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".
For Chrome OS they have multiple avenues for revenue. First is when you do connect to the internet (as most users tend to do on a regular basis) they want you to connect with Google Docs, Google Search, Gmail and so on. They’ll get their revenue in that regard just as they would through Chrome browser or any other browser that connects to those services.
Other ways are by getting contracts for subscriptions of Chrome-based notebooks and desktops and embedded appliances. There primary goal is to simply take a small chunk from MS’ Windows marketshare for overpriced machines that do very basic tasks. If they can achieve this then Windows dominance could dwindle farther and there are many avenues that could open up for everyone is Windows loses its hold on the majority.
I think you're over-thinking it, and giving Google undue credit for being an MS competitor in the way we normally think of competition in the tech industry.
Google is an advertising company. First, foremost and always. So when a business considers buying into the Chromebook business model, they must also consider exactly how Google is monetizing the proposition.
That is to say, all of your information is going to be moving across Google's servers, where your data will harvested and parsed with an eye towards selling information. Because that's what Google does.
As frustrated as you've been in this thread with people misunderstanding the nature of the Chrome OS, I get frustrated with how Google has managed to misdirect people's attention away from what they're actually about. They're not about open, they're not about empowering people, they're not about creating the best possible technological future. They're about tying as many users as possible to Google servers so they can get more information about those users to sell to the highest bidder.
Now, maybe some or most people are perfectly OK with that, and don't see any downside. Even welcome targeted ads that align with one's interests.
But as we live more and more in a digital world, the curation of what you see becomes a rather significant factor in how one apprehends the world.
And what Google wants to do is fine tune the mechanics of that curation so that you're every move online is tracked and calibrated to sell you back yourself as a digital shadow. People bitch about Apple's "walled garden", but at least you know exactly where you stand. Google shouts "Open!" while crafting a much more insidious garden-- one that pretends to be the world itself.
I think you're over-thinking it, and giving Google undue credit for being an MS competitor in the way we normally think of competition in the tech industry.
Google is an advertising company. First, foremost and always. So when a business considers buying into the Chromebook business model, they must also consider exactly how Google is monetizing the proposition.
That is to say, all of your information is going to be moving across Google's servers, where your data will harvested and parsed with an eye towards selling information. Because that's what Google does.
As frustrated as you've been in this thread with people misunderstanding the nature of the Chrome OS, I get frustrated with how Google has managed to misdirect people's attention away from what they're actually about. They're not about open, they're not about empowering people, they're not about creating the best possible technological future. They're about tying as many users as possible to Google servers so they can get more information about those users to sell to the highest bidder.
Now, maybe some or most people are perfectly OK with that, and don't see any downside. Even welcome targeted ads that align with one's interests.
But as we live more and more in a digital world, the curation of what you see becomes a rather significant factor in how one apprehends the world.
And what Google wants to do is fine tune the mechanics of that curation so that you're every move online is tracked and calibrated to sell you back yourself as a digital shadow. People bitch about Apple's "walled garden", but at least you know exactly where you stand. Google shouts "Open!" while crafting a much more insidious garden-- one that pretends to be the world itself.
Mmmm...
If Google really were open and altruistic they would offer the Chrome package with the backend server components -- so that an enterprise could utilize the entire package within it's own servers -- without any connection to the Google infrastructure necessary, except for searches and app purchases.
If the system were robust enough (on and offline), Google could sell the package as an alternative to the entrenched, supposedly boated and inferior systems.
Ca'mon Google, we know you can do it -- and even sell Chrome for what it's worth!
If Google really were open and altruistic they would offer the Chrome package with the backend server components -- so that an enterprise could utilize the entire package within it's own servers -- without any connection to the Google infrastructure necessary, except for searches and app purchases.
And you can! Google would rather you be tied to their apps, but it?s not a requirement. We?ve been over this!!!
