There is more to life than reading email, surfing the web, and watching YouTube videos. I like all my apps on my Mac. It's not like its hard to do any web activities on a Mac, I can do all of them within seconds, too. What is there to gain, really?
IT WILL BE GREAT MATERIAL FOR JAY LENO!!! What's the hitch?
Anyway, what they are talking about is solved with a solid state drive. I can show you how quickly even Windows boots up on a MacBook Air, and sell you two MBAs at once. Solid state drives are amazing. Secondly, for all of us who remember Mac's true grandaddy, Jeff Ranskin-his OS would know whether your typing or calculating. Jeff wanted better computing, like following Doug Engelbart's interactive concept -some form of matrixed, holographical data layering.
Having said that, I'm sure Google will make a good stab at giving Windows users a far better system, using more original ideas and not yelling at you to sell it! Where as Microsoft has it's head in the Clouds, Google leads the "search" for a better way of computing.
One more plug in for Apple reissuing the "iBook" as a book reader, outclassing the Kindle by parsecs!
Yes indeed, chrome is a shortened form of the word "Chromium" which is the browser's original name. But that's besides the point.
It's just typical that somehting like this will get negative feedback considering there have been many OS's out there that have come an gone. Look at the hybrid Linux OS (Ubuntu) that came with Dell's netbooks. it is extremely stable and all but that doesn't work for most people who have a bunch of Windows/Mac based programs they need to run on their machines. But now, if you go to Dell's website, you'll see that this OS isn't an option anymore (only on the rock bottom netbooks).
Google will have to somehow rectify the fact that people want something that will operate the same as their home or office PC/Mac but smaller and more portable than a "bulky" 13"-17" notebook. But, these end-users have to realized that they don't need EVERYTHING that their home or work PC/Mac does; simply because they are mobile and not every function is required to do work. Now, if the said end-user is 100% mobile for work, sorry to say, get a full laptop. Technology is still years away from where those users want to be.
One aspect of netbooks that has always bugged me is that yes they are light and small and portable but they are just meant to be extensions of your PC/Mac that you sync for on-the-go types of work. I don't think people take that into consideration. Perhaps that's just my opinion on these devices but it makes the most sense to what they were designed to be and given the technology that's built into them.
Being an architect, it would be great to have something this light and portable to take to job sites so i don't have to lug around 50 lbs of drawings. All i would need the full Acrobat to take notes and email, perhaps some "office" type software as well. Sure, then it would be nice to be able to use CAD software and Photoshop and Google SketchUp, but in a portable world, it probably isn't absolutely necessary. In the long run, for me a laptop would work better. Sure i'd love to have something like the Adamo or MB Air, but a netbook has a much more attractive price tag and i see most people's frustration with that.
Point being, people have to analyze their individual situation and figure out what's best for them.
Sure, i'd love to have a netbook for home use, i'm tired of spending time in my crappy home office and would love to just park-it on the couch next to my girlfriend and check email and blogs or in the kitchen or dining room. I think a netbook is perfect for that situation. then just network and sync to my PC/Mac at will.
How does this tie into this blog? well i've been using Google's Chrome browser since January and have never looked back. It's by far the most stable, user friendly and efficient browser out there, and way faster than anything i've seen. Below are a couple reviews to prove my point:
So if that's any indication as to the future of Google's OS...i'm looking forward to it. But, with the reservation that it has to be able to run windows and Mac-based software as well. I think this is a very positive look at the future of the PC/Mac world. I have just as many Google programs that i use over Windows/Mac programs on my desktop and i look forward to more.
Microsoft will go after them like the US gov't after Saddam Hussein, and neither Apple nor Adobe will back them up.
About the only company who could pull something like this off is Adobe. I can see AIR (Flash executable) applications becoming ubiquitous, but that whole cloud thing is a rabbit hole. I just can't imagine most companies trusting google with all their private information. There's no comparison between google Docs and MS Office. The former is "good enough", but life's too short to be bothered with it unless you're part of a company that doesn't value your time.
If the iPad is real, Apple will slaughter this product before it gets out the gate.
