Will the browser become the new OS?
-
From here-[^] Microsoft Corp. has recently faced criticism that its model, which still relies mostly on delivering software in traditional packaging, could grow antiquated. The concern is that, as more companies offer online services for everything from word processing to storing photos, there will be less of a need for Microsoft's lucrative Windows operating system and Office business software. If this trend has any real substance to it (which I personally feel it does not, except in limited applications) it strike me that the only thing the user is going to need on his machine is a browser and possibly (but maybe not) some plug-in capability. Something like that could be delivered in firmware. Is the machine of the future going to essentially be a browser with an Internet connection, where local software might be relegated simply to A/V rendering? In some ways, this would be a lovely, simple environment to work in. I'm sure it will be fraught with it's own technology headaches though. Are we at edge of a major paradigm shift in information presentation and management? Or have we already over the edge but don't know it? Marc VS2005 Tips & Tricks -- contributions welcome! -- modified at 12:17 Wednesday 9th November, 2005
There was a fad back in the mid 90's with something similar. Ever heard of an X terminal[^]? The physics lab I was at thought this would be an ingenius idea. One central computer from which several "terminals" could all link to. When you sat down there was basically a screen, keyboard, mouse and a black box that was responsible for the communication with the central server. All applications were run remotely. In principle, maybe it was a good idea. In practice, it was awful. Difficulty booting, network problems, server load, slow performance, no access to a hard disk or anything. In a room full of 2 regular PC's and 12 X Terminals, there was always somebody on the PCs and the terminals were always free. I think, psychologically, people like to have assurance that what they are working on is sitting in front of them. Besides, as has already been mentioned, we currently have connection speed problems, network reliability, etc...etc. Not to mention privacy issues...
-
Uhm, more than half of the online world is on sub-64 Kbps lines. Until the whole world is connected on lines faster than 2 Mbps (though if you are gonna do word processing, development, debugging etc on the web, you'd need 50 Mbps I guess), it's not going to happen.
How important is the sub-64 world though? Hey, don't jump on me, I come from that world and I have to face the fact that my sub-64 market is hardly a blip on the radar of Google, Microsoft et. al. India may have over a billion people but how many are potential users of 2 Mbps lines? I know that most of Africa certainly could not make use of 2 Mbps lines. What about China though, they seem to be in a similar boat to India with regards to the average man but they are rolling out high-speed networks. So maybe I am wrong and the "build it and they will use it" applies in India and Africa. Google is a good case in point though of where the market focus lies. Most of their more interesting projects are U.S. only. Not even Europe has Google Local or 3D maps in Google Earth. Possibly the sub-64 world will simply be left behind as they don't have the buying power to matter. regards, Paul Watson Ireland Colib and ilikecameras. K(arl) wrote: oh, and BTW, CHRISTIAN ISN'T A PARADOX, HE IS A TASMANIAN!
-
>maybe in the corporate world DEFINITELY in the corporate world. We supply large Unix based systems that require a special client application to be installed. This client uses a private TCP protocol to display rich forms that use Windows controls, plus some custom controls of our own. Basically, the client application is a glorified terminal emulator. Now, without exception, every new prospect we have asks if we do a "browser client". The people in charge of these systems (we are talking 10,000+ users in some cases) do not want to have to install another Windows application on all these boxes. It is a no-brainer, especially now that broadband connections are becoming the norm. From my POV, the browser is indeed fast becoming the application. And, I have to say, that with good CSS/AJAX, you can create something that looks great, feels like a "real" app, and most importantly, executes fast enough. I think that for the corporate world, web applications are the future.
The Rob Blog
Google Talk: robert.caldecottSounds like it's back to the past again boys.... ;P;P;P
-
Scott Serl wrote:
You haven't been doing much web development have you?
hehe. I should qualify that by saying "a browser as does not exist today", and using something a lot more advanced than HTML shoehorned with Javascript shoehorned with DHTML shoehorned with Ajax, etc. Marc VS2005 Tips & Tricks -- contributions welcome!
It still won't be lovely and simple. regards, Paul Watson Ireland Colib and ilikecameras. K(arl) wrote: oh, and BTW, CHRISTIAN ISN'T A PARADOX, HE IS A TASMANIAN!
-
There was a fad back in the mid 90's with something similar. Ever heard of an X terminal[^]? The physics lab I was at thought this would be an ingenius idea. One central computer from which several "terminals" could all link to. When you sat down there was basically a screen, keyboard, mouse and a black box that was responsible for the communication with the central server. All applications were run remotely. In principle, maybe it was a good idea. In practice, it was awful. Difficulty booting, network problems, server load, slow performance, no access to a hard disk or anything. In a room full of 2 regular PC's and 12 X Terminals, there was always somebody on the PCs and the terminals were always free. I think, psychologically, people like to have assurance that what they are working on is sitting in front of them. Besides, as has already been mentioned, we currently have connection speed problems, network reliability, etc...etc. Not to mention privacy issues...
