Their Chrome store still has a lot of junk in it IMO. Google should take a day to forget about "open" and throw some of the trash out. Maybe do a little better organizing while they're at it. https://chrome.google.com/webstore/category/apps
With that said there's a lot of functionality that's been added over the past several months. Keep has really helped me with some of the household organization, Ghostery keeps unwanted tracking at bay, Petapator is incredibly convenient when I'm searching up patents and PushBullet makes it easy to flag an article or file I've run across while using my phone and link it to open on my Chromebook or tablet at home (or vice-versa) for an easier read. My needs are simple.
I'm surprised you don't need something more robust. The Retina MBPs are well worth their weight. hint hint
You are with Verizon right? We switched to the AT&T shared plan with all of our devices. It costs about the same as before but since I'm the biggest data hog, it is nice to be able to use the shared data.
I'm back with AT&T; I made the foolish assumption of thinking AT&T would have LTE in my area by now and didn't do the 2 minutes of leg work to look it up. My bill is about $30-40 cheaper then with Verizon so there is that, but the call quality is comparatively poor. Data is slower but it's not something I notice. I may jump out of my contract and see how T-Mobile works. They are suppose to be using HD Voice.
I do the vast majority of my research on a Chromebook. OnIn the evenings and on weekends (like now) all my work is done on it with rare exception. If I need to use PS or Illustrator I pop by work. Otherwise I haven't needed to do anything on the weekends that the Chromebook can't handle.
Get that place up to speed so you can use the Chromebook as a thin client to log into a VM that has PS and Illustrator!
My bill is about $30-40 cheaper then with Verizon so there is that, but the call quality is comparatively poor. Data is slower but it's not something I notice. I may jump out of my contract and see how T-Mobile works. They are suppose to be using HD Voice.
AT&T voice has always been poor. Their towers or back end is really jammed which makes the data slow. Surprisingly, in mountains of Panama with only 4G (we are getting LTE next year) the data is much faster than OC in California. And the voice quality is superb. So much for the third world being behind in telecommunications. Of course we have unsightly cell towers all over the place.
And here's a link that says they're not failures. I guess it just depends on what sources you wish to use (that seems to be the case a lot these days).
I am looking at usage and not guessed upon shipments. For an OS that is little more than a web browser, ChomeOS has very little web usage given it's supposed sales numbers based on guesstimates. I consider a droduct that is purchased and only acts as a dust collector a failed product.
If Google offered a very easy way to install Windows as a VM for all Intel Core-based Chromebooks they could probably help bridge that gap of users not wanting to invest in a new OS.If they made it work like VMWare and Parallels with Unity and Coherence modes, respectively, I think Google would have a product that could topple Windows on the large, low-end of the pyramid.
If Google offered a very easy way to install Windows as a VM for all Intel Core-based Chromebooks they could probably help bridge that gap of users not wanting to invest in a new OS.If they made it work like VMWare and Parallels with Unity and Coherence modes, respectively, I think Google would have a product that could topple Windows on the large, low-end of the pyramid.
PS: That pro-Chrome OS article writes, "The cloud-based operating system is booming as Google." I think this is a bad sign for the future of Chrome OS. That sounds like it won't do squat when not connected to the internet. This is also what a lot of people here — people who follow technology — believe. That's bad press.
PS: That pro-Chrome OS article writes, "The cloud-based operating system is booming as Google." I think this is a bad sign for the future of Chrome OS. That sounds like it won't do squat when not connected to the internet. This is also what a lot of people here — people who follow technology — believe. That's bad press.
I have to say though, all of this talk and the ridiculously low price of some of them is making me want to grab one to tinker with. As I understand it though the cheap ones don't have much availability.
I think I'll leave it until we see what happens with the next version of Android/Chrome.
PS: That pro-Chrome OS article writes, "The cloud-based operating system is booming as Google." I think this is a bad sign for the future of Chrome OS. That sounds like it won't do squat when not connected to the internet. This is also what a lot of people here — people who follow technology — believe. That's bad press.
I agree. That's one of the many misleading "scroogled" claims: A Chromebook is a brick without an internet connection. That's not true of course but Google does a poor job of pointing that out. They do a terrible marketing job for a company of their size IMHO.
With the waterfall method the end consumer sees the finished product without any involvement to the design method used on the inside. I think we both agree on that. This would be similar to Apple's approach with iOS and OSX. It makes sense that they would use an approach like this for things like iOS and OSX. It would be the best approach for those products.
