Sure, but at some point you're going to have to write and maintain all that platform dependent code. Who is going to do it? GNOME, of course, so what's the advantage over what they're doing now?
Doesn't a good mobile app need to be designed specifically for the device rather than the OS? That's certainly how Apple and Google have succeeded and MIcrosoft has failed with tablets and other mobile platforms. Microsoft keeps trying to shoehorn a desktop OS and desktop style apps into mobile devices. I think Microsoft should encourage developers to "think different" about mobile and tablet applications rather than yield to laziness and allow developers to keep doing things the same way as they did before. Sure, they should obviously leverage.NET and basic APIs like Apple does with Objective-C on the iPhone, but the application should behave very differently. And the development approach should be different.
But whatever, I'm happy to see Microsoft fail yet again on mobile devices.
I doubt that's a huge factor. Sometimes you just get bored with games or they don't have a lot of replay value given their nature (highly story or puzzle based like Portal, for example). Doesn't necessarily mean there is anything WRONG with the game.
That only answers the question of why they are still around, not why we let them push us around. I think people might be falling for the flawed principle of intellectual property. Once upon a time, nobody would give a second thought to redistributing, copying, sampling, sharing intellectual works. Now it is (or could be) a felony to show an NFL game at your bar without express written permission. Sad.
I'm not typical, but I still have an AIM account as well as Yahoo IM and Gtalk. I use Yahoo IM a lot. The thing is that they're almost completely interchangeable and the only reason to have one account over another is where your friends are. I'm not sure why the article is focusing on AIM. AIM might not be a well used IM service anymore, but IM is still relevant. What's really changed? Did anyone really care whether it was AOL, Microsoft, Yahoo, or Google running the
IM service?This is false nostalgia.
You can't really expect there to be a UI and checkbox for every possible option or setting even in the most user friendly of system that is above a certain level of complexity. At some point you