.
If the latter is true, then the individual establishment must evaluate if there's enough benefit in add another, incompatibility to the mix of IT offerings, training and support,
It is not "The Devil We Know" vs "The Devil We Don't Know" -- rather it is "The Devil We Know" vs "The Devil We Don't Know" plus "The Devil We Know".
If the OS/Apps cannot save the scores and status (maintain the state) of your usage for a simple game -- how can one assume that it will do so across critical applications -- especially those involving collaboration of several users.
I remember seeing in the slides of Google's Chrome OS preso -- that they touted it was "stateless" -- and thinking at the time that this was an odd thing to tout as an advantage. How could the system maintain sync of a single user's offline and online updates to a file if it didn't maintain some sort of "state" -- let alone the case of several users collaborating.
When I posted questions related to this, I got responses that iOS or OS X don't do this and therefore it was unreasonable to expect Chrome OS to do it -- or somesuch.
Actually, iOS and OS X do it quite well. If you enable iDisk and set it to mirror on your device, you have access to your files when you're not connected to the Internet. You can open, read, print, modify, and save your files without an internet connection. If you modify them, they're automatically synced as soon as you connect.
It's not perfect. For example, if you have two computers linked to the same iDisk and both of them are disconnected and you make changes to both files, then you will lose one set of changes. But that's understandable - and something you just have to keep in mind.
For the majority of users, it's seamless and transparent. You work on the files exactly as you do with your desktop computer and everything is automatic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Firefly7475
I've done some experimenting myself. My basic conclusion is that this thing isn't fully baked yet.
Exactly. It might conceivably grow into something useful (if Google doesn't get bored with it and drop it in favor of some other way to steal your data first), but all these people bragging about how they're going to sell so many million of them are missing the point. It's nowhere near ready for corporate IT people (who are, by and large, very conservative because their duties require it) to start buying them by the millions.
Comments
Google is leveraging their strengths to do what Apple is oft praised, they are removing all the complex elements that 1) make it difficult to use, and 2) make even powerful HW feel slow.
There is no way to tell if Google plans will succeed. There is just too much uncharted territory with what they are doing*— CHROME OS IS NOT THIN CLIENT — but the premise is sound.
I agree with removing complexity and bloat.
But the Google alternative, however desirable, must co-exist with the Windows/Office megalopoly -- at least for several years. To that end, whatever is on the Chrome [desktop], OS, browser or apps must be able to seamlessly ingest, process and output Office-compatible files -- whether online or offline.
If they can do this from the outset (June- September?) then I believe they have a chance at success.
There also needs to be a capability (if not an SDK) for users (enterprises) to write custom apps to satisfy special requirements -- for both online and offline use... But this can come later.
Without the capability to directly process Office files, I do not see this Google Chrome OS attaining the critical mass necessary for success.
I certainly would not like to be in the shoes of an IT executive who recommended a Chrome OS solution -- and have Google discontinue development 2 or 3 years down the road.
I certainly would not like to be in the shoes of an IT executive who recommended a Chrome OS solution -- and have Google discontinue development 2 or 3 years down the road.
What?s you?re premise that open standards web code (HTML5/CCS3/JS) could be discontinued in 2-3 years? We are not on the same wave length if you think that is possible.
Remember, this isn?t an all or nothing solution. This isn?t like having to make the arduous decision to keep using a DEC minicomputer or invest in an AS/400. Chrome OS, like the iPhone before it, will be tested to see if it fits the needs of some users in certain fields. If it works out they will invest more, if not, they won?t. If it does work out it won?t replace all, or the majority of Windows-based machines. It?s just a simple alternative for access that require hardly any client side processing. Basic data entry is one of them.
Are you really arguing that we shouldn't use any parts of HTML5 until it's completely ratified?
No i'm simply saying they don't control that critical piece of their ecosystem anymore like they did with gears. Nice avoidance if the main part of the post for this side issue. Do I have to post as if you are a troll?
I've been experimenting with Chrome browser and Google Docs (with both Chrome and Safari browsers).
1) Online works OK, but I am concerned with, bandwidth large file upload times, storage costs, security and availability (no access to the Internet or the Service is down).
2) I don't believe that local processing is robust enough (yet) to satisfy my, or most people's, needs -- Google Docs needs the ability to directly input/output the common file formats in use today.