With the agile method, the customer is a part of the design methodology. They are able to use the product while it's in development and feedback can be given which provides an iterative feedback loop until the end product is achieved. This would be similar to Google's approach of releasing a product as a beta, collecting customer feedback and usage data, and using that information to improve the product more frequently.
I do find it funny how people are getting so objectionable about this though. In case it needs to be said again, both approaches have their pros and cons. Neither is bad. To say that one company often uses one approach while another company tends to use a different approach doesn't imply that one company is better then the other.
[
You are massively confusing them. For example: "With the waterfall method the end consumer sees the finished product without any involvement to the design method used on the inside." is categorically false on or so many levels. Even with the waterfall method of development, the end customer will have various Stages of Involvement like PDR, CDR or others. There may also be many intermediate engineering builds of software for continuous product evaluation. The method is not a closed box where the end customer sees none of the process. It can be, but the method does not dictate it.
Likewise, Agile can be used with the end customer having little to no actual involvement.
Waterfall and Agile define specific processes used during the development process and when they are done correctly, there is little difference seen on the outside product. Take Expose for example, when it was introduced in OS X Panther it was one of the major selling points. It was developed using neither Waterfall nor Agile. The problem people are having with your post is you are applying an answer without having any data to back it up.
I have to say though, all of this talk and the ridiculously low price of some of them is making me want to grab one to tinker with. As I understand it though the cheap ones don't have much availability.
I think I'll leave it until we see what happens with the next version of Android/Chrome.
Assuming this is accurate you could spend a couple hundred on a Chromebook and still get access to all your media from a USB thumbs or HDD.
I agree. That's one of the many misleading "scroogled" claims: A Chromebook is a brick without an internet connection. That's not true of course but Google does a poor job of pointing that out. They do a terrible marketing job for a company of their size IMHO.
They do a downright shitty job which is why I adamantly believe that Apple's way of not demoing or releasing a product until it's ready is the better way to go.
PS: Are you not enjoying [@]mstone[/@] and me being called Gogull TROLLS!"?
You are massively confusing them. For example: "With the waterfall method the end consumer sees the finished product without any involvement to the design method used on the inside." is categorically false on or so many levels. Even with the waterfall method of development, the end customer will have various Stages of Involvement like PDR, CDR or others. There may also be many intermediate engineering builds of software for continuous product evaluation. The method is not a closed box where the end customer sees none of the process. It can be, but the method does not dictate it.
Likewise, Agile can be used with the end customer having little to no actual involvement.
Waterfall and Agile define specific processes used during the development process and when they are done correctly, there is little difference seen on the outside product. Take Expose for example, when it was introduced in OS X Panther it was one of the major selling points. It was developed using neither Waterfall nor Agile. The problem people are having with your post is you are applying an answer without having any data to back it up.
You have an interesting take on the two which flies in the face of anything ever written about them. Also, just because something can be done a certain way, doesn't make it traditional or a good example of how things normally function. There are exceptions to every rule. To take an exception and try to imply that it's the norm would be a mistake.
It also seems like with every back and forth we are getting further and further from the original point. That being that agile methodoligies are not necessarily a bad thing or inferior to waterfall methodologies. Maybe we can both agree on that?
..... with Apple sticking to their already established products and gradually evolving while Google is thinking out of the box.
Perhaps Google likes to "think outside of the box" .... but Apple prefers to release finished product that ARE outside of the box ... and sell amazingly well, thank you very much.
PS: Are you not enjoying @mstone and me being called Gogull TROLLS!"?
I could yeah but I can basically do the same with Android and I think 'OTG Explorer'. I would only really want one to experiment with virtualisation on anyway. Regardless, i think it's a smart plan and once again it's an area that Apple really doesn't want to compete in.
I could yeah but I can basically do the same with Android and I think 'OTG Explorer'. I would only really want one to experiment with virtualisation on anyway. Regardless, i think it's a smart plan and once again it's an area that Apple really doesn't want to compete in.
If successful, it's really only going to hurt Windows hold on the market as Apple already has a monopoly on the higher-end of the "PC" market segment. In fact, I could argue that Chrome OS loosening the Windows hold of the PC market as a whole would help Apple sell more Macs at the top end.
With the waterfall method the end consumer sees the finished product without any involvement to the design method used on the inside. I think we both agree on that. This would be similar to Apple's approach with iOS and OSX. It makes sense that they would use an approach like this for things like iOS and OSX. It would be the best approach for those products.