WHy you people can?t get past Chrome OS being usable without an internet connection is beyond my comprehension. How many times does it need to be stated and shown that it can read and write files form USB attached disks and doesn?t need any LAN or WAN access to function. It?s a UI based on WebKit, not an OS reliant on the web.
This is kind of like saying the iPad is usable without iTunes after the initial setup. Sure, there are stories of folks setting it up and giving it to their parents to use but it's not the design intent.
Here's a Feb 27 review of the OS on the CR-48. The new hardware is better than the CR-48...the OS has until mid-June to get solid offline support that is promised for launch. Google took a hit dropping Gears so they have to refactor their offline support in HTML5.
Do you have a link where I can download the Google Docs apps and the necessary supporting server components?
I run a local web server on several of my Macs and would like to evaluate the system from both ends totally within a firewall.
We talked about data being local to Enterprise/LAN and how you don’t even need to use any of Google online/offline apps to utilize Chrome OS or Chrome… even though they want you to.
Here is even a Google server they sell to businesses specifically for intranet and intraweb connectivity.
Google took a hit dropping Gears so they have to refactor their offline support in HTML5.
They have been working with HTML5? DB options since at least 2009 and stated decision to halt development of Gears (though not drop support) almost a year and a half ago. HTML5 is plenty capable of deal with offline storage.
We talked about data being local to Enterprise/LAN and how you don?t even need to use any of Google online/offline apps to utilize Chrome OS or Chrome? even though they want you to.
Here is even a Google server they sell to businesses specifically for intranet and intraweb connectivity.
We talked about data being local to Enterprise/LAN and how you don’t even need to use any of Google online/offline apps to utilize Chrome OS or Chrome… even though they want you to.
Here is even a Google server they sell to businesses specifically for intranet and intraweb connectivity.
They have been working with HTML5? DB options since at least 2009 and stated decision to halt development of Gears (though not drop support) almost a year and a half ago. HTML5 is plenty capable of deal with offline storage.
Yes, they still took a hit doing the refactor. Hence the big gap where offline support for gApps went away and wont reappear until June. People have been bitching a while:
You really think they went without offline mode for so long because the refactor was easy? Or do you think their team has lost months which could have been spent evolving the offline capabilities they had under gears which is being spent instead to move to HTML 5?
How late is HTML 5? The expected recommendation date is 2014. They say Last Call by end of this month. 6.6 seems solid but still...it's not totally under Google's control even if they are the 500lb gorilla.
I was asking about being able to buy the server backend to support Chrome OS and Google Docs and the Google Docs apps themselves.
You keep saying that Google OS doesn't need the internet connection to perform useful work.
You appear to think that having access to local data provides this capability.
Where can I buy Chrome OS apps to process this data local only -- at a minimum:
-- compose emails
-- write a WP document
-- create a spresdsheet
-- create a presentation
-- maintain a contacts list
-- maintain a calendar
-- do basic file manipulation
A likely response is that these are not available... yet!
But, they will be available... later!
When?
If Google were close to having these, they. would have demoed them and given a firm availability month.
So, without someone writing apps (HTML5 or whatever) all the local data is of no use -- without apps to process them.
Forgive me but your queries are all over the place. You know that Google SoCs can be used offline and saved to the device or USB storage. You also know once you have an
Internet connection your data is backed up any update to Docs occur.
Since you already know about that I assumed your odd requet for getting access to their entire proprietary Google Doc library was just a malformed example, but I played along and showed you evidence of Google allowing a server for local enterprise data to be searched. IOW, a service that is not on the Internet.
All those items you list in your last post have been doable since Google Gears, which is the predecessor to all DB options now found in HTML5.
Again, you don't have to like (it certainly doesn't fit my needs) but don't discount the OS and make up excuses against it. If WebOS can work just fine in Airplane Mode for apps that don't require the Internet then you all should be able to understand how another Linux/WebKit OS could work just as well without an Internet connection.