3) What I really did like was when the [online] service was available -- it was great to login and have all those [currently active] lfiles available and processable in one central place -- as opposed to fiddling with File Sharing or Screen Sharing.
It was real convenient -- even if a little slow due to latency and bandwidth.
Now, what if someone were to package that concept with a local server, instead of( or anlong with) a Cloud server.
Google could do it if they want to get into the hardware business -- or bundle the software with 3rd-party hardware manufacturers,
Apple could do it with slight modifications to their local consumer, prosumer and even Pro apps.
Google has the Cloud component but not the local component.
Apple has (or easily could have) the local network component -- but lacks the Cloud component.
Hmmmm....
No i'm simply saying they don't control that critical piece of their ecosystem anymore like they did with gears. Nice avoidance if the main part of the post for this side issue. Do I have to post as if you are a troll?
Implying that all parts of HTML5 is unreliable because parts are still being worked on is pushing into that area.
What’s you’re premise that open standards web code (HTML5/CCS3/JS) could be discontinued in 2-3 years? We are not on the same wave length if you think that is possible.
Remember, this isn’t an all or nothing solution. This isn’t like having to make the arduous decision to keep using a DEC minicomputer or invest in an AS/400. Chrome OS, like the iPhone before it, will be tested to see if it fits the needs of some users in certain fields. If it works out they will invest more, if not, they won’t. If it does work out it won’t replace all, or the majority of Windows-based machines. It’s just a simple alternative for access that require hardly any client side processing. Basic data entry is one of them.
No, No -- nothing to do with open standards or HTML5.
Rather, it is: does Google have the commitment to follow through.
So far Google is using words like "many" and "soon" and "stay tuned" to define what the Google Chrome OS package "can" be -- not what is.
,
Apple fans tend to be a little spoiled --Usually Apple announces a finished product, with [mostly *] complete specs, hands-on demos and/or imminent availability. I think that we must be careful not to assume that competitive announcements are as realistic as Apple announcements -- if for only the reason that Apple controls the hardware, the software, the marketing and the ecosystem
* For Wizard69
If I were an IT director, I'd have difficulty committing resources, of any significance, to such a system as Google has presented -- too many unanswered questions. Sure, I'd evaluate it for its potential -- but would not, likely, deploy based on what has been shown and promised so far.
You and I SWAGGED ChromeBook unit sales for Calendar Year 2011:
I estimated < 300,000
You estimated 4-5 million
If Google can deliver a robust-enough system to install 2 million by Dec 31, 2011 -- I believe they have a chance going forward -- that's ~= 300,000 per month.
It wouldn?t be great for them, which is why they are pushing this as a cheap alternative to companies and schools leasing considerably more expensive HW for mostly simple tasks. Part of the lease fee is to get more access to Google Docs.
Outside of that, the cost of 12? notebook with a full-sized keyboard and oversized multitouch trackpad for $349 that can launch into a browser in 8 seconds is fast and convenient. No 3rd-party browser can even start in that time frame on such an inexpensive device. THIS IS NOT THE MACHINE FOR ANY OF US ON THIS SITE.
But I digress, even if a customer isn?t using Google Docs they would still be using Google for search and likely Google for email. I?d think this would be more than enough for Google to find it worthwhile.
I don't disagree on the value proposition for certain users. I'm just pretty sure Google is mainly focused on extending use of their services and servers. I don't think they get that much out of Google being the default search, since they pretty much already get that on most machines.
Now consider their Android system. vendors and carriers can completely trash anything relating to Google on that system. Google gets nothing. Google only profits if their default services are used or if their additional services are purchased. So the same argument permits between the two: What does Google get out of it?
Well, given the recent revelations arising out of the Skyhook case, I don't think we can say anymore that vendors and carriers are actually free to trash the system-- at least not in a way that deprecates Google services. We now know that Google has the power to prevent handsets from shipping if the manufacturer changes things up in a way that materially affects Google's revenue streams. That pretty much supports the idea that Google isn't content to just hope folks will use some of their stuff-- they're willing to play hardball to make sure they do.
I'll wager we can expect the same thing from anyone bringing a Chromebook to market-- any effort to decouple from the mothership will be dealt with harshly.