With the agile method, the customer is a part of the design methodology. They are able to use the product while it's in development and feedback can be given which provides an iterative feedback loop until the end product is achieved. This would be similar to Google's approach of releasing a product as a beta, collecting customer feedback and usage data, and using that information to improve the product more frequently.
I do find it funny how people are getting so objectionable about this though. In case it needs to be said again, both approaches have their pros and cons. Neither is bad. To say that one company often uses one approach while another company tends to use a different approach doesn't imply that one company is better then the other.
Similar is a stretch. In fact, it's not 'agile' at all.
Agile is business involvement in priorities and commitment of the designer business partner's requirements, WHEN the business partner needs them. Google's 'beta' process does neither.
It's a silent observation, and a 'unilateral' implementation of what is needed for the majority ( at best.... or potentially a highly vocal minority, or even a $$$ driven management). the 'beta' approach baits customers to use stuff, and it may or may not be there a month or 3 years from now. Hardly agile, it's more of a 'hey, someone thought this would be great... Oops, not enough of you did, so we're pulling it out'
I do agree with your last sentiment.... just don't classify Google approach as 'agile'.
Similar is a stretch. In fact, it's not 'agile' at all.
Agile is business involvement in priorities and commitment of the designer business partner's requirements, WHEN the business partner needs them. Google's 'beta' process does neither.
It's a silent observation, and a 'unilateral' implementation of what is needed for the majority ( at best.... or potentially a highly vocal minority, or even a $$$ driven management). the 'beta' approach baits customers to use stuff, and it may or may not be there a month or 3 years from now. Hardly agile, it's more of a 'hey, someone thought this would be great... Oops, not enough of you did, so we're pulling it out'
I do agree with your last sentiment.... just don't classify Google approach as 'agile'.
You raise some fair points. Certainly not everything ever made by Google has followed the agile development method. I still think their approach often resembles the agile methodology and apparently you don't. I can live with that.
If successful, it's really only going to hurt Windows hold on the market as Apple already has a monopoly on the higher-end of the "PC" market segment. In fact, I could argue that Chrome OS loosening the Windows hold of the PC market could help Apple sell more Macs at the top end.
+1
Chrome OS at the bottom (commodity PC market... I need a device to read my mail, tweet, and get a Citrix Session up and running back to the office VDI farm), and Apple becoming the defacto high end (e.g. corporate exec PC... The model basically says only those Apps that can't be commoditized really require Windows... a MBair with a local VMWare image running the full 'legacy' suite locally), as corporate apps slowly roll to one of 2 non-windows options (mobile Apps, HTML5/6 apps), homed in huge *aaS virtual data centers.
A lot of people scream that VBA in Excel is the 'killer app' that will drive large corporate buys in WinTel laptops and workstations. My observation is any smart CIO will see that operationalizing around Excel kills any ROI. Excel will become a prototyping tool, and someone, maybe even microsoft, will make billions in taking Excel spreadsheet logic and running them through an app profiler and port them into iOS and android apps running on MS IIS servers (if microsoft is so lucky).
Otherwise, I see VDI with Citrix Farms exceeding the need of the corporation. You drive BYOD (give your workers $500 to buy an device, and an MDM manages their corporate integration) to stop buying PCs for the masses, which in turn drives MS 8.1 corporate client purchases to zero, which pushes OEM big-box purchases to zero, which kills Windows as a client OS.
Comments
I'm surprised you don't need something more robust. The Retina MBPs are well worth their weight. hint hint
I'm back with AT&T; I made the foolish assumption of thinking AT&T would have LTE in my area by now and didn't do the 2 minutes of leg work to look it up. My bill is about $30-40 cheaper then with Verizon so there is that, but the call quality is comparatively poor. Data is slower but it's not something I notice. I may jump out of my contract and see how T-Mobile works. They are suppose to be using HD Voice.
Quote:
I do the vast majority of my research on a Chromebook. OnIn the evenings and on weekends (like now) all my work is done on it with rare exception. If I need to use PS or Illustrator I pop by work. Otherwise I haven't needed to do anything on the weekends that the Chromebook can't handle.
Get that place up to speed so you can use the Chromebook as a thin client to log into a VM that has PS and Illustrator!
AT&T voice has always been poor. Their towers or back end is really jammed which makes the data slow. Surprisingly, in mountains of Panama with only 4G (we are getting LTE next year) the data is much faster than OC in California. And the voice quality is superb. So much for the third world being behind in telecommunications. Of course we have unsightly cell towers all over the place.