How late is HTML 5? The expected recommendation date is 2014. They say Last Call by end of this month. 6.6 seems solid but still...it's not totally under Google's control even if they are the 500lb gorilla.
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.
Forgive me but your queries are all over the place. You know that Google SoCs can be used offline and saved to the device or USB storage. You also know once you have an
Internet connection your data is backed up any update to Docs occur.
Since you already know about that I assumed your odd requet for getting access to their entire proprietary Google Doc library was just a malformed example, but I played along and showed you evidence of Google allowing a server for local enterprise data to be searched. IOW, a service that is not on the Internet.
All those items you list in your last post have been doable since Google Gears, which is the predecessor to all DB options now found in HTML5.
Again, you don't have to like (it certainly doesn't fit my needs) but don't discount the OS and make up excuses against it. If WebOS can work just fine in Airplane Mode for apps that don't require the Internet then you all should be able to understand how another Linux/WebKit OS could work just as well without an Internet connection.
One thing at a time -- what are the "Google SoCs" you refer to above -- it is the first time I have seen that term.
Forgive me but your queries are all over the place. :
Since you already know about that I assumed your odd requet for getting access to their entire proprietary Google Doc library was just a malformed example, but I played along and showed you evidence of Google allowing a server for local enterprise data to be searched. IOW, a service that is not on the Internet.
All those items you list in your last post have been doable since Google Gears, which is the predecessor to all DB options now found in HTML5.
Again, you don't have to like (it certainly doesn't fit my needs) but don't discount the OS and make up excuses against it. If WebOS can work just fine in Airplane Mode for apps that don't require the Internet then you all should be able to understand how another Linux/WebKit OS could work just as well without an Internet connection.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
One thing at a time -- what are the "Google SoCs" you refer to above -- it is the first time I have seen that term.
Since you did not respond. I suspect you think I am deliberately acting obtuse -- I am not! Rather I am trying to assure that we both are talking about the same thing.
My guess that SoCs was a typo for Docs -- as in Google Docs,
Assuming that is correct, help me understand:
"You know that Google SoCs [sic Docs] can be used offline and saved to the device or USB storage. You also know once you have an Internet connection your data is backed up any update to Docs occur."
I do not know that -- in a prior post, I documented just the opposite -- two cases:
The Internet is not available -- I am running the Chrome Browser only -- analogous to running the Chrome OS on a ChromeBook:
1) I have a Word document on a USB drive. How do I get that into Chrome -- remember I have no other Apps available that can read Word .doc files.
2) I have a Drawing Doc open in Chrome. I have an image on an SD card or USB drive. How can I get that image into the Drawing Doc file?
We talked about data being local to Enterprise/LAN and how you don’t even need to use any of Google online/offline apps to utilize Chrome OS or Chrome… even though they want you to.
Here is even a Google server they sell to businesses specifically for intranet and intraweb connectivity.
There are several videos to the right. Just to be clear, this appliance is LOCALLY placed, not within Google’s data centers.
But what possible motivation does Google have to make this scenario in any way desirable or convenient? In fact, if Chrome OS were used largely with local storage and servers, without Google apps, it would be disastrous for Google-- they would have empowered a paradigm shift that did them absolutely no good.
You don't even have to imagine that Google is particularly sinister or dishonest to understand that they're interested in wedding you to their servers and services-- anything else makes no business sense. None.
Just because certain things are possible doesn't mean they are easy or likely to be well supported. It's not hard to imagine Google getting people to use Chrome OS and if it proves successful starting to withdraw local options (for the betterment of their users, of course).
I'm not quite getting your insistence on the efficacy of offline functionality-- it's true as far as it goes but clearly that's not what Google is gunning for. And Google has shown itself pretty willing to take proactive steps to get what it wants. I mean, surely we're not imagining that Google is just trying to save us all from MS with altruistic technology that we're free to deploy as we see fit?