Again, this is not an OS for anyone on this site, nor likely for anyone we know. We just don?t fit the demographic. At the same time writing it off as a foolish idea because we?re now at war with Google (We?ve always been at war with Google) or because we can?t see how WebKit can be used as a UI despite the clear evidence to the contrary isn?t being objective.
Again, I'm not arguing against the use case to be made for certain users, or the technical feasibility of using Chrome OS offline. I'm arguing that Google isn't going to leave it to chance when it comes to leveraging their OS to steer people to their servers. Again, that's how they make their money, there is absolutely no reason for them not to.
Google is leveraging their strengths to do what Apple is oft praised, they are removing all the complex elements that 1) make it difficult to use, and 2) make even powerful HW feel slow.
But the reason they're doing that is what I'm talking about. Apple works to make simple hardware and easy to use software because they believe that provides the best user experience and gives them a competitive advantage. Google does that because it removes barriers between the user and Google's servers. So they can get more info about you. To sell.
Maybe I'm just old fashioned, but the motivation matters to me. I think it has long term results in terms of how the hardware and software actually work. I would prefer to give my business to the company that is invested in making the best possible experience for me in order to gain competitive advantage, not the company that is interested in getting the most information possible out of me, and for whom making good software is simply a means to that end. Because I can't be sure about what "good" ultimately means, to Google. I know exactly what it means to Apple.
There is no way to tell if Google plans will succeed. There is just too much uncharted territory with what they are doing*? CHROME OS IS NOT THIN CLIENT ? but the premise is sound.
For its intended purpose, sure.
I don't disagree with any one point so there is no point in me quoting your reply. Although I do think I'm looking at this lightweight OS much differently than most others on this site. To me this feels very circa 2009 when I was getting demure for saying that an Apple tablet wouldn't work with Mac OS.
I guess I have years vested in this concept. Not in Chrome OS, but the idea that a lightweight OS that is designed to access the web brilliantly and will work on inexpensive PCs and appliances the world round would finally rise to take a chunk of Windows marketshare. Around here it's oft believed that Mac OS will ruse up and crush Windows, but that means Apple has to license their OS or that Apple has to outsell in units every other Windows-based PC vendor. That's unrealistic.
Note that Chrome OS can be compiled for ARM or Atom and their apps will run the same on each. Note the AppleTV is only $99. Now imagine all those impoverished countries and people in the world that would love to have some basic connection to the inherent and world at large in the privacy of gher home thy we were okay with dial up and layer slow DSL/Cable years ago. That $99 box coupled with a cheap CRT is more affordable than anything else that run as fast with Windows. Stepping stones. Millions of stepping stones that don't affect MS' short term bottom line but eat away at the bottom end of their market share.
@ Addabox,
I don't disagree with any one point so there is no point in me quoting your reply. Although I do think I'm looking at this lightweight OS much differently than most others on this site. To me this feels very circa 2009 when I was getting demure for saying that an Apple tablet wouldn't work with Mac OS.
I guess I have years vested in this concept. Not in Chrome OS, but the idea that a lightweight OS that is designed to access the web brilliantly and will work on inexpensive PCs and appliances the world round would finally rise to take a chunk of Windows marketshare. Around here it's oft believed that Mac OS will ruse up and crush Windows, but that means Apple has to license their OS or that Apple has to outsell in units every other Windows-based PC vendor. That's unrealistic.
Note that Chrome OS can be compiled for ARM or Atom and their apps will run the same on each. Note the AppleTV is only $99. Now imagine all those impoverished countries and people in the world that would love to have some basic connection to the inherent and world at large in the privacy of gher home thy we were okay with dial up and layer slow DSL/Cable years ago. That $99 box coupled with a cheap CRT is more affordable than anything else that run as fast with Windows. Stepping stones. Millions of stepping stones that don't affect MS' short term bottom line but eat away at the bottom end of their market share.
Nothing wrong with what you say.
Though, idealistically why do you need the web. The lightweight OS and apps can run on the same $99 box.
Take that $99 box and activate the USB port add iWork apps $30 and less than 200 MB SDD space and you've got a standalone powerhouse that can read and process Office files.
You can do the internet thing at your option.
Implying that all parts of HTML5 is unreliable because parts are still being worked on is pushing into that area.
The point of that comment was that the standard is slow moving and about to enter a period of even slower evolution as they try to get the spec ready for recommendation in 2014.