I am looking at usage and not guessed upon shipments. For an OS that is little more than a web browser, ChomeOS has very little web usage given it's supposed sales numbers based on guesstimates. I consider a droduct that is purchased and only acts as a dust collector a failed product.
I should probably do just that. BTW thanks for the mention of VM. While looking for a pertinent link I stumbled on an article that mentions booting Windows on a Chromebook.
http://www.chromium.org/chromium-os/developer-information-for-chrome-os-devices/running-virtual-machines-on-your-chromebook
EDIT: Here's a proper article. Not sure VMWare is a good match for a relatively small business tho. I will talk to my tech guy about it tho. Thanks!
http://chromespot.com/2014/02/13/google-vmware-run-windows-apps-programs-chromebooks/
If Google offered a very easy way to install Windows as a VM for all Intel Core-based Chromebooks they could probably help bridge that gap of users not wanting to invest in a new OS.If they made it work like VMWare and Parallels with Unity and Coherence modes, respectively, I think Google would have a product that could topple Windows on the large, low-end of the pyramid.
See the edit link in the previous post.
I have my doubts but we'll see how it goes.
PS: That pro-Chrome OS article writes, "The cloud-based operating system is booming as Google." I think this is a bad sign for the future of Chrome OS. That sounds like it won't do squat when not connected to the internet. This is also what a lot of people here — people who follow technology — believe. That's bad press.
I have my doubts but we'll see how it goes.
PS: That pro-Chrome OS article writes, "The cloud-based operating system is booming as Google." I think this is a bad sign for the future of Chrome OS. That sounds like it won't do squat when not connected to the internet. This is also what a lot of people here — people who follow technology — believe. That's bad press.
I have to say though, all of this talk and the ridiculously low price of some of them is making me want to grab one to tinker with. As I understand it though the cheap ones don't have much availability.
I think I'll leave it until we see what happens with the next version of Android/Chrome.
I agree. That's one of the many misleading "scroogled" claims: A Chromebook is a brick without an internet connection. That's not true of course but Google does a poor job of pointing that out. They do a terrible marketing job for a company of their size IMHO.
You are massively confusing them. For example: "With the waterfall method the end consumer sees the finished product without any involvement to the design method used on the inside." is categorically false on or so many levels. Even with the waterfall method of development, the end customer will have various Stages of Involvement like PDR, CDR or others. There may also be many intermediate engineering builds of software for continuous product evaluation. The method is not a closed box where the end customer sees none of the process. It can be, but the method does not dictate it.
Likewise, Agile can be used with the end customer having little to no actual involvement.
Waterfall and Agile define specific processes used during the development process and when they are done correctly, there is little difference seen on the outside product. Take Expose for example, when it was introduced in OS X Panther it was one of the major selling points. It was developed using neither Waterfall nor Agile. The problem people are having with your post is you are applying an answer without having any data to back it up.
Assuming this is accurate you could spend a couple hundred on a Chromebook and still get access to all your media from a USB thumbs or HDD.
They do a downright shitty job which is why I adamantly believe that Apple's way of not demoing or releasing a product until it's ready is the better way to go.
PS: Are you not enjoying [@]mstone[/@] and me being called Gogull TROLLS!"?
Yes. I. Am. ROFL!
What would we do without newbees with an attitude.
[
You are massively confusing them. For example: "With the waterfall method the end consumer sees the finished product without any involvement to the design method used on the inside." is categorically false on or so many levels. Even with the waterfall method of development, the end customer will have various Stages of Involvement like PDR, CDR or others. There may also be many intermediate engineering builds of software for continuous product evaluation. The method is not a closed box where the end customer sees none of the process. It can be, but the method does not dictate it.
Likewise, Agile can be used with the end customer having little to no actual involvement.
Waterfall and Agile define specific processes used during the development process and when they are done correctly, there is little difference seen on the outside product. Take Expose for example, when it was introduced in OS X Panther it was one of the major selling points. It was developed using neither Waterfall nor Agile. The problem people are having with your post is you are applying an answer without having any data to back it up.
You have an interesting take on the two which flies in the face of anything ever written about them. Also, just because something can be done a certain way, doesn't make it traditional or a good example of how things normally function. There are exceptions to every rule. To take an exception and try to imply that it's the norm would be a mistake.
It also seems like with every back and forth we are getting further and further from the original point. That being that agile methodoligies are not necessarily a bad thing or inferior to waterfall methodologies. Maybe we can both agree on that?
..... with Apple sticking to their already established products and gradually evolving while Google is thinking out of the box.
