They're making you store your stuff on THEIR servers. They can track everything you do. Along with the other things I mentioned in other posts, I don't think Google is trustworthy. Along with their "mistakenly" stealing people's passwords and other personal info while doing Steetview and other mapping fieldwork, and not deleting that info when told to by some governments, shows the danger here. Why would their software capture that info in the first place? It all seems fishy. As has been pointed out on some other sites, Chrome browser can do the same thing this does, while giving other options. This OS seems designed for the sole purpose of eliminating those options.
Being pro- or anti-Google, or being paranoid that Big Brother, warranted or not, is out to get you is irrelevant to a browser-based desktop OS being a solid idea. I say I can see this type of OS being able to take a huge chunk out of MS’ low-end Windows sales and bring desktop computing to people around the world in ways that never before existed, and the response is about Google being evil? Really?
Being pro- or anti-Google, or being paranoid that Big Brother, warranted or not, is out to get you is irrelevant to a browser-based desktop OS being a solid idea. I say I can see this type of OS being able to take a huge chunk out of MS? low-end Windows sales and bring desktop computing to people around the world in ways that never before existed, and the response is about Google being evil? Really?
Some things are more significant than bullsh browser based OS. If you can't put two and two together (critical thinking, evaluation of evidence, non-ignorance) and understand why Google has proven themselves precisely EVIL, then you deserve what you get. Period.
Being pro- or anti-Google, or being paranoid that Big Brother, warranted or not, is out to get you is irrelevant to a browser-based desktop OS being a solid idea. I say I can see this type of OS being able to take a huge chunk out of MS? low-end Windows sales and bring desktop computing to people around the world in ways that never before existed, and the response is about Google being evil? Really?
I'm with you on this. Its not about whether Google is 'good' or 'bad', Chrome OS fills a need that netbooks have identified but don't quite satisfy. Windows based net books have always seemed like a really mediocre experience to me in the times I've used them. Chrome OS may make it better by eliminating a lot of the headaches. The big missing element seems to be apps. I've not seen any good reviews of the apps available at this point. Obviously that will change in time if Chrome OS gains any traction.
Some things are more significant than bullsh browser based OS. If you can't put two and two together (critical thinking, evaluation of evidence, non-ignorance) and understand why Google has proven themselves precisely EVIL, then you deserve what you get. Period.
Dude, you're taking this way to personally.
I full fledged computer is probably better for you. But Chrome OS isn't designed for you in the first place. It's for the ludites. There are plenty of them out there. Many people just use there computer to update facebook and check email. They don't need windows or even OSX to do this.
And for the record I side with Melgross and PMZ. I use Little Snitch, and google software phones home like no other and I certainly don't buy their 'do no evil' mantra.
I used to respect google but nowadays they just irritate the crap out of me.
I full fledged computer is probably better for you. But Chrome OS isn't designed for you in the first place. It's for the ludites. There are plenty of them out there. Many people just use there computer to update facebook and check email. They don't need windows or even OSX to do this.
There is some odd rationale going on here with the “I don’t like a certain aspect of Google so anything they ever create is a bad idea and your stupid if you think anything they do is viable”. I certainly didn’t expect a lot of support at this point for saying that browser-based desktop OS would satisfy many netbook users, other satellite computing needs, and places where decent computer HW is hard to find or expensive, but to say that I’m “ignorant” for not vilifying all of Google ideas is just as absurd as those who defend all of Apple’s ideas, or loves or hates everything MS does. Critical thinking, indeed!
PS: If these people think that Google’s control means it will fail, then they need to explain Google’s Android OS, Gmail, et al. being wildly successful. Are these not part of the same company? So why all of a sudden to they think that Chrome OS can’t be a viable desktop OS for low-cost systems simply because of the way they feel about Google?
And for the record I side with Melgross and PMZ. I use Little Snitch, and google software phones home like no other and I certainly don't buy their 'do no evil' mantra.
I used to respect google but nowadays they just irritate the crap out of me.
So you agree I?m an idiot for thinking a browser-based desktop OS can be a viable platform for many users?
You miss the point. If the government wants my information currently, it has to act in accordance with the 4th Amendment. Namely, seek a Court's approval to obtain such information. When you put your information in the Cloud, all the government has to do is ask Google for it. Currently, big corporations are happy to give the government back door access to people's private information. ATT, Verizon, Comcast have given government agencies backdoor access to their whole networks. Court oversight is not needed because once you give the documents to a third party you no longer own the documents and the third party can hand your information over simply by being requested to do so. It doesn't even have to be the government. Corporations can give your private information to your employer, neighbors, whomever they please. Current practice is to sell much of your information to other companies so they can try to sell you stuff.