This is a key aspect for the success of ChromeOS and Google will either stick with the spec and not be able to tailor caching to its specific needs or introduce non-compliant extensions to their version app caching and catch heat for it and not be assured that those extension end up in the next iteration of the spec.
The other point is that by adopting HTML5 over gears is that they cost themselves a good year in terms of evolving their offline capabilities. Wherever they are in June 2011 they probably could have reached sometime in 2010. This isn't too critical as long as caching works better than it did with gears.
What?s you?re premise that open standards web code (HTML5/CCS3/JS) could be discontinued in 2-3 years? We are not on the same wave length if you think that is possible.
You didn't waste a few months of your work life in Google Wave. This isn't about HTML5/CSS3/JS being discontinued but a Google product line that is largely duplicative with Android.
Remember, this isn?t an all or nothing solution. This isn?t like having to make the arduous decision to keep using a DEC minicomputer or invest in an AS/400. Chrome OS, like the iPhone before it, will be tested to see if it fits the needs of some users in certain fields. If it works out they will invest more, if not, they won?t. If it does work out it won?t replace all, or the majority of Windows-based machines. It?s just a simple alternative for access that require hardly any client side processing. Basic data entry is one of them.
That cloud based apps will be part of the enterprise is a given. That there will be more lightweight clients in the future is a given.
That enterprise or even education will massively adopt ChromeOS is a completely different question and being skeptical of that claim doesn't imply we don't get it. It just means we're not too sure about either Google's execution of the concept or it's long term commitment to the platform should it encounter the same sorts of issue as Wave.
On the enterprise front at most you'll see is a few scattered small scale trials here and there this year. Google is missing too many capabilities to warrant anything more...just like iOS was missing lots of enterprise capabilities in the beginning.
The key difference is that success of iOS in the enterprise is far more important to Apple (despite claims to the contrary) than the success of ChomeOS is to Google at all unless you feel that Android is in danger of collapse. Unless Oracle is going to pull a rabbit out of its hat that is highly unlikely.
It wouldn?t be great for them, which is why they are pushing this as a cheap alternative to companies and schools leasing considerably more expensive HW for mostly simple tasks. Part of the lease fee is to get more access to Google Docs.
I dunno...watching kids with their laptops I don't believe that the use cases are as limited as Chromebook proponents claim. Or let me rephrase that better...if all you have are chromebooks in the classroom you've just hobbled your best and brightest with the lowest common denominator.
Outside of that, the cost of 12? notebook with a full-sized keyboard and oversized multitouch trackpad for $349 that can launch into a browser in 8 seconds is fast and convenient. No 3rd-party browser can even start in that time frame on such an inexpensive device. THIS IS NOT THE MACHINE FOR ANY OF US ON THIS SITE.
Because we don't want instant on? Please. However, this user requirement can be met with something like Splashtop or deep sleep modes like on the MBA that lasts 30 days.
Not sure why folks keep touting boot time as that key a metric as opposed to how quickly you can resume work when you flip open the lid.
But I digress, even if a customer isn?t using Google Docs they would still be using Google for search and likely Google for email. I?d think this would be more than enough for Google to find it worthwhile.
Now consider their Android system. vendors and carriers can completely trash anything relating to Google on that system. Google gets nothing. Google only profits if their default services are used or if their additional services are purchased. So the same argument permits between the two: What does Google get out of it?
Given the Skyhook fiasco this is a questionable assertion.
Again, this is not an OS for anyone on this site, nor likely for anyone we know. We just don?t fit the demographic. At the same time writing it off as a foolish idea because we?re now at war with Google (We?ve always been at war with Google) or because we can?t see how WebKit can be used as a UI despite the clear evidence to the contrary isn?t being objective.
That whole "this isn't an OS for anyone here" thing has always struck me as a questionable assertion even when I say it. Name one thing in that category that actually had widespread appeal?
No, iOS isn't a candidate...it's useful for many folks or it wouldn't be successful. Folks that said iOS wasn't for them were wrong.
You keep claiming objectivity while being hugely defensive and accusing folks of lying or shortsightedness. Coupled with ignoring inconvenient limitations of ChomeOS you're not being objective at all.
Google is leveraging their strengths to do what Apple is oft praised, they are removing all the complex elements that 1) make it difficult to use, and 2) make even powerful HW feel slow.