Say hi to the Fonz for me...
Oh, and one more thing. Don't they realize that Apple (with OS X) is taking the UI uptown, using 3D effects and glamour? How will google make their netbook look any better than an iPhone? The browser is NOT the end-all and be-all. Haven't we already gone down that path?
This is what happens when people use Linux too long and get brain rot. There's a difference between "simple yet elegant" and "back to the dark ages." Seriously...when has google made anything that has any kind of sex appeal?
On the other hand, and to play devil's advocate ...
Programs like InDesign and Photoshop are over-designed by orders of magnitude in terms of what is actually needed to get the job done. Even for professionals.
It's hard to argue that even the most intricate and detailed large professional projects really need half of what Adobe has ended up stuffing into Photoshop for example. At the very least, a set of smaller tools each directed towards a more focussed task would be a better design than the bloatware we currently have on offer.
It's also a net negative that we *need* a level of professionals in our society, to operate the software that produces the books and other media that the end users consume, and stripping some of the needless bloat and complication out of the production software is a great place to start in terms of freeing up the whole process.
I totally agree with you here. I've been battling this argument for the last 8 years at the firm i worked at up until a few months ago during the huge lay-offs (TMI). Anyway us architects do rely on Photoshop pretty heavily for graphics intense renderings and analytical drawings for clients. But, Photoshop CS has so much in it that is not necessary for our work that it makes using Photoshop Elements much more attractive. But, the snotty kids coming out of school only know CS and have this huge chip on their shoulders about Elements being sub-standard to them. I've used Elements for in around 5 years and have never had a problem or found that it is inferior or inadequate for what we're using it for. Sure i'd love to be able to modify text in the way that CS does (since elements is fairly basic in the text realm) and several other issues i have with the way filters are very dumbed down. But, i've always found a way around it and it's worked fine for me. And i've been using Photoshop since 1998. Thanks for not confirming my thoughts that people are just not open-minded enough about what they really need verses what works.
IT WILL BE GREAT MATERIAL FOR JAY LENO!!! What's the hitch?
Anyway, what they are talking about is solved with a solid state drive. I can show you how quickly even Windows boots up on a MacBook Air, and sell you two MBAs at once. Solid state drives are amazing.
Agreed, and that's why most netbooks come with SSD's. As much as i love the MB Air for it's design, the price tag instantly puts it into a class that only CEO's can afford. I think MB Air is out the door and (like you said) a smaller, better Macbook is coming.
Good. It is about time that Google steps up and does this.
The world needs another serious guided OS... not just Apple and Windows.
The way Microsoft behaves is just horrible. They don't innovate anymore... it is simply about sucking money from every sector of our society, including nonprofits. Time for a modern age when software (including the OS) is free. Charging money (as MSFT does) will quickly become old-fashioned.
Why not? Chrome OS is open source so it's not like Apple couldn't see any code that was err misappropriated by Google.
I don't think the issue being alluded to was theft.
The issue is that this may create a conflict of interest for Schmidt. He's looking after the interests of companies that are now starting to compete directly. If Steve Jobs joined the board of Microsoft, he'd have a split focus, and a split interest. Same situation.
I remember Steve standing on a stage and saying "the idea we've held is that for Apple to succeed, Microsoft has to fail." He continued on to say that the fighting between the two would cease. The question is: is Steve right in his suggestion Microsoft and Windows can both prosper, and not destroy each other's market share? The same question must now be applied to Google.
Schmidt is now overseeing 2 companies that compete in the OS business, and in the phone OS business. If he's pushing as CEO for innovation so that Google succeeds and breaks out into a new OS war, isn't he also suggesting he wants to cut into the Mac OS market share?
The same applies with the phone. Doesn't his wanting (and striving for) the G1 and other Android phones to gain market share directly compete with the iPhone?
Blah, blah blah. Cloud computing = giving others control over your valuable data. Cloud computing = more potential for security problems.
Of course clouds can turn into tornados. Clouds can become thunderstorms.