Wikileaks recently released documents that say the Chinese government gave authority to hack Google's network and steal massive loads of documents on it's servers. In a free country, the government has no business viewing people's private documentations. Further, the US government hasn't publicly condemned China for stealing Google's users information.
Information in the Cloud may be convenient, but it is not protected. Don't think for a minute Apple hasn't left a hole for it to access your encrypted documents.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Landcruiser
I travel the country. I have many computers, laptops and desktops. I have a smart phone. I have an iPad. MobileMe has lots of problems (lots of them) but it will get there like anything. And the fact I can sync my data to "the cloud" and get to it from anywhere is what cloud is all about. Your data can be encrypted. And unless you give out your key, DES is not going to be unencrypted. We are still at the very early stages of this cloud concept. I've been in the IT industry since the late 70's (ouch) and any technology worth its salt, is always improved over time. With the possible exception of Windows.
Instead of storing all my data in the "cloud", how about make it easier to access the data that's on my desktop computer at home? I still believe it is much better and more secure for people to maintain and store their data on their own systems. The biggest reason, it is much easier for a hacker/thief to target a centralized repository, than it is to find and access individual systems. The second reason, if all your data is online somewhere, you are at the mercy of your internet connection and the uptime/reliability of the cloud service.
I would use cloud storage for a few things; as an offsite back up for important files that have been encrypted locally and then uploaded, as online site for storing files where others can get them and download them, i.e. file sharing, and possibly a place to temporarily store a few unimportant things I might need while "on the road."
As the title, for this single reason I will not buy a chrome machine. What does it offer more than a tablet? Or MBA? If I want to back up something, I save it to Nas and sync to the computers I have, my own mini cloud
So you agree I’m an idiot for thinking a browser-based desktop OS can be a viable platform for many users?
Er No, I don't think your an idiot!? I was agreeing with PMZ and Melgross about Google being an untrustworthy company.
In response to above: I believe a browser-based desktop OS could be a viable platform for many users, but a hybrid would kick it's ass every time, making a solely cloud based system hard to sell in a competitive marketplace .
Why on earth would anyone buy a cloud based device when they could buy a hybrid for practically the same price. Which is considerably more responsive and does everything a cloud OS could do...only better.
The real problem with Google's Chrome strategy, as I see it, is that the web has always been a second-rate experience for apps and not really suited to anything but document reading. (Actually, it has always been a second-rate experience for documents too, but that's another story.) What people really needed was a simple way to get full-blooded, internet-connected client-side applications. Apple has provided that with the App Store. Until now, they've merely being putting up with what was available. The web has only ever provided an experience that's "good enough." You can't base a platform on that.
Er No, I don't think your an idiot!? I was agreeing with PMZ and Melgross about Google being an untrustworthy company.
In response to above: I believe a browser-based desktop OS could be a viable platform for many users, but a hybrid would kick it's ass every time making a solely cloud based system hard to sell in a competitive marketplace .
Browser-based OS doesn?t mean that everything resides in the cloud. Sure, one can do that or it can be designed that way, but HTML5 has local DB storage support. WebOS is a browser-based OS, too. They have their limitations, but they also have their advantages. As I previously mentioned, this is the first real opportunity I?ve seen to really take a chunk of Windows? marketshare. It will be the low-end but it would be $30(?) MS won?t get and unlike the Linux netbooks it will be an OS that is usable for the internet because the web browser is the one app people do use.
Full Disclosure: I use Google for my mail, have MobileMe backing up and syncing all sorts of data to my IDevices and Mac, use Dropbox to share files with friends, and even have AppleInsider account.
Just wanted to add. The people who are usually taken to be the target audience for cheap Chrome OS-based netbooks (lightweight users who don't need a full computer) are exactly the people who benefit most from the kind of user experience only client-side apps can supply and exactly the people who are buying the iPad in droves.
Browser-based OS doesn’t mean that everything resides in the cloud. Sure, one can do that or it can be designed that way, but HTML5 has local DB storage support. WebOS is a browser-based OS, too. They have their limitations, but they also have their advantages. As I previously mentioned, this is the first real opportunity I’ve seen to really take a chunk of Windows’ marketshare. It will be the low-end but it would be $30(?) MS won’t get and unlike the Linux netbooks it will be an OS that is usable for the internet because the web browser is the one app people do use.
I'm aware of HTML5 local sqlite storage. But why could the above (windows annihilation ) not be achieved by Android or a cloudy version of Android?
