All web-based applications will automatically work
-
basically moving everything onto the net is a nice idea but taking into account current bandwidth capabilities in the majority of homes around the world, it seems it'll be too slow for everyday use. Does the that make more sense. If you ever used remote desktop or similar to someone with a slow internet connection you might get an idea.
Marc Firth wrote:
current bandwidth capabilities in the majority of homes around the world
Even with decent bandwidth, the latency is going to be to high for many applications.
10110011001111101010101000001000001101001010001010100000100000101000001000111100010110001011001011
-
I'm just reading the Google Chrome OS article that was in today's daily news (http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/07/introducing-google-chrome-os.html[^]). I particularly like the line that says, "All web-based applications will automatically work" And there's another problem. At the moment the web is too slow to be an OS. Don't get me wrong I love the idea of moving as much as possible to the web - but I also understand that there are some things that should stay on the desktop. All my media design apps, for example.
Marc Firth wrote:
At the moment the web is too slow to be an OS
Start a game of World of Warcraft - it baffled me to see updates for multiple clients (>80 client stats onscreen) being pushed at a rate that a webbrowser would choke on. I don't think that the internet is too slow, but it's kinda overkill to send the complete UI (and it's embedded resources) every time. The GOS is cute if you got an old machine that can't run anything 'but' a browser, for thin clients and netbooks. It's cool for my parents, who only use email and youtube :) Anyone who spent serious $$$ on a desktop will want a serious OS - something that supports DirectX, not a single-application-OS that turns your near-server into a thin-client. ..and yes, I think that the "Chrome OS" is a brilliant move, in marketing terms :thumbsup:
"please help in this regard. give the visual basic code for this as soon possible."
-
How does a web based OS work ? What do I use to connect to the web with, if my OS is online ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
I'm just reading the Google Chrome OS article that was in today's daily news (http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/07/introducing-google-chrome-os.html[^]). I particularly like the line that says, "All web-based applications will automatically work" And there's another problem. At the moment the web is too slow to be an OS. Don't get me wrong I love the idea of moving as much as possible to the web - but I also understand that there are some things that should stay on the desktop. All my media design apps, for example.
-
Marc Firth wrote:
All my media design apps, for example.
Sure. But meanwhile, GMail both loads, and responds, faster than my local installation of Outlook. Some things really do work better on the web. This will be about those things.
yeah I've got that problem - but I think it's an imap issue cos when I use exchange it's loads faster.
-
yeah I've got that problem - but I think it's an imap issue cos when I use exchange it's loads faster.
-
"Buy Two for half price each"
------------------------------------ "When Belly Full, Chin Hit Chest" Confucius 502BC
Absolutely free - just pay separate processing and shipping.
Jon Soap Box 1.0: the first, the original, reborn troll-less
-
yeah ten feet and it's great. I presume yours is remote? Not worth it then?
-
i ask because I was thinking about getting one for out of work
-
yeah ten feet and it's great. I presume yours is remote? Not worth it then?
Marc Firth wrote:
yeah ten feet and it's great. I presume yours is remote? Not worth it then?
Heh, i can only imagine what that's like... It's not terrible, but startup time sucks, and large messages do drag it down a bit more. Oh, and i pull all my messages down to local .pst files - server storage is limited and maddeningly slow.
-
Marc Firth wrote:
yeah ten feet and it's great. I presume yours is remote? Not worth it then?
Heh, i can only imagine what that's like... It's not terrible, but startup time sucks, and large messages do drag it down a bit more. Oh, and i pull all my messages down to local .pst files - server storage is limited and maddeningly slow.
IMAP's probably just as bad - ages to startup and shutdown. No deleted items folder ( i had to set up a rule to copy every new message to the deleted items). And cos I had Outlook as seperate packag, not part of office, there was no stationery support. Peachy. :doh: IMAP and windows live mail on the other hand was brilliant - quick too - but the WYSIWYG editor is useless and there is poor stationery support. And it'll cost a grand or so to get a local (SBS) exchange server together plus running charges, backup etc... :wtf: Think I'll just stick with what I've got.
-
I'm just reading the Google Chrome OS article that was in today's daily news (http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/07/introducing-google-chrome-os.html[^]). I particularly like the line that says, "All web-based applications will automatically work" And there's another problem. At the moment the web is too slow to be an OS. Don't get me wrong I love the idea of moving as much as possible to the web - but I also understand that there are some things that should stay on the desktop. All my media design apps, for example.
I don't think they'll be successful unless their OS is good at everything...people aren't going to want to have to use more than one OS...if they have to adopt Google OS for the lightweight stuff and still have to use Windows for the heavyweight stuff then why not do the lightweight stuff in Windows as well? Here in Canada the Telcos/Cablecos have gone hog wild with 'throttling' and are trying to bring in Usage Based Billing so they can charge by the byte...that's going to be a huge dose of ice water on a web based OS...all the horror stories we're always hearing about $11,000.00 data charges from the phone companies?...ferget about it.