Well I didn't say they were guaranteed success or that tis the way everyone will interact with their computers in the future.
But it is significant in that Google are laying their cards on the table and proposing what the think the future of computing will be. The fact that they are developing the OS themselves and not relying on a third party to do so suggests the importance of this to them IMO.
One notion that needs to be addressed with Google is the fact they they can't market themselves out of a paper bag! Has anyone seen the commercials on TV for the Chrome Browser? I sat in the room with 2 other IT geeks and neither of them even knew Google had a new browser out (i did, been using it since january). How did i find out, a little tiny blurb on one of Google's pages.
Granted i'm being picky but it just seems like Google has too many Microsoft marketing people and not enough Mac marketing people. they really need to take some hints from apple on that.
As for the OS marketing...take some hints from apple guys.
Personally, I think netbooks are kinda cute. . . KINDA. . . until the iPad (or whatever it's gonna be called) comes to the surface. If I WERE to get one of these devices. ANYTHING would beat ANY version of Windows, and it sounds like they have the right ideas. We'll see what happens. Things are already so in the clouds, I remember when I first heard of the idea and it seemed so inconceivable to me. . . this doesn't.
That's great but I make my living using InDesign, Quark and Photoshop. Then there are all the other ancillary apps like FileMaker and tens of others, which help me run my life and business. And while I think google is great, their current apps, although certainly welcome (mostly because they are free) they are not killer by any means. In fact, I am unimpressed by quite a few of them. So, color me unconvinced.
Of course 20 years from now, this may all change but 20 years from now, google may have gone the way of the buggy whip.
This is simply the same approach Apple is taking with iPhone OS and is very sensible.
The days of selling everyone a Mack Truck when what they need is a Smart Car are over.
That will be Microsoft's ultimate Waterloo. They've tried to shove their enormous OS into everything even when its not necessary.
The Mack Truck won't go away, but people won't be forced into using one when what they they need is a 50 MPG commute car.
People don't buy operating systems. They buy computers with OS's installed on it. This is why Windows and OS X has succeeded where Linux has largely (but not completely) failed.
...except for the large segment of computer users out there who actually build their own systems, and then install the OS of their choice.
Thin clients have not been successful in the past. Maybe Google can do it, but history is not on their side. I personally think the obsession with server side solutions puts ease of deployment ahead of other, more important concerns. Server side is Fail because:
- More expensive hardware
Servers must be reliable enough to run 24/7, and usually have expensive support contracts. Compare with a cheap Dell desktop.
- More Expensive software
Software to support multiple users is typically heavily threaded and can have no memory leaks because it must run 24/7. That is a lot harder to write and debug than a simple client side Mac or Windows program that runs a few hours with one user and then quits.
- More Expensive infrastructure
A big data centre uses massive power and network resources. Having the load spread over many clients solves this problem.
I think a sensible compromise is to have client side apps but server side data. Or even better: server side sync, where the data is still local (for best user experience) but all clients periodically and transparently sync it to the cloud.
Well there in lies the problem. If I have 5GB of Music.... the time to push that to a server is quite long on my 1Mb uplink. Imagine using a 3G network like AT&T or Verizon... omg it would take forever. Thats the main problem with cloud computing. Sure I would like to access my music anywhere... but an iPod, iPhone, Zune etc much better allow me to do that. Yes I have to sync but oh well. Another solution is something like Windows Home Server with remote login or Airport Extreme with Airdisk and MobileMe remote login. You only pull the files you need. But if you download music, videos then cloud sync can be slow. Especially me since I follow an artist closely and download music, backstage videos (which can be 1GB) all the time.
A single Time Machine backup for me is over 50GB... thats over the cap Time Warner allows in month and eventually wants to charge. 5GB as I mentioned before is over the cap provided by all wireless carriers. I can also see people in a panic because Google is down or their Internet is down and they can't listen to their Music or edit their documents. Which proves you would need two way sync which is extremely slow. We need faster UPLINK and I don't think even LTE addresses that.