Which of course was the evil rationale behind XLib and X-Windows, the spawn of Satan himself. And guess what - nearly 20 years later (I think X was started in 1984 at MIT) the X folks *still* are getting into pissing matches over things like how to *implement* cut/copy/paste, and how to provide support for anything beyond text. Sigh... ¡El diablo está en mis pantalones! ¡Mire, mire! Real Mentats use only 100% pure, unfooled around with Sapho Juice(tm)! SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0 0 rows returned Save an Orange - Use the VCF!
-
The next free weekend any of you guys have and are willing to jump off the Microsoft freight train, download Ruby on Rails[^] and start playing with some of the tutorials on your local machine. Specifically, try out RoR with the corresponding AJAX[^] libraries. You'll be absolutely amazed at how quickly you can develop an application that is as responsive as a common desktop app. And once the browser feels like a desktop app, most end users won't give a crap about the backend source of the application. When the webapp feels like a desktop app, Microsoft is in trouble. We're not there yet, but we're getting awfully close. Try out Ruby on Rails and utilize their Ajax libraries. You'll fall in love. Jim QTExtender - The OFFICIAL addon for QuoteTracker. -- modified at 14:09 Wednesday 9th November, 2005
Ask Brian, I do Rails everyday and love it. But I love it in comparison to other web frameworks, not in comparison to what you can do on a desktop. It isn't close, not yet and not for a good two years or more. regards, Paul Watson Ireland Colib and ilikecameras. K(arl) wrote: oh, and BTW, CHRISTIAN ISN'T A PARADOX, HE IS A TASMANIAN!
-
From here-[^] Microsoft Corp. has recently faced criticism that its model, which still relies mostly on delivering software in traditional packaging, could grow antiquated. The concern is that, as more companies offer online services for everything from word processing to storing photos, there will be less of a need for Microsoft's lucrative Windows operating system and Office business software. If this trend has any real substance to it (which I personally feel it does not, except in limited applications) it strike me that the only thing the user is going to need on his machine is a browser and possibly (but maybe not) some plug-in capability. Something like that could be delivered in firmware. Is the machine of the future going to essentially be a browser with an Internet connection, where local software might be relegated simply to A/V rendering? In some ways, this would be a lovely, simple environment to work in. I'm sure it will be fraught with it's own technology headaches though. Are we at edge of a major paradigm shift in information presentation and management? Or have we already over the edge but don't know it? Marc VS2005 Tips & Tricks -- contributions welcome! -- modified at 12:17 Wednesday 9th November, 2005
We are going to meet half-way. Internet enabled desktop apps. Easy deployment, transparent updates, access-anywhere, seamlessly sychronised data, disconnected and connected processes. Local storage too but synced. Basically the benefits of the web with the benifits of the desktop. Why should we compromise with one or the other model? regards, Paul Watson Ireland Colib and ilikecameras. K(arl) wrote: oh, and BTW, CHRISTIAN ISN'T A PARADOX, HE IS A TASMANIAN!
-
We are going to meet half-way. Internet enabled desktop apps. Easy deployment, transparent updates, access-anywhere, seamlessly sychronised data, disconnected and connected processes. Local storage too but synced. Basically the benefits of the web with the benifits of the desktop. Why should we compromise with one or the other model? regards, Paul Watson Ireland Colib and ilikecameras. K(arl) wrote: oh, and BTW, CHRISTIAN ISN'T A PARADOX, HE IS A TASMANIAN!
yeah, that's the ticket!
-
From here-[^] Microsoft Corp. has recently faced criticism that its model, which still relies mostly on delivering software in traditional packaging, could grow antiquated. The concern is that, as more companies offer online services for everything from word processing to storing photos, there will be less of a need for Microsoft's lucrative Windows operating system and Office business software. If this trend has any real substance to it (which I personally feel it does not, except in limited applications) it strike me that the only thing the user is going to need on his machine is a browser and possibly (but maybe not) some plug-in capability. Something like that could be delivered in firmware. Is the machine of the future going to essentially be a browser with an Internet connection, where local software might be relegated simply to A/V rendering? In some ways, this would be a lovely, simple environment to work in. I'm sure it will be fraught with it's own technology headaches though. Are we at edge of a major paradigm shift in information presentation and management? Or have we already over the edge but don't know it? Marc VS2005 Tips & Tricks -- contributions welcome! -- modified at 12:17 Wednesday 9th November, 2005
No the browser will not become the new OS. What about Half-Life 2, AutoCad, 3DS max, video/audio editing, etc.? I think it might take a few more decades before those can be run off a server.