-
I don't think they'll be successful unless their OS is good at everything...people aren't going to want to have to use more than one OS...if they have to adopt Google OS for the lightweight stuff and still have to use Windows for the heavyweight stuff then why not do the lightweight stuff in Windows as well? Here in Canada the Telcos/Cablecos have gone hog wild with 'throttling' and are trying to bring in Usage Based Billing so they can charge by the byte...that's going to be a huge dose of ice water on a web based OS...all the horror stories we're always hearing about $11,000.00 data charges from the phone companies?...ferget about it.
DaveX86 wrote:
I don't think they'll be successful unless their OS is good at everything...people aren't going to want to have to use more than one OS...
My (EEE box[^]) came with XP Home and also had this partition that had a minimalistic OS to load a browser, Skype, email, and something else (can't remember)...and you're absolutely right: If I have to reboot into something else to actually get anything done, then it becomes utterly pointless. That partition was gone on the first day I had the machine...in fact, I blew it away before the CPU had time to warm up. So, to Google: good luck with that.
-
DaveX86 wrote:
I don't think they'll be successful unless their OS is good at everything...people aren't going to want to have to use more than one OS...
My (EEE box[^]) came with XP Home and also had this partition that had a minimalistic OS to load a browser, Skype, email, and something else (can't remember)...and you're absolutely right: If I have to reboot into something else to actually get anything done, then it becomes utterly pointless. That partition was gone on the first day I had the machine...in fact, I blew it away before the CPU had time to warm up. So, to Google: good luck with that.
Daniel Desormeaux wrote:
My (EEE box[^]) came with XP Home and also had this partition that had a minimalistic OS to load a browser, Skype, email, and something else (can't remember)...and you're absolutely right: If I have to reboot into something else to actually get anything done, then it becomes utterly pointless.
That more or less sums up my opinion of the similar splashtop OSes being stuffed into some DIY mobo BIOSes. If the penguins want to make them a viable option for anything other than a webtoy, they need to provide an option to transition to a full OS without a reboot. Ideally using idle clock cycles while you're surfing so that effectively you're just getting a usable browser when the OS is only 5% booted.
The European Way of War: Blow your own continent up. The American Way of War: Go over and help them.
-
DaveX86 wrote:
I don't think they'll be successful unless their OS is good at everything...people aren't going to want to have to use more than one OS...
My (EEE box[^]) came with XP Home and also had this partition that had a minimalistic OS to load a browser, Skype, email, and something else (can't remember)...and you're absolutely right: If I have to reboot into something else to actually get anything done, then it becomes utterly pointless. That partition was gone on the first day I had the machine...in fact, I blew it away before the CPU had time to warm up. So, to Google: good luck with that.
-
I don't think they'll be successful unless their OS is good at everything...people aren't going to want to have to use more than one OS...if they have to adopt Google OS for the lightweight stuff and still have to use Windows for the heavyweight stuff then why not do the lightweight stuff in Windows as well? Here in Canada the Telcos/Cablecos have gone hog wild with 'throttling' and are trying to bring in Usage Based Billing so they can charge by the byte...that's going to be a huge dose of ice water on a web based OS...all the horror stories we're always hearing about $11,000.00 data charges from the phone companies?...ferget about it.
Because a lot of people only want to do the lightweight stuff and want something cheap and fast? They don't even need most of the capabilities of a full-blown OS.
-
Daniel Desormeaux wrote:
My (EEE box[^])
Looking is the pics on that link, is it in a case that requires you to open the door to power it up? X|
The European Way of War: Blow your own continent up. The American Way of War: Go over and help them.
dan neely wrote:
Looking is the pics on that link, is it in a case that requires you to open the door to power it up?
The first two pictures show the same perspective. It's just the same as the panel covering the front of any standard PC. You can leave it open, or take it off completely (no tool required, it's just a flimsy little plastic cover). Mine's turned on 24/7 anyway, I must've pressed the power button exactly 4 times since I got it last September. On top of that, it's mounted on the back of one of my monitors (screw holes for the mounting backet that came with it line up according to some VESA spec), so it's completely hidden.
-
dan neely wrote:
Looking is the pics on that link, is it in a case that requires you to open the door to power it up?
The first two pictures show the same perspective. It's just the same as the panel covering the front of any standard PC. You can leave it open, or take it off completely (no tool required, it's just a flimsy little plastic cover). Mine's turned on 24/7 anyway, I must've pressed the power button exactly 4 times since I got it last September. On top of that, it's mounted on the back of one of my monitors (screw holes for the mounting backet that came with it line up according to some VESA spec), so it's completely hidden.
Front panel doors like that are second only to High on the Good Stuff "styling" on my design hate list. The problem is that while you can pull the door off, you've then got an overly recessed area on the front, that in all cases I've seen looks like crap, and a pair of big holes where the hinges were.
The European Way of War: Blow your own continent up. The American Way of War: Go over and help them.