This of course is beyond the issue that ASUS and Acer had documented... in that Linux machines are returned while Windows XP machines are kept in the netbook market. Sure those Linux distros may be more netbook friendly... but people want Windows and their apps to run. Older version of Photoshop would run... My 5 year old Sony Vaio (which was state of the art back then, first laptop in US with intergrated EDGE wireless) is about the same specs as a netbook and it runs alot of thing including older games.
Also I liked to address that their marketing is totally off since obviously OS X was created after the advent of the internet. And Chrome will be nothing more than Linux + Chrome Browser... so it won't be 'created for the net' just heavily adapted for it.
I think people are being too quick to critisize what Google is doing. No one who has attempted this previously were quite in Google's position with it's own suite of apps ready to be used on an OS. And an open and ubiquitous development platform such as HTML.
This OS is primarily for netbooks, which are primarily intended to be used for lite services on the web. They are not good for Final Cut Pro or Photoshop. It doesn't sound a if Chrome OS is targeting these needs or attempting to replace Windows/OS X.
Those who critisize cloud computing don't realize the majority of the functionality on the iPhone is from cloud computing. Most of the productive apps are useless without a wireless connection.
As with every product. The success of this would come down to timing and execution. Releasing a new OS at a time the market is receptive to an alternative. Introducing a new compeling OS that people would like to use.
This is simply the same approach Apple is taking with iPhone OS and is very sensible.
The days of selling everyone a Mack Truck when what they need is a Smart Car are over.
That will be Microsoft's ultimate Waterloo. They've tried to shove their enormous OS into everything even when its not necessary.
The Mack Truck won't go away, but people won't be forced into using one when what they they need is a 50 MPG commute car.
this brings up the age-old dilemma over how to get a computer to EVERYONE. not just the people that can afford it. I think Netbooks are the first step. Getting a computer under $300 that could possibly be subsidized by the government to working-class and the poor needs to happen. And, with Google coming out with a free, open-source, web-based OS with these computers is a wave i hope crashes on the shores and makes a huge impact on the idea that computers and the web need to be for everyone, not just the people who can afford it. I truly hope this is the direction that Google goes with it's OS. The real problem with then be, how to get the web to these people's machines without a fee. Perhaps the land-lines will some-day integrate internet into the basic phone service...
Chrome OS won't require extensive configuration or the need for constant software updates, the company added. It also promises to make users' data accessible to them "wherever they are" so they "don't have to worry about losing their computer or forgetting to back up files."
The OS sounds great. Linux needs some kind of big support to hopefully focus it more and get the attention of big name developers. I would have no problem using Linux if mainstream apps were developed for that platform as well.
Unfortunately, the more personal information that Google stores makes it an ever increasing risk to security and attacks in my eyes. I like Google but I would never trust all of mine and my clients files and personal information to be stored in their or anybody else's cloud.
Schmidt is now overseeing 2 companies that compete in the OS business, and in the phone OS business. If he's pushing as CEO for innovation so that Google succeeds and breaks out into a new OS war, isn't he also suggesting he wants to cut into the Mac OS market share?
Do you know the phrase, keep your friends close and your enemies closer? I think it is comforting that Schmidt at least helps form a connection between Google and Apple. They are not in the exact same business. There is very little overlap. I would hope to see harmony between Apple and Google. It's not as if Schmidt gets a whole lot of special iPhone technical information, anyhow. Maybe he sees a little too far into Apple's future. But again, keeping Eric around has its advantages.
i wonder what Microsoft's strategy is for all this. Apple and Google both license ActiveSync from Microsoft with Google publicly acknowledging months ago that it will do so to compete with MS.
Steve Ballmer has said before that he wants Windows to be a smaller piece of the revenue pie as time goes on. But it seems MS is willing to give up large parts of the market as well. Maybe MS doesn't want to employ tens of thousands of people anymore to code what are essentially minor upgrades. SL is going to have native Exchange 2007 support and that will probably take a bite out of HP and Dell sales. Google is going to use ActiveSync for a netbook OS.
I've read stories of Vista development and it got so complicated that if you sent your code for review, it wouldn't make it into a build for a month. there were so many people working on it at so many levels that just checking the code was a major task.