Perhaps Google likes to "think outside of the box" .... but Apple prefers to release finished product that ARE outside of the box ... and sell amazingly well, thank you very much.
Assuming this is accurate you could spend a couple hundred on a Chromebook and still get access to all your media from a USB thumbs or HDD.
PS: Are you not enjoying @mstone and me being called Gogull TROLLS!"?
I could yeah but I can basically do the same with Android and I think 'OTG Explorer'. I would only really want one to experiment with virtualisation on anyway. Regardless, i think it's a smart plan and once again it's an area that Apple really doesn't want to compete in.
If successful, it's really only going to hurt Windows hold on the market as Apple already has a monopoly on the higher-end of the "PC" market segment. In fact, I could argue that Chrome OS loosening the Windows hold of the PC market as a whole would help Apple sell more Macs at the top end.
I don't believe I am confusing them.
With the waterfall method the end consumer sees the finished product without any involvement to the design method used on the inside. I think we both agree on that. This would be similar to Apple's approach with iOS and OSX. It makes sense that they would use an approach like this for things like iOS and OSX. It would be the best approach for those products.
With the agile method, the customer is a part of the design methodology. They are able to use the product while it's in development and feedback can be given which provides an iterative feedback loop until the end product is achieved. This would be similar to Google's approach of releasing a product as a beta, collecting customer feedback and usage data, and using that information to improve the product more frequently.
I do find it funny how people are getting so objectionable about this though. In case it needs to be said again, both approaches have their pros and cons. Neither is bad. To say that one company often uses one approach while another company tends to use a different approach doesn't imply that one company is better then the other.
Similar is a stretch. In fact, it's not 'agile' at all.
Agile is business involvement in priorities and commitment of the designer business partner's requirements, WHEN the business partner needs them. Google's 'beta' process does neither.
It's a silent observation, and a 'unilateral' implementation of what is needed for the majority ( at best.... or potentially a highly vocal minority, or even a $$$ driven management). the 'beta' approach baits customers to use stuff, and it may or may not be there a month or 3 years from now. Hardly agile, it's more of a 'hey, someone thought this would be great... Oops, not enough of you did, so we're pulling it out'
I do agree with your last sentiment.... just don't classify Google approach as 'agile'.
Similar is a stretch. In fact, it's not 'agile' at all.
Agile is business involvement in priorities and commitment of the designer business partner's requirements, WHEN the business partner needs them. Google's 'beta' process does neither.
It's a silent observation, and a 'unilateral' implementation of what is needed for the majority ( at best.... or potentially a highly vocal minority, or even a $$$ driven management). the 'beta' approach baits customers to use stuff, and it may or may not be there a month or 3 years from now. Hardly agile, it's more of a 'hey, someone thought this would be great... Oops, not enough of you did, so we're pulling it out'
I do agree with your last sentiment.... just don't classify Google approach as 'agile'.
You raise some fair points. Certainly not everything ever made by Google has followed the agile development method. I still think their approach often resembles the agile methodology and apparently you don't. I can live with that.
If successful, it's really only going to hurt Windows hold on the market as Apple already has a monopoly on the higher-end of the "PC" market segment. In fact, I could argue that Chrome OS loosening the Windows hold of the PC market could help Apple sell more Macs at the top end.
+1
Chrome OS at the bottom (commodity PC market... I need a device to read my mail, tweet, and get a Citrix Session up and running back to the office VDI farm), and Apple becoming the defacto high end (e.g. corporate exec PC... The model basically says only those Apps that can't be commoditized really require Windows... a MBair with a local VMWare image running the full 'legacy' suite locally), as corporate apps slowly roll to one of 2 non-windows options (mobile Apps, HTML5/6 apps), homed in huge *aaS virtual data centers.
A lot of people scream that VBA in Excel is the 'killer app' that will drive large corporate buys in WinTel laptops and workstations. My observation is any smart CIO will see that operationalizing around Excel kills any ROI. Excel will become a prototyping tool, and someone, maybe even microsoft, will make billions in taking Excel spreadsheet logic and running them through an app profiler and port them into iOS and android apps running on MS IIS servers (if microsoft is so lucky).
Otherwise, I see VDI with Citrix Farms exceeding the need of the corporation. You drive BYOD (give your workers $500 to buy an device, and an MDM manages their corporate integration) to stop buying PCs for the masses, which in turn drives MS 8.1 corporate client purchases to zero, which pushes OEM big-box purchases to zero, which kills Windows as a client OS.