I say I can see this type of OS being able to take a huge chunk out of MS? low-end Windows sales and bring desktop computing to people around the world in ways that never before existed
When netbooks first started appearing Linux was the operating system installed on all of them. If all the people buying these devices only wanted to use them for a few simple things, then why, when given the choice, did they choose Windows XP and push Linux out of the market? Linux was a free system, very much capable of all the things those people may have needed. The fact is, people didn't want a small, cheap, portable computer, they wanted a small, cheap, portable Windows computer. When most of the world thinks, "computer", they think of the Windows based system they once used or are currently using.
You have to redefine a product in order to get people to even consider to make a change in their habits. Google is basically just offering a dumbed down computer. There's nothing new here, just a whole lot of missing stuff that people normally associate with a computer. And nothing that can't be done on Windows, Linux, or Mac OS X system.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
, and the response is about Google being evil? Really?
Well Google is pretty scary. People have trusted too much of their information with a single entity... That's never a good idea. All the data they have of you has been at one time transmitted over a network. Data mining isn't necessarily a bad thing, at least until the CEO of that company runs around saying things like,
"More and more searches are done on your behalf without you needing to type. I actually think most people don't want Google to answer their questions," he elaborates. "They want Google to tell them what they should be doing next. ... serendipity?can be calculated now. We can actually produce it electronically."
Is this what you've entrusted Google with, to gather so much information on you that you want them to be able to tell you what to do? Most people who use Google, just want to search for stuff.
When netbooks first started appearing Linux was the operating system installed on all of them. If all the people buying these devices only wanted to use them for a few simple things, then why, when given the choice, did they choose Windows XP and push Linux out of the market? Linux was a free system, very much capable of all the things those people may have needed. The fact is, people didn't want a small, cheap, portable computer, they wanted a small, cheap, portable Windows computer. When most of the world thinks, "computer", they think of the Windows based system they once used or are currently using.
You have to redefine a product in order to get people to even consider to make a change in their habits. Google is basically just offering a dumbed down computer. There's nothing new here, just a whole lot of missing stuff that people normally associate with a computer. And nothing that can't be done on Windows, Linux, or Mac OS X system..
1) Capable ≠ easy to use.
2) Windows and Linux on those netbooks were dog slow.
3) As stated ad nauseam and for the last time Chrome OS and other browser-based OSes have the opportunity to offer a simple and useful satellite computing xperience that feels fast to the user.
Android is essentially a modified version of JavaME
I registered just to say that the only thing in common Android has with JavaME is that they run on mobile devices. Then all similarities end. And OSX is essentially a modified version of Windows
This is the same writer that on Monday said Microsoft re-branded Windows CE as Windows XP Embedded to escape the negative stigma of Windows CE's failures.
I think the other writers at AI need to pull Mr Dilger aside and have a quiet word about writing articles on subjects where he is hopelessly outside of his comfort zone.
Giving an article a bias toward Apple is on an Apple-centric site is expected, but getting basic factual content wrong... that's simply not a good idea on any respectable tech site.
I think Mr Dilger needs to stay inside the Appleverse where he knows his stuff.
Comments
They're making you store your stuff on THEIR servers. They can track everything you do. Along with the other things I mentioned in other posts, I don't think Google is trustworthy. Along with their "mistakenly" stealing people's passwords and other personal info while doing Steetview and other mapping fieldwork, and not deleting that info when told to by some governments, shows the danger here. Why would their software capture that info in the first place? It all seems fishy. As has been pointed out on some other sites, Chrome browser can do the same thing this does, while giving other options. This OS seems designed for the sole purpose of eliminating those options.
Being pro- or anti-Google, or being paranoid that Big Brother, warranted or not, is out to get you is irrelevant to a browser-based desktop OS being a solid idea. I say I can see this type of OS being able to take a huge chunk out of MS’ low-end Windows sales and bring desktop computing to people around the world in ways that never before existed, and the response is about Google being evil? Really?
Being pro- or anti-Google, or being paranoid that Big Brother, warranted or not, is out to get you is irrelevant to a browser-based desktop OS being a solid idea. I say I can see this type of OS being able to take a huge chunk out of MS? low-end Windows sales and bring desktop computing to people around the world in ways that never before existed, and the response is about Google being evil? Really?
Some things are more significant than bullsh browser based OS. If you can't put two and two together (critical thinking, evaluation of evidence, non-ignorance) and understand why Google has proven themselves precisely EVIL, then you deserve what you get. Period.