Getting a computer under $300 that could possibly be subsidized by the government to working-class and the poor needs to happen.
1) The government should never, ever, ever subsidize computer sales. I'm a frickin' socialist, and I think that's WAAAAY outside the realm of where government should be involved in our lives.
2) Many (Most?) working class and poor people can afford a $300 computer. It's the $60 a month for half-assed, limited "broad"-band that's not practical.
Comments
There is more to life than reading email, surfing the web, and watching YouTube videos. I like all my apps on my Mac. It's not like its hard to do any web activities on a Mac, I can do all of them within seconds, too. What is there to gain, really?
IT WILL BE GREAT MATERIAL FOR JAY LENO!!! What's the hitch?
Anyway, what they are talking about is solved with a solid state drive. I can show you how quickly even Windows boots up on a MacBook Air, and sell you two MBAs at once. Solid state drives are amazing. Secondly, for all of us who remember Mac's true grandaddy, Jeff Ranskin-his OS would know whether your typing or calculating. Jeff wanted better computing, like following Doug Engelbart's interactive concept -some form of matrixed, holographical data layering.
Having said that, I'm sure Google will make a good stab at giving Windows users a far better system, using more original ideas and not yelling at you to sell it! Where as Microsoft has it's head in the Clouds, Google leads the "search" for a better way of computing.
One more plug in for Apple reissuing the "iBook" as a book reader, outclassing the Kindle by parsecs!
It's just typical that somehting like this will get negative feedback considering there have been many OS's out there that have come an gone. Look at the hybrid Linux OS (Ubuntu) that came with Dell's netbooks. it is extremely stable and all but that doesn't work for most people who have a bunch of Windows/Mac based programs they need to run on their machines. But now, if you go to Dell's website, you'll see that this OS isn't an option anymore (only on the rock bottom netbooks).
Google will have to somehow rectify the fact that people want something that will operate the same as their home or office PC/Mac but smaller and more portable than a "bulky" 13"-17" notebook. But, these end-users have to realized that they don't need EVERYTHING that their home or work PC/Mac does; simply because they are mobile and not every function is required to do work. Now, if the said end-user is 100% mobile for work, sorry to say, get a full laptop. Technology is still years away from where those users want to be.
One aspect of netbooks that has always bugged me is that yes they are light and small and portable but they are just meant to be extensions of your PC/Mac that you sync for on-the-go types of work. I don't think people take that into consideration. Perhaps that's just my opinion on these devices but it makes the most sense to what they were designed to be and given the technology that's built into them.
Being an architect, it would be great to have something this light and portable to take to job sites so i don't have to lug around 50 lbs of drawings. All i would need the full Acrobat to take notes and email, perhaps some "office" type software as well. Sure, then it would be nice to be able to use CAD software and Photoshop and Google SketchUp, but in a portable world, it probably isn't absolutely necessary. In the long run, for me a laptop would work better. Sure i'd love to have something like the Adamo or MB Air, but a netbook has a much more attractive price tag and i see most people's frustration with that.
Point being, people have to analyze their individual situation and figure out what's best for them.
Sure, i'd love to have a netbook for home use, i'm tired of spending time in my crappy home office and would love to just park-it on the couch next to my girlfriend and check email and blogs or in the kitchen or dining room. I think a netbook is perfect for that situation. then just network and sync to my PC/Mac at will.
How does this tie into this blog? well i've been using Google's Chrome browser since January and have never looked back. It's by far the most stable, user friendly and efficient browser out there, and way faster than anything i've seen. Below are a couple reviews to prove my point:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-10030888-92.html
http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,6...inal/Practice/
So if that's any indication as to the future of Google's OS...i'm looking forward to it. But, with the reservation that it has to be able to run windows and Mac-based software as well. I think this is a very positive look at the future of the PC/Mac world. I have just as many Google programs that i use over Windows/Mac programs on my desktop and i look forward to more.
Microsoft will go after them like the US gov't after Saddam Hussein, and neither Apple nor Adobe will back them up.