-
Unless you're hosting those web applications in-house on a corporate web server, I don't think you want to bet your company's productivity on the internet. Last month, some nitwit next to our office building cut off our T1 connection while digging up a new construction site. It took our incompetent phone company two whole days to get us back up and going. If we had the web model, everyone in our company would be off work for two whole days. Hmmm...may not have been a bad thing. ;P I just don't think it's reliable enough for business environments either.
Most of our customers have their own Unix box hosting our application - but not all - we are now hosting a few hundred systems and we are doing very well out of it thanks. Yes, connections can go down - so can LANs, hard disks, etc. I think the networks are reliable enough - and the speed is increasing year on year. My local exchange is switching to ADSL2+ in January - I will be able to get close to 20Mbps for £20 a month - I was only on 512Kbps 18 months ago. The advent of widely available, high speed broadband connections is a golden opportunity for people in the application hosting business. My main point is that maintaining thousands of PCs is a nightmare - we already have lots of customers using Wyse terminals in conjunction with Citrix servers - the benefits are that each terminal can be locked down, and replacing a duff terminal is simply a case of plugging in a new one. Using the browser to access our applications is a logical step forward. However, I remain sceptical that people will be using a web version of Office anytime soon - my companies applications are already hosted on a central server, so all we are doing is changing from a dedicated Windows client to a browser-based one. There will always be a place for PCs with local disks and rich client apps - but expect more of web apps in these big corporate companies - as I said, we are asked about a browser client daily.
The Rob Blog
Google Talk: robert.caldecott -
We are going to meet half-way. Internet enabled desktop apps. Easy deployment, transparent updates, access-anywhere, seamlessly sychronised data, disconnected and connected processes. Local storage too but synced. Basically the benefits of the web with the benifits of the desktop. Why should we compromise with one or the other model? regards, Paul Watson Ireland Colib and ilikecameras. K(arl) wrote: oh, and BTW, CHRISTIAN ISN'T A PARADOX, HE IS A TASMANIAN!
Kinda reminds me of Sun's mantra from a decade ago. The network is everything. Chris Meech I am Canadian. [heard in a local bar] Remember that in Texas, Gun Control is hitting what you aim at. [Richard Stringer] Nice sig! [Tim Deveaux on Matt Newman's sig with a quote from me]
-
There was a fad back in the mid 90's with something similar. Ever heard of an X terminal[^]? The physics lab I was at thought this would be an ingenius idea. One central computer from which several "terminals" could all link to. When you sat down there was basically a screen, keyboard, mouse and a black box that was responsible for the communication with the central server. All applications were run remotely. In principle, maybe it was a good idea. In practice, it was awful. Difficulty booting, network problems, server load, slow performance, no access to a hard disk or anything. In a room full of 2 regular PC's and 12 X Terminals, there was always somebody on the PCs and the terminals were always free. I think, psychologically, people like to have assurance that what they are working on is sitting in front of them. Besides, as has already been mentioned, we currently have connection speed problems, network reliability, etc...etc. Not to mention privacy issues...
John Theal wrote:
Ever heard of an X terminal[^]?
I did some early stuff with X and it was so agonizingly slow. On one very low end graphics station, as you moved the mouse, packets started going over the wire to the server to tell it the mouse was moving and the server then started sending packets over the wire to tell the station to relocate the picture of the mouse on the screen. We setup a test with a dozen of these stations and then we all started moving the mouse on each station round and round in circles. The server came to a crunching halt as the processor went to 100% utilization and the 64K network pipe was flooded. Chris Meech I am Canadian. [heard in a local bar] Remember that in Texas, Gun Control is hitting what you aim at. [Richard Stringer] Nice sig! [Tim Deveaux on Matt Newman's sig with a quote from me]
-
Kinda reminds me of Sun's mantra from a decade ago. The network is everything. Chris Meech I am Canadian. [heard in a local bar] Remember that in Texas, Gun Control is hitting what you aim at. [Richard Stringer] Nice sig! [Tim Deveaux on Matt Newman's sig with a quote from me]
Well that isn't quite what I said. Internet enabled simply adds value IMO rather than adding dependency. Saying that though there is nothing I do on a computer anymore that doesn't involve a network. Without a network I find computers to be rather boring. That isn't to say there is no point to a non-networked computer. Plenty of people do good work on single computers and that is great. But I am not particularly interested in that kind of work. Which is grand really, we have the choice. regards, Paul Watson Ireland Colib and ilikecameras. K(arl) wrote: oh, and BTW, CHRISTIAN ISN'T A PARADOX, HE IS A TASMANIAN!