Being pro- or anti-Google, or being paranoid that Big Brother, warranted or not, is out to get you is irrelevant to a browser-based desktop OS being a solid idea. I say I can see this type of OS being able to take a huge chunk out of MS? low-end Windows sales and bring desktop computing to people around the world in ways that never before existed, and the response is about Google being evil? Really?
I'm with you on this. Its not about whether Google is 'good' or 'bad', Chrome OS fills a need that netbooks have identified but don't quite satisfy. Windows based net books have always seemed like a really mediocre experience to me in the times I've used them. Chrome OS may make it better by eliminating a lot of the headaches. The big missing element seems to be apps. I've not seen any good reviews of the apps available at this point. Obviously that will change in time if Chrome OS gains any traction.
Some things are more significant than bullsh browser based OS. If you can't put two and two together (critical thinking, evaluation of evidence, non-ignorance) and understand why Google has proven themselves precisely EVIL, then you deserve what you get. Period.
Dude, you're taking this way to personally.
I full fledged computer is probably better for you. But Chrome OS isn't designed for you in the first place. It's for the ludites. There are plenty of them out there. Many people just use there computer to update facebook and check email. They don't need windows or even OSX to do this.
I used to respect google but nowadays they just irritate the crap out of me.
Dude, you're taking this way to personally.
I full fledged computer is probably better for you. But Chrome OS isn't designed for you in the first place. It's for the ludites. There are plenty of them out there. Many people just use there computer to update facebook and check email. They don't need windows or even OSX to do this.
There is some odd rationale going on here with the “I don’t like a certain aspect of Google so anything they ever create is a bad idea and your stupid if you think anything they do is viable”. I certainly didn’t expect a lot of support at this point for saying that browser-based desktop OS would satisfy many netbook users, other satellite computing needs, and places where decent computer HW is hard to find or expensive, but to say that I’m “ignorant” for not vilifying all of Google ideas is just as absurd as those who defend all of Apple’s ideas, or loves or hates everything MS does. Critical thinking, indeed!
PS: If these people think that Google’s control means it will fail, then they need to explain Google’s Android OS, Gmail, et al. being wildly successful. Are these not part of the same company? So why all of a sudden to they think that Chrome OS can’t be a viable desktop OS for low-cost systems simply because of the way they feel about Google?
And for the record I side with Melgross and PMZ. I use Little Snitch, and google software phones home like no other and I certainly don't buy their 'do no evil' mantra.
I used to respect google but nowadays they just irritate the crap out of me.
So you agree I?m an idiot for thinking a browser-based desktop OS can be a viable platform for many users?
Wikileaks recently released documents that say the Chinese government gave authority to hack Google's network and steal massive loads of documents on it's servers. In a free country, the government has no business viewing people's private documentations. Further, the US government hasn't publicly condemned China for stealing Google's users information.
Information in the Cloud may be convenient, but it is not protected. Don't think for a minute Apple hasn't left a hole for it to access your encrypted documents.
I travel the country. I have many computers, laptops and desktops. I have a smart phone. I have an iPad. MobileMe has lots of problems (lots of them) but it will get there like anything. And the fact I can sync my data to "the cloud" and get to it from anywhere is what cloud is all about. Your data can be encrypted. And unless you give out your key, DES is not going to be unencrypted. We are still at the very early stages of this cloud concept. I've been in the IT industry since the late 70's (ouch) and any technology worth its salt, is always improved over time. With the possible exception of Windows.
I would use cloud storage for a few things; as an offsite back up for important files that have been encrypted locally and then uploaded, as online site for storing files where others can get them and download them, i.e. file sharing, and possibly a place to temporarily store a few unimportant things I might need while "on the road."
So you agree I’m an idiot for thinking a browser-based desktop OS can be a viable platform for many users?
Er No, I don't think your an idiot!? I was agreeing with PMZ and Melgross about Google being an untrustworthy company.
In response to above: I believe a browser-based desktop OS could be a viable platform for many users, but a hybrid would kick it's ass every time, making a solely cloud based system hard to sell in a competitive marketplace .
Why on earth would anyone buy a cloud based device when they could buy a hybrid for practically the same price. Which is considerably more responsive and does everything a cloud OS could do...only better.
Er No, I don't think your an idiot!? I was agreeing with PMZ and Melgross about Google being an untrustworthy company.
In response to above: I believe a browser-based desktop OS could be a viable platform for many users, but a hybrid would kick it's ass every time making a solely cloud based system hard to sell in a competitive marketplace .