About the only company who could pull something like this off is Adobe. I can see AIR (Flash executable) applications becoming ubiquitous, but that whole cloud thing is a rabbit hole. I just can't imagine most companies trusting google with all their private information. There's no comparison between google Docs and MS Office. The former is "good enough", but life's too short to be bothered with it unless you're part of a company that doesn't value your time.
If the iPad is real, Apple will slaughter this product before it gets out the gate.
Say hi to the Fonz for me...
Oh, and one more thing. Don't they realize that Apple (with OS X) is taking the UI uptown, using 3D effects and glamour? How will google make their netbook look any better than an iPhone? The browser is NOT the end-all and be-all. Haven't we already gone down that path?
This is what happens when people use Linux too long and get brain rot. There's a difference between "simple yet elegant" and "back to the dark ages." Seriously...when has google made anything that has any kind of sex appeal?
On the other hand, and to play devil's advocate ...
Programs like InDesign and Photoshop are over-designed by orders of magnitude in terms of what is actually needed to get the job done. Even for professionals.
It's hard to argue that even the most intricate and detailed large professional projects really need half of what Adobe has ended up stuffing into Photoshop for example. At the very least, a set of smaller tools each directed towards a more focussed task would be a better design than the bloatware we currently have on offer.
It's also a net negative that we *need* a level of professionals in our society, to operate the software that produces the books and other media that the end users consume, and stripping some of the needless bloat and complication out of the production software is a great place to start in terms of freeing up the whole process.
I totally agree with you here. I've been battling this argument for the last 8 years at the firm i worked at up until a few months ago during the huge lay-offs (TMI). Anyway us architects do rely on Photoshop pretty heavily for graphics intense renderings and analytical drawings for clients. But, Photoshop CS has so much in it that is not necessary for our work that it makes using Photoshop Elements much more attractive. But, the snotty kids coming out of school only know CS and have this huge chip on their shoulders about Elements being sub-standard to them. I've used Elements for in around 5 years and have never had a problem or found that it is inferior or inadequate for what we're using it for. Sure i'd love to be able to modify text in the way that CS does (since elements is fairly basic in the text realm) and several other issues i have with the way filters are very dumbed down. But, i've always found a way around it and it's worked fine for me. And i've been using Photoshop since 1998. Thanks for not confirming my thoughts that people are just not open-minded enough about what they really need verses what works.
IT WILL BE GREAT MATERIAL FOR JAY LENO!!! What's the hitch?
Anyway, what they are talking about is solved with a solid state drive. I can show you how quickly even Windows boots up on a MacBook Air, and sell you two MBAs at once. Solid state drives are amazing.
Agreed, and that's why most netbooks come with SSD's. As much as i love the MB Air for it's design, the price tag instantly puts it into a class that only CEO's can afford. I think MB Air is out the door and (like you said) a smaller, better Macbook is coming.
The world needs another serious guided OS... not just Apple and Windows.
The way Microsoft behaves is just horrible. They don't innovate anymore... it is simply about sucking money from every sector of our society, including nonprofits. Time for a modern age when software (including the OS) is free. Charging money (as MSFT does) will quickly become old-fashioned.
Why not? Chrome OS is open source so it's not like Apple couldn't see any code that was err misappropriated by Google.
I don't think the issue being alluded to was theft.
The issue is that this may create a conflict of interest for Schmidt. He's looking after the interests of companies that are now starting to compete directly. If Steve Jobs joined the board of Microsoft, he'd have a split focus, and a split interest. Same situation.
I remember Steve standing on a stage and saying "the idea we've held is that for Apple to succeed, Microsoft has to fail." He continued on to say that the fighting between the two would cease. The question is: is Steve right in his suggestion Microsoft and Windows can both prosper, and not destroy each other's market share? The same question must now be applied to Google.
Schmidt is now overseeing 2 companies that compete in the OS business, and in the phone OS business. If he's pushing as CEO for innovation so that Google succeeds and breaks out into a new OS war, isn't he also suggesting he wants to cut into the Mac OS market share?