-
From here-[^] Microsoft Corp. has recently faced criticism that its model, which still relies mostly on delivering software in traditional packaging, could grow antiquated. The concern is that, as more companies offer online services for everything from word processing to storing photos, there will be less of a need for Microsoft's lucrative Windows operating system and Office business software. If this trend has any real substance to it (which I personally feel it does not, except in limited applications) it strike me that the only thing the user is going to need on his machine is a browser and possibly (but maybe not) some plug-in capability. Something like that could be delivered in firmware. Is the machine of the future going to essentially be a browser with an Internet connection, where local software might be relegated simply to A/V rendering? In some ways, this would be a lovely, simple environment to work in. I'm sure it will be fraught with it's own technology headaches though. Are we at edge of a major paradigm shift in information presentation and management? Or have we already over the edge but don't know it? Marc VS2005 Tips & Tricks -- contributions welcome! -- modified at 12:17 Wednesday 9th November, 2005
Sounds like a return to the 60's and 70's. Mainframes and supermini's that you connected to with a terminal. Blech :|.
Software Zen:
delete this; -
From here-[^] Microsoft Corp. has recently faced criticism that its model, which still relies mostly on delivering software in traditional packaging, could grow antiquated. The concern is that, as more companies offer online services for everything from word processing to storing photos, there will be less of a need for Microsoft's lucrative Windows operating system and Office business software. If this trend has any real substance to it (which I personally feel it does not, except in limited applications) it strike me that the only thing the user is going to need on his machine is a browser and possibly (but maybe not) some plug-in capability. Something like that could be delivered in firmware. Is the machine of the future going to essentially be a browser with an Internet connection, where local software might be relegated simply to A/V rendering? In some ways, this would be a lovely, simple environment to work in. I'm sure it will be fraught with it's own technology headaches though. Are we at edge of a major paradigm shift in information presentation and management? Or have we already over the edge but don't know it? Marc VS2005 Tips & Tricks -- contributions welcome! -- modified at 12:17 Wednesday 9th November, 2005
-
Sounds like a return to the 60's and 70's. Mainframes and supermini's that you connected to with a terminal. Blech :|.
Software Zen:
delete this; -
From here-[^] Microsoft Corp. has recently faced criticism that its model, which still relies mostly on delivering software in traditional packaging, could grow antiquated. The concern is that, as more companies offer online services for everything from word processing to storing photos, there will be less of a need for Microsoft's lucrative Windows operating system and Office business software. If this trend has any real substance to it (which I personally feel it does not, except in limited applications) it strike me that the only thing the user is going to need on his machine is a browser and possibly (but maybe not) some plug-in capability. Something like that could be delivered in firmware. Is the machine of the future going to essentially be a browser with an Internet connection, where local software might be relegated simply to A/V rendering? In some ways, this would be a lovely, simple environment to work in. I'm sure it will be fraught with it's own technology headaches though. Are we at edge of a major paradigm shift in information presentation and management? Or have we already over the edge but don't know it? Marc VS2005 Tips & Tricks -- contributions welcome! -- modified at 12:17 Wednesday 9th November, 2005
Have you seen that movie where the college kids go to some hitech university outfit and build a $99 computer that is basically just a processor and an input and holographic ouput device that connect to an OS running over the Internet? That's what you describe, and I'm sure we will move to that model, but not for a long while yet. There is too much difficulty getting reliable broadband technology for too large a percentage of computer users. Maybe when we have the global 100Mbps mobile broadband networks it might become a reality. The future is going to be wireless, that much is for certain. Even then though I would bet most applications would be smart clients that you can use both online and offline.
Ðavid Wulff Audioscrobbler :: flickr Die Freiheit spielt auf allen Geigen (video)
-
How important is the sub-64 world though? Hey, don't jump on me, I come from that world and I have to face the fact that my sub-64 market is hardly a blip on the radar of Google, Microsoft et. al. India may have over a billion people but how many are potential users of 2 Mbps lines? I know that most of Africa certainly could not make use of 2 Mbps lines. What about China though, they seem to be in a similar boat to India with regards to the average man but they are rolling out high-speed networks. So maybe I am wrong and the "build it and they will use it" applies in India and Africa. Google is a good case in point though of where the market focus lies. Most of their more interesting projects are U.S. only. Not even Europe has Google Local or 3D maps in Google Earth. Possibly the sub-64 world will simply be left behind as they don't have the buying power to matter. regards, Paul Watson Ireland Colib and ilikecameras. K(arl) wrote: oh, and BTW, CHRISTIAN ISN'T A PARADOX, HE IS A TASMANIAN!
Good points, Paul. I hope things will change though.