Browser-based OS doesn?t mean that everything resides in the cloud. Sure, one can do that or it can be designed that way, but HTML5 has local DB storage support. WebOS is a browser-based OS, too. They have their limitations, but they also have their advantages. As I previously mentioned, this is the first real opportunity I?ve seen to really take a chunk of Windows? marketshare. It will be the low-end but it would be $30(?) MS won?t get and unlike the Linux netbooks it will be an OS that is usable for the internet because the web browser is the one app people do use.
Full Disclosure: I use Google for my mail, have MobileMe backing up and syncing all sorts of data to my IDevices and Mac, use Dropbox to share files with friends, and even have AppleInsider account.
Browser-based OS doesn’t mean that everything resides in the cloud. Sure, one can do that or it can be designed that way, but HTML5 has local DB storage support. WebOS is a browser-based OS, too. They have their limitations, but they also have their advantages. As I previously mentioned, this is the first real opportunity I’ve seen to really take a chunk of Windows’ marketshare. It will be the low-end but it would be $30(?) MS won’t get and unlike the Linux netbooks it will be an OS that is usable for the internet because the web browser is the one app people do use.
I'm aware of HTML5 local sqlite storage. But why could the above (windows annihilation ) not be achieved by Android or a cloudy version of Android?
I'm aware of HTML5 local sqlite storage. But why could the above (windows annihilation ) not be achieved by Android or a cloudy version of Android?
How exactly is Android designed for this type of I/O when it?s not even ready for tablets?
I say I can see this type of OS being able to take a huge chunk out of MS? low-end Windows sales and bring desktop computing to people around the world in ways that never before existed
When netbooks first started appearing Linux was the operating system installed on all of them. If all the people buying these devices only wanted to use them for a few simple things, then why, when given the choice, did they choose Windows XP and push Linux out of the market? Linux was a free system, very much capable of all the things those people may have needed. The fact is, people didn't want a small, cheap, portable computer, they wanted a small, cheap, portable Windows computer. When most of the world thinks, "computer", they think of the Windows based system they once used or are currently using.
You have to redefine a product in order to get people to even consider to make a change in their habits. Google is basically just offering a dumbed down computer. There's nothing new here, just a whole lot of missing stuff that people normally associate with a computer. And nothing that can't be done on Windows, Linux, or Mac OS X system.
, and the response is about Google being evil? Really?
Well Google is pretty scary. People have trusted too much of their information with a single entity... That's never a good idea. All the data they have of you has been at one time transmitted over a network. Data mining isn't necessarily a bad thing, at least until the CEO of that company runs around saying things like,
"More and more searches are done on your behalf without you needing to type. I actually think most people don't want Google to answer their questions," he elaborates. "They want Google to tell them what they should be doing next. ... serendipity?can be calculated now. We can actually produce it electronically."
Is this what you've entrusted Google with, to gather so much information on you that you want them to be able to tell you what to do? Most people who use Google, just want to search for stuff.
When netbooks first started appearing Linux was the operating system installed on all of them. If all the people buying these devices only wanted to use them for a few simple things, then why, when given the choice, did they choose Windows XP and push Linux out of the market? Linux was a free system, very much capable of all the things those people may have needed. The fact is, people didn't want a small, cheap, portable computer, they wanted a small, cheap, portable Windows computer. When most of the world thinks, "computer", they think of the Windows based system they once used or are currently using.
You have to redefine a product in order to get people to even consider to make a change in their habits. Google is basically just offering a dumbed down computer. There's nothing new here, just a whole lot of missing stuff that people normally associate with a computer. And nothing that can't be done on Windows, Linux, or Mac OS X system..
1) Capable ≠ easy to use.
2) Windows and Linux on those netbooks were dog slow.
3) As stated ad nauseam and for the last time Chrome OS and other browser-based OSes have the opportunity to offer a simple and useful satellite computing xperience that feels fast to the user.
Android is essentially a modified version of JavaME
I registered just to say that the only thing in common Android has with JavaME is that they run on mobile devices. Then all similarities end. And OSX is essentially a modified version of Windows
This is the same writer that on Monday said Microsoft re-branded Windows CE as Windows XP Embedded to escape the negative stigma of Windows CE's failures.
I think the other writers at AI need to pull Mr Dilger aside and have a quiet word about writing articles on subjects where he is hopelessly outside of his comfort zone.
Giving an article a bias toward Apple is on an Apple-centric site is expected, but getting basic factual content wrong... that's simply not a good idea on any respectable tech site.
I think Mr Dilger needs to stay inside the Appleverse where he knows his stuff.