The same applies with the phone. Doesn't his wanting (and striving for) the G1 and other Android phones to gain market share directly compete with the iPhone?
They are questions that must be answered.
Blah, blah blah. Cloud computing = giving others control over your valuable data. Cloud computing = more potential for security problems.
Of course clouds can turn into tornados. Clouds can become thunderstorms.
Well I didn't say they were guaranteed success or that tis the way everyone will interact with their computers in the future.
But it is significant in that Google are laying their cards on the table and proposing what the think the future of computing will be. The fact that they are developing the OS themselves and not relying on a third party to do so suggests the importance of this to them IMO.
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/280524...chrome_tv_ads/
My IT Geeks turned to me and say, "what the heck is that?".
now this add it a bunch more descriptive
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqfwNbB0QqQ
Granted i'm being picky but it just seems like Google has too many Microsoft marketing people and not enough Mac marketing people. they really need to take some hints from apple on that.
As for the OS marketing...take some hints from apple guys.
That's great but I make my living using InDesign, Quark and Photoshop. Then there are all the other ancillary apps like FileMaker and tens of others, which help me run my life and business. And while I think google is great, their current apps, although certainly welcome (mostly because they are free) they are not killer by any means. In fact, I am unimpressed by quite a few of them. So, color me unconvinced.
Of course 20 years from now, this may all change but 20 years from now, google may have gone the way of the buggy whip.
This is simply the same approach Apple is taking with iPhone OS and is very sensible.
The days of selling everyone a Mack Truck when what they need is a Smart Car are over.
That will be Microsoft's ultimate Waterloo. They've tried to shove their enormous OS into everything even when its not necessary.
The Mack Truck won't go away, but people won't be forced into using one when what they they need is a 50 MPG commute car.
People don't buy operating systems. They buy computers with OS's installed on it. This is why Windows and OS X has succeeded where Linux has largely (but not completely) failed.
...except for the large segment of computer users out there who actually build their own systems, and then install the OS of their choice.
Hard concept, I know.
Thin clients have not been successful in the past. Maybe Google can do it, but history is not on their side. I personally think the obsession with server side solutions puts ease of deployment ahead of other, more important concerns. Server side is Fail because:
- More expensive hardware
Servers must be reliable enough to run 24/7, and usually have expensive support contracts. Compare with a cheap Dell desktop.
- More Expensive software
Software to support multiple users is typically heavily threaded and can have no memory leaks because it must run 24/7. That is a lot harder to write and debug than a simple client side Mac or Windows program that runs a few hours with one user and then quits.
- More Expensive infrastructure
A big data centre uses massive power and network resources. Having the load spread over many clients solves this problem.
I think a sensible compromise is to have client side apps but server side data. Or even better: server side sync, where the data is still local (for best user experience) but all clients periodically and transparently sync it to the cloud.
Well there in lies the problem. If I have 5GB of Music.... the time to push that to a server is quite long on my 1Mb uplink. Imagine using a 3G network like AT&T or Verizon... omg it would take forever. Thats the main problem with cloud computing. Sure I would like to access my music anywhere... but an iPod, iPhone, Zune etc much better allow me to do that. Yes I have to sync but oh well. Another solution is something like Windows Home Server with remote login or Airport Extreme with Airdisk and MobileMe remote login. You only pull the files you need. But if you download music, videos then cloud sync can be slow. Especially me since I follow an artist closely and download music, backstage videos (which can be 1GB) all the time.
A single Time Machine backup for me is over 50GB... thats over the cap Time Warner allows in month and eventually wants to charge. 5GB as I mentioned before is over the cap provided by all wireless carriers. I can also see people in a panic because Google is down or their Internet is down and they can't listen to their Music or edit their documents. Which proves you would need two way sync which is extremely slow. We need faster UPLINK and I don't think even LTE addresses that.