I wouldn't call win7 on a netbook teh snappy but it's not slow either. Nor would I call win7 all that hard to use. Meh, this whole thing strikes me as a lot of latent microsoft bashing more than anything to do with Apple.
Because we don't want instant on? Please.
Something not achievable with any Windows netbook or cheap notebook you keep touting as a superior option for any and all needs. The quick boot and instant on go right to the heart of the OS being optimized for the HW (but since you have disallowed iOS as a prime example of such a feat I guess I can mention that again of how this is a goo thing over Windows).
You keep claiming objectivity while being hugely defensive and accusing folks of lying or shortsightedness. Coupled with ignoring inconvenient limitations of ChomeOS you're not being objective at all.
I called you a liar for making a statement as fact despite knowing (or ignoring) that it was a false claim. Maybe it was unintentional and you just aren't following the thread closely because I've clearly mentioned the limitations of Chrome OS many, many, many times in this thread.
I guess I have years vested in this concept.
This hardly leaves you as an unbiased and objective observer.
Not in Chrome OS, but the idea that a lightweight OS that is designed to access the web brilliantly and will work on inexpensive PCs and appliances the world round would finally rise to take a chunk of Windows marketshare.
Who the cares about taking a chunk of Windows marketshare? Zealots.
Around here it's oft believed that Mac OS will ruse up and crush Windows,
Really? Who the hell believes that?
but that means Apple has to license their OS or that Apple has to outsell in units every other Windows-based PC vendor. That's unrealistic.
Which is why most sane mac fans don't give a shit about Windows market share. So long as OSX maintains a healthy share to support the developer base it is completely immaterial.
Note that Chrome OS can be compiled for ARM or Atom and their apps will run the same on each. Note the AppleTV is only $99. Now imagine all those impoverished countries and people in the world that would love to have some basic connection to the inherent and world at large in the privacy of gher home thy we were okay with dial up and layer slow DSL/Cable years ago. That $99 box coupled with a cheap CRT is more affordable than anything else that run as fast with Windows. Stepping stones. Millions of stepping stones that don't affect MS' short term bottom line but eat away at the bottom end of their market share.
1) $99 + CRT is too expensive for impoverished countries.
2) No one really gives a shit about MS market share except MS haters and MS fanbois.
3) You're treating folks who disagree with the ChomeOS jihad against MS marketshare as heretics who are either lying or blind.
Hello...AppleInsider and not WeHateMSInsider. Wrong crusade. Being FOR Apple doesn't always imply being AGAINST Microsoft. If anything Google is Microsoft's spiritual successor so why anyone here cares that Google is eating Microsoft's lunch is beyond me.
After WebM, Flash and Skyhook trading MS dominance for Google dominance strikes me as a zero or even negative trade and frankly I hope WP7 takes a big assed chunk from Android. Microsoft screwed OEMs. Google far more likely to screw you.
Something not achievable with any Windows netbook or cheap notebook you keep touting as a superior option for any and all needs.
Should I call you a liar here for ignoring the Win7 netbooks with Instant On? I DID mention Splashtop right? Samsung has one too. Is it a requirement that it boots into Win7 if all you wanted was email and a browser?
Should I call you a liar for ignoring waking from sleep?
The quick boot and instant on go right to the heart of the OS being optimized for the HW (but since you have disallowed iOS as a prime example of such a feat I guess I can mention that again of how this is a goo thing over Windows).
iOS doesn't have a quick boot. Reboot your iPhone and see. I'll wait...it takes a while.
Again, who gives a shit about boot time? OSX boots faster than Win7 but it's the instant on from sleep and 30 day standby time that's the killer capability on the MBA.
If you can do that it's a completely solved problem that Win7 will get around to copying.
I called you a liar for making a statement as fact despite knowing (or ignoring) that it was a false claim. Maybe it was unintentional and you just aren't following the thread closely because I've clearly mentioned the limitations of Chrome OS many, many, many times in this thread.
You called me a liar for making a statement that I later supported and you ignored the support. My point wasn't that offline apps was impossible but that the design strategy for app development differs. Why design your ChromeOS app to run natively if the expectation is that the platform is centered around ubiquitous high-speed net access?