But what possible motivation does Google have to make this scenario in any way desirable or convenient? In fact, if Chrome OS were used largely with local storage and servers, without Google apps, it would be disastrous for Google-- they would have empowered a paradigm shift that did them absolutely no good.
You don't even have to imagine that Google is particularly sinister or dishonest to understand that they're interested in wedding you to their servers and services-- anything else makes no business sense. None.
Just because certain things are possible doesn't mean they are easy or likely to be well supported. It's not hard to imagine Google getting people to use Chrome OS and if it proves successful starting to withdraw local options (for the betterment of their users, of course).
I'm not quite getting your insistence on the efficacy of offline functionality-- it's true as far as it goes but clearly that's not what Google is gunning for. And Google has shown itself pretty willing to take proactive steps to get what it wants. I mean, surely we're not imagining that Google is just trying to save us all from MS with altruistic technology that we're free to deploy as we see fit?
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.
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?
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.
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.
Comments
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".
Chrome or Chrome OS?
For Chrome OS they have multiple avenues for revenue. First is when you do connect to the internet (as most users tend to do on a regular basis) they want you to connect with Google Docs, Google Search, Gmail and so on. They’ll get their revenue in that regard just as they would through Chrome browser or any other browser that connects to those services.
Other ways are by getting contracts for subscriptions of Chrome-based notebooks and desktops and embedded appliances. There primary goal is to simply take a small chunk from MS’ Windows marketshare for overpriced machines that do very basic tasks. If they can achieve this then Windows dominance could dwindle farther and there are many avenues that could open up for everyone is Windows loses its hold on the majority.
I think you're over-thinking it, and giving Google undue credit for being an MS competitor in the way we normally think of competition in the tech industry.
Google is an advertising company. First, foremost and always. So when a business considers buying into the Chromebook business model, they must also consider exactly how Google is monetizing the proposition.
That is to say, all of your information is going to be moving across Google's servers, where your data will harvested and parsed with an eye towards selling information. Because that's what Google does.
As frustrated as you've been in this thread with people misunderstanding the nature of the Chrome OS, I get frustrated with how Google has managed to misdirect people's attention away from what they're actually about. They're not about open, they're not about empowering people, they're not about creating the best possible technological future. They're about tying as many users as possible to Google servers so they can get more information about those users to sell to the highest bidder.
Now, maybe some or most people are perfectly OK with that, and don't see any downside. Even welcome targeted ads that align with one's interests.
But as we live more and more in a digital world, the curation of what you see becomes a rather significant factor in how one apprehends the world.
And what Google wants to do is fine tune the mechanics of that curation so that you're every move online is tracked and calibrated to sell you back yourself as a digital shadow. People bitch about Apple's "walled garden", but at least you know exactly where you stand. Google shouts "Open!" while crafting a much more insidious garden-- one that pretends to be the world itself.
I think you're over-thinking it, and giving Google undue credit for being an MS competitor in the way we normally think of competition in the tech industry.
Google is an advertising company. First, foremost and always. So when a business considers buying into the Chromebook business model, they must also consider exactly how Google is monetizing the proposition.
That is to say, all of your information is going to be moving across Google's servers, where your data will harvested and parsed with an eye towards selling information. Because that's what Google does.
As frustrated as you've been in this thread with people misunderstanding the nature of the Chrome OS, I get frustrated with how Google has managed to misdirect people's attention away from what they're actually about. They're not about open, they're not about empowering people, they're not about creating the best possible technological future. They're about tying as many users as possible to Google servers so they can get more information about those users to sell to the highest bidder.
Now, maybe some or most people are perfectly OK with that, and don't see any downside. Even welcome targeted ads that align with one's interests.
But as we live more and more in a digital world, the curation of what you see becomes a rather significant factor in how one apprehends the world.
And what Google wants to do is fine tune the mechanics of that curation so that you're every move online is tracked and calibrated to sell you back yourself as a digital shadow. People bitch about Apple's "walled garden", but at least you know exactly where you stand. Google shouts "Open!" while crafting a much more insidious garden-- one that pretends to be the world itself.