This of course is beyond the issue that ASUS and Acer had documented... in that Linux machines are returned while Windows XP machines are kept in the netbook market. Sure those Linux distros may be more netbook friendly... but people want Windows and their apps to run. Older version of Photoshop would run... My 5 year old Sony Vaio (which was state of the art back then, first laptop in US with intergrated EDGE wireless) is about the same specs as a netbook and it runs alot of thing including older games.
Also I liked to address that their marketing is totally off since obviously OS X was created after the advent of the internet. And Chrome will be nothing more than Linux + Chrome Browser... so it won't be 'created for the net' just heavily adapted for it.
This OS is primarily for netbooks, which are primarily intended to be used for lite services on the web. They are not good for Final Cut Pro or Photoshop. It doesn't sound a if Chrome OS is targeting these needs or attempting to replace Windows/OS X.
Those who critisize cloud computing don't realize the majority of the functionality on the iPhone is from cloud computing. Most of the productive apps are useless without a wireless connection.
As with every product. The success of this would come down to timing and execution. Releasing a new OS at a time the market is receptive to an alternative. Introducing a new compeling OS that people would like to use.
This is simply the same approach Apple is taking with iPhone OS and is very sensible.
The days of selling everyone a Mack Truck when what they need is a Smart Car are over.
That will be Microsoft's ultimate Waterloo. They've tried to shove their enormous OS into everything even when its not necessary.
The Mack Truck won't go away, but people won't be forced into using one when what they they need is a 50 MPG commute car.
this brings up the age-old dilemma over how to get a computer to EVERYONE. not just the people that can afford it. I think Netbooks are the first step. Getting a computer under $300 that could possibly be subsidized by the government to working-class and the poor needs to happen. And, with Google coming out with a free, open-source, web-based OS with these computers is a wave i hope crashes on the shores and makes a huge impact on the idea that computers and the web need to be for everyone, not just the people who can afford it. I truly hope this is the direction that Google goes with it's OS. The real problem with then be, how to get the web to these people's machines without a fee. Perhaps the land-lines will some-day integrate internet into the basic phone service...
Chrome OS won't require extensive configuration or the need for constant software updates, the company added. It also promises to make users' data accessible to them "wherever they are" so they "don't have to worry about losing their computer or forgetting to back up files."
[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]
The OS sounds great. Linux needs some kind of big support to hopefully focus it more and get the attention of big name developers. I would have no problem using Linux if mainstream apps were developed for that platform as well.
Unfortunately, the more personal information that Google stores makes it an ever increasing risk to security and attacks in my eyes. I like Google but I would never trust all of mine and my clients files and personal information to be stored in their or anybody else's cloud.
Schmidt is now overseeing 2 companies that compete in the OS business, and in the phone OS business. If he's pushing as CEO for innovation so that Google succeeds and breaks out into a new OS war, isn't he also suggesting he wants to cut into the Mac OS market share?
Do you know the phrase, keep your friends close and your enemies closer? I think it is comforting that Schmidt at least helps form a connection between Google and Apple. They are not in the exact same business. There is very little overlap. I would hope to see harmony between Apple and Google. It's not as if Schmidt gets a whole lot of special iPhone technical information, anyhow. Maybe he sees a little too far into Apple's future. But again, keeping Eric around has its advantages.
Steve Ballmer has said before that he wants Windows to be a smaller piece of the revenue pie as time goes on. But it seems MS is willing to give up large parts of the market as well. Maybe MS doesn't want to employ tens of thousands of people anymore to code what are essentially minor upgrades. SL is going to have native Exchange 2007 support and that will probably take a bite out of HP and Dell sales. Google is going to use ActiveSync for a netbook OS.
I've read stories of Vista development and it got so complicated that if you sent your code for review, it wouldn't make it into a build for a month. there were so many people working on it at so many levels that just checking the code was a major task.
Getting a computer under $300 that could possibly be subsidized by the government to working-class and the poor needs to happen.
1) The government should never, ever, ever subsidize computer sales. I'm a frickin' socialist, and I think that's WAAAAY outside the realm of where government should be involved in our lives.
2) Many (Most?) working class and poor people can afford a $300 computer. It's the $60 a month for half-assed, limited "broad"-band that's not practical.