If you code to the platforms natural strengths then for complex apps you will get high performance at the expense of bandwidth. The downside is poor offline behavior that appcache cannot solve. I gave you examples and you STILL persist in claiming I'm lying about something even after I clarified and gave examples. Unless you refute (or even acknowledge) those examples you can't call it a "false claim". Even then I'm not a "liar" unless I already knew those examples are wrong. I'm simply wrong.
Whatever. You want to call me a liar, I'll simply think you're an asshat. Fair trade I guess.
Ya' know...
I've been experimenting with Chrome browser and Google Docs (with both Chrome and Safari browsers).
1) Online works OK, but I am concerned with, bandwidth large file upload times, storage costs, security and availability (no access to the Internet or the Service is down).
2) I don't believe that local processing is robust enough (yet) to satisfy my, or most people's, needs -- Google Docs needs the ability to directly input/output the common file formats in use today.
3) What I really did like was when the [online] service was available -- it was great to login and have all those [currently active] lfiles available and processable in one central place -- as opposed to fiddling with File Sharing or Screen Sharing.
I've done some experimenting myself. My basic conclusion is that this thing isn't fully baked yet.
See my posts here, here and here.
I've done some experimenting myself. My basic conclusion is that this thing isn't fully baked yet.
See my posts here, here and here.
I agree!
Oddly, I meant to comment on a couple of these posts -- but got distracted because my temperature was rising at the response by others to some of my posts.
The Angry Birds example in your first (above) is brilliant -- it is concise and easy to understand.
If the OS/Apps cannot save the scores and status (maintain the state) of your usage for a simple game -- how can one assume that it will do so across critical applications -- especially those involving collaboration of several users.
I remember seeing in the slides of Google's Chrome OS preso -- that they touted it was "stateless" -- and thinking at the time that this was an odd thing to tout as an advantage. How could the system maintain sync of a single user's offline and online updates to a file if it didn't maintain some sort of "state" -- let alone the case of several users collaborating.
When I posted questions related to this, I got responses that iOS or OS X don't do this and therefore it was unreasonable to expect Chrome OS to do it -- or somesuch.
In your other posts, I was (and still am) unsure of your reference to "indexed DB". I am new to Chrome and Google Docs and not familiar with its structure/implementation. I made a mental note to research "indexed DB" in Google's usage.
But, at that time, my dander was up. and I went back to fiddling with the Chrome browser and Google Docks to more succinctly document my concerns at what I saw as deficiencies.
I don't believe anyone responded directly or refuted these deficiencies.
For sake of readability the post is shown below.
And I still need to research Googles use of "indexed DB" and "Stateless: operation.
Best,
Dick
In an effort to be objective, I have done some further experimenting with Chrome Browser on Macs.
Here are some results:
1) I was able to get Angry Birds to run, kinda' -- the default is "HD" and after a delay, the music starts playing, but the light blue screen remains. If you switch to SD, the AB startup screen appears and the app loads and plays in a very small window within the Chrome browser window. Play feels sluggish, though. It feels like something is dampening my gestures and taps -- don't know if this the Chrome UI layer or if the app is downsized for the expected Chrome hardware.
I have the AB Mac app (57 MB size) -- it runs full-screen and performs as expected.
2) I also installed Plants and Zombies. It loaded and ran, in a larger window within the Chrome window. It too, seemed sluggish when compared to the app running on the iPad.
3) On the Mac, the Chrome browser app is 100.7 MB vs Safari at 57.1 MB -- That's almost double, and it's just a browser. I wonder why?
4) Angry Birds, once loaded, worked with the Internet unavailable. Plants and Zombies would not!
5) After reconnecting to the Internet, Plants and Zombies still would not run, even after refreshing Chrome, I could not resume P&Z until I accessed the Internet through another tab. This appears to be a miscommunication between Chrome and the app -- how to determine if the Internet is available.
6) I also installed the BBC Good Food Recipes app -- When disconnected from the Internet:
-- sometimes it would run fine
-- other times it would bring up a "page not available" message within the app
-- still other times it would open a new tab with a 404 error - apparently linking to another web page
7) I played around with the apps at docs.google.com -- some pleasant surprises and disappointments
8) GoogleDocs help docs are sketchy at best -- or non-existant when the Internet is unavailable.
9) I tried to open a blank Document file and drag and drop a local .doc file in to it. This did not work. I had to Open the file with Pages, Word, etc. and copy/paste from it to the Google Document file -- 2 extra steps.