Mmmm...
If Google really were open and altruistic they would offer the Chrome package with the backend server components -- so that an enterprise could utilize the entire package within it's own servers -- without any connection to the Google infrastructure necessary, except for searches and app purchases.
If the system were robust enough (on and offline), Google could sell the package as an alternative to the entrenched, supposedly boated and inferior systems.
Ca'mon Google, we know you can do it -- and even sell Chrome for what it's worth!
Mmmm...
If Google really were open and altruistic they would offer the Chrome package with the backend server components -- so that an enterprise could utilize the entire package within it's own servers -- without any connection to the Google infrastructure necessary, except for searches and app purchases.
And you can! Google would rather you be tied to their apps, but it?s not a requirement. We?ve been over this!!!
And you can! Google would rather you be tied to their apps, but it’s not a requirement. We’ve been over this!!!
We, you and I, have not been over this!
Do you have a link where I can download the Google Docs apps and the necessary supporting server components?
I run a local web server on several of my Macs and would like to evaluate the system from both ends totally within a firewall.
WHy you people can?t get past Chrome OS being usable without an internet connection is beyond my comprehension. How many times does it need to be stated and shown that it can read and write files form USB attached disks and doesn?t need any LAN or WAN access to function. It?s a UI based on WebKit, not an OS reliant on the web.
This is kind of like saying the iPad is usable without iTunes after the initial setup. Sure, there are stories of folks setting it up and giving it to their parents to use but it's not the design intent.
Here's a Feb 27 review of the OS on the CR-48. The new hardware is better than the CR-48...the OS has until mid-June to get solid offline support that is promised for launch. Google took a hit dropping Gears so they have to refactor their offline support in HTML5.
We, you and I, have not been over this!
Do you have a link where I can download the Google Docs apps and the necessary supporting server components?
I run a local web server on several of my Macs and would like to evaluate the system from both ends totally within a firewall.
We talked about data being local to Enterprise/LAN and how you don’t even need to use any of Google online/offline apps to utilize Chrome OS or Chrome… even though they want you to.
Here is even a Google server they sell to businesses specifically for intranet and intraweb connectivity.There are several videos to the right. Just to be clear, this appliance is LOCALLY placed, not within Google’s data centers.
Google took a hit dropping Gears so they have to refactor their offline support in HTML5.
They have been working with HTML5? DB options since at least 2009 and stated decision to halt development of Gears (though not drop support) almost a year and a half ago. HTML5 is plenty capable of deal with offline storage.
Do you have a link where I can download the Google Docs apps and the necessary supporting server components?
I run a local web server on several of my Macs and would like to evaluate the system from both ends totally within a firewall.
You can't self host google docs. You can self host office 365...that's a major selling point to some enterprise customers.
We talked about data being local to Enterprise/LAN and how you don?t even need to use any of Google online/offline apps to utilize Chrome OS or Chrome? even though they want you to.
Here is even a Google server they sell to businesses specifically for intranet and intraweb connectivity.There are several videos to the right. Just to be clear, this appliance is LOCALLY placed, not within Google?s data centers.
This is their search appliance. You can not buy the equivalent gGpps appliance.
We talked about data being local to Enterprise/LAN and how you don’t even need to use any of Google online/offline apps to utilize Chrome OS or Chrome… even though they want you to.
Here is even a Google server they sell to businesses specifically for intranet and intraweb connectivity.There are several videos to the right. Just to be clear, this appliance is LOCALLY placed, not within Google’s data centers.
The link you provided is for search!
I was asking about being able to buy the server backend to support Chrome OS and Google Docs and the Google Docs apps themselves.
You keep saying that Google OS doesn't need the internet connection to perform useful work.
You appear to think that having access to local data provides this capability.
Where can I buy Chrome OS apps to process this data local only -- at a minimum:
-- compose emails
-- write a WP document
-- create a spresdsheet
-- create a presentation
-- maintain a contacts list
-- maintain a calendar
-- do basic file manipulation
A likely response is that these are not available... yet!
But, they will be available... later!
When?
If Google were close to having these, they. would have demoed them and given a firm availability month.
So, without someone writing apps (HTML5 or whatever) all the local data is of no use -- without apps to process them.
They have been working with HTML5? DB options since at least 2009 and stated decision to halt development of Gears (though not drop support) almost a year and a half ago. HTML5 is plenty capable of deal with offline storage.
Yes, they still took a hit doing the refactor. Hence the big gap where offline support for gApps went away and wont reappear until June. People have been bitching a while:
http://www.google.com/support/forum/...fdcf0531&hl=en
You really think they went without offline mode for so long because the refactor was easy? Or do you think their team has lost months which could have been spent evolving the offline capabilities they had under gears which is being spent instead to move to HTML 5?
How late is HTML 5? The expected recommendation date is 2014. They say Last Call by end of this month. 6.6 seems solid but still...it's not totally under Google's control even if they are the 500lb gorilla.
The link you provided is for search!
I was asking about being able to buy the server backend to support Chrome OS and Google Docs and the Google Docs apps themselves.
You keep saying that Google OS doesn't need the internet connection to perform useful work.
You appear to think that having access to local data provides this capability.
Where can I buy Chrome OS apps to process this data local only -- at a minimum:
-- compose emails
-- write a WP document
-- create a spresdsheet
-- create a presentation
-- maintain a contacts list
-- maintain a calendar
-- do basic file manipulation
A likely response is that these are not available... yet!
But, they will be available... later!
When?
If Google were close to having these, they. would have demoed them and given a firm availability month.
So, without someone writing apps (HTML5 or whatever) all the local data is of no use -- without apps to process them.
Forgive me but your queries are all over the place. You know that Google SoCs can be used offline and saved to the device or USB storage. You also know once you have an
Internet connection your data is backed up any update to Docs occur.
Since you already know about that I assumed your odd requet for getting access to their entire proprietary Google Doc library was just a malformed example, but I played along and showed you evidence of Google allowing a server for local enterprise data to be searched. IOW, a service that is not on the Internet.
All those items you list in your last post have been doable since Google Gears, which is the predecessor to all DB options now found in HTML5.
Again, you don't have to like (it certainly doesn't fit my needs) but don't discount the OS and make up excuses against it. If WebOS can work just fine in Airplane Mode for apps that don't require the Internet then you all should be able to understand how another Linux/WebKit OS could work just as well without an Internet connection.
How late is HTML 5? The expected recommendation date is 2014. They say Last Call by end of this month. 6.6 seems solid but still...it's not totally under Google's control even if they are the 500lb gorilla.
Are you really arguing that we shouldn't use any parts of HTML5 until it's completely ratified?
Forgive me but your queries are all over the place. You know that Google SoCs can be used offline and saved to the device or USB storage. You also know once you have an
Internet connection your data is backed up any update to Docs occur.
Since you already know about that I assumed your odd requet for getting access to their entire proprietary Google Doc library was just a malformed example, but I played along and showed you evidence of Google allowing a server for local enterprise data to be searched. IOW, a service that is not on the Internet.
All those items you list in your last post have been doable since Google Gears, which is the predecessor to all DB options now found in HTML5.
Again, you don't have to like (it certainly doesn't fit my needs) but don't discount the OS and make up excuses against it. If WebOS can work just fine in Airplane Mode for apps that don't require the Internet then you all should be able to understand how another Linux/WebKit OS could work just as well without an Internet connection.
One thing at a time -- what are the "Google SoCs" you refer to above -- it is the first time I have seen that term.
One thing at a time -- what are the "Google SoCs" you refer to above -- it is the first time I have seen that term.