10) Oddly, I was able to drag and drop an image file directly into a Google Document file.
11) I could not drag that same image into a Google Drawing file -- it opened a new Google Browser tab and displayed the URL of the local file, e.g. file://... In the Drawing file, I clicked the Image icon and was presented with several options. One way was to select an already uploaded image. Another way was to open an image URL. I tried the file:// URL, but it would only accept http or https URLS. Obviously the Internet had to be connected to include images in the Drawing file.
12) Each time I tried something that the Google browser didn't like or a specific Google Docs app couldn't handle -- it would open another browser tab to display, say, the local image that it couldn't drag and drop.
13) Sometimes, in some Google Docs apps, you could copy from the new tab into the Google Docs app -- other times you couodn't.
14) Very quickly the Google browser's tab bar became loaded with tiny tabs containing these things that it couldn't handle -- to the point that you couldn't tell what was in the tab without mousig over it or opening it.
15) I was surprised by the robustness of the drawing program -- though it felt sluggish compared to a local app.
16) I didn't check it but there appears to be an humongous amount of packet request/responses as well as an humongous amount of data exchange going on between the local device and the Internet using Google apps. They appear to be neither fish nor fowl -- rather, they attempt to bridge the gap between local and online. I don't believe they have succeeded.
All-in-all it was a very mixed bag best described as: some are some, and some are not!
I found that if you wanted to do anything worthwhile -- you pretty much were expected to be connected to the Internet.
Google claims that, paraphrased: "Many apps will work offline".
But they don't quantify "many" nor do they attempt to define the types of things you can do offline.
It is very interesting, to me, that Google's Flagship apps do not perform consistently, or at all -- when offline.
I found the entire experience unsettling and confusing -- and I am not technically challenged.
As it stands in today's world, I suspect that a Chrome OS-ChromeBook solution would work in a very limited set of use patterns, with very specific apps and activities -- if the Internet is available.
But, anyone who has any rudimentary experience would be put off by the lack (or inconsistency) of features such as copy/paste and drag and drop. They would be fighting the system!
For an enterprise or education IT department there may be some value to embracing the Chrome OS solution for some tasks and activities -- but I don't believe it is robust enough to wholesale replace PCs within an establishment with Chrome OS and Chrome Computers.
If the latter is true, then the individual establishment must evaluate if there's enough benefit in add another, incompatibility to the mix of IT offerings, training and support,
It is not "The Devil We Know" vs "The Devil We Don't Know" -- rather it is "The Devil We Know" vs "The Devil We Don't Know" plus "The Devil We Know".
JC Almighty are you all still on about this?
And amazingly no one has throw out the iggy gauntlet yet. Impressive!
If the OS/Apps cannot save the scores and status (maintain the state) of your usage for a simple game -- how can one assume that it will do so across critical applications -- especially those involving collaboration of several users.
I remember seeing in the slides of Google's Chrome OS preso -- that they touted it was "stateless" -- and thinking at the time that this was an odd thing to tout as an advantage. How could the system maintain sync of a single user's offline and online updates to a file if it didn't maintain some sort of "state" -- let alone the case of several users collaborating.
When I posted questions related to this, I got responses that iOS or OS X don't do this and therefore it was unreasonable to expect Chrome OS to do it -- or somesuch.
Actually, iOS and OS X do it quite well. If you enable iDisk and set it to mirror on your device, you have access to your files when you're not connected to the Internet. You can open, read, print, modify, and save your files without an internet connection. If you modify them, they're automatically synced as soon as you connect.
It's not perfect. For example, if you have two computers linked to the same iDisk and both of them are disconnected and you make changes to both files, then you will lose one set of changes. But that's understandable - and something you just have to keep in mind.
For the majority of users, it's seamless and transparent. You work on the files exactly as you do with your desktop computer and everything is automatic.
I've done some experimenting myself. My basic conclusion is that this thing isn't fully baked yet.
Exactly. It might conceivably grow into something useful (if Google doesn't get bored with it and drop it in favor of some other way to steal your data first), but all these people bragging about how they're going to sell so many million of them are missing the point. It's nowhere near ready for corporate IT people (who are, by and large, very conservative because their duties require it) to start buying them by the millions.