That's Google Docs with my iPhone's spellcheck taking over.
Forgive me but your queries are all over the place. :
Since you already know about that I assumed your odd requet for getting access to their entire proprietary Google Doc library was just a malformed example, but I played along and showed you evidence of Google allowing a server for local enterprise data to be searched. IOW, a service that is not on the Internet.
All those items you list in your last post have been doable since Google Gears, which is the predecessor to all DB options now found in HTML5.
Again, you don't have to like (it certainly doesn't fit my needs) but don't discount the OS and make up excuses against it. If WebOS can work just fine in Airplane Mode for apps that don't require the Internet then you all should be able to understand how another Linux/WebKit OS could work just as well without an Internet connection.
One thing at a time -- what are the "Google SoCs" you refer to above -- it is the first time I have seen that term.
Since you did not respond. I suspect you think I am deliberately acting obtuse -- I am not! Rather I am trying to assure that we both are talking about the same thing.
My guess that SoCs was a typo for Docs -- as in Google Docs,
Assuming that is correct, help me understand:
"You know that Google SoCs [sic Docs] can be used offline and saved to the device or USB storage. You also know once you have an Internet connection your data is backed up any update to Docs occur."
I do not know that -- in a prior post, I documented just the opposite -- two cases:
The Internet is not available -- I am running the Chrome Browser only -- analogous to running the Chrome OS on a ChromeBook:
1) I have a Word document on a USB drive. How do I get that into Chrome -- remember I have no other Apps available that can read Word .doc files.
2) I have a Drawing Doc open in Chrome. I have an image on an SD card or USB drive. How can I get that image into the Drawing Doc file?
I am going to be away for 1/2 an hour -- I must go BBB (Bathe the Body Beautiful)
We talked about data being local to Enterprise/LAN and how you don’t even need to use any of Google online/offline apps to utilize Chrome OS or Chrome… even though they want you to.
Here is even a Google server they sell to businesses specifically for intranet and intraweb connectivity.There are several videos to the right. Just to be clear, this appliance is LOCALLY placed, not within Google’s data centers.
But what possible motivation does Google have to make this scenario in any way desirable or convenient? In fact, if Chrome OS were used largely with local storage and servers, without Google apps, it would be disastrous for Google-- they would have empowered a paradigm shift that did them absolutely no good.
You don't even have to imagine that Google is particularly sinister or dishonest to understand that they're interested in wedding you to their servers and services-- anything else makes no business sense. None.
Just because certain things are possible doesn't mean they are easy or likely to be well supported. It's not hard to imagine Google getting people to use Chrome OS and if it proves successful starting to withdraw local options (for the betterment of their users, of course).
I'm not quite getting your insistence on the efficacy of offline functionality-- it's true as far as it goes but clearly that's not what Google is gunning for. And Google has shown itself pretty willing to take proactive steps to get what it wants. I mean, surely we're not imagining that Google is just trying to save us all from MS with altruistic technology that we're free to deploy as we see fit?
But what possible motivation does Google have to make this scenario in any way desirable or convenient? In fact, if Chrome OS were used largely with local storage and servers, without Google apps, it would be disastrous for Google-- they would have empowered a paradigm shift that did them absolutely no good.
You don't even have to imagine that Google is particularly sinister or dishonest to understand that they're interested in wedding you to their servers and services-- anything else makes no business sense. None.
Just because certain things are possible doesn't mean they are easy or likely to be well supported. It's not hard to imagine Google getting people to use Chrome OS and if it proves successful starting to withdraw local options (for the betterment of their users, of course).
I'm not quite getting your insistence on the efficacy of offline functionality-- it's true as far as it goes but clearly that's not what Google is gunning for. And Google has shown itself pretty willing to take proactive steps to get what it wants. I mean, surely we're not imagining that Google is just trying to save us all from MS with altruistic technology that we're free to deploy as we see fit?
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.
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?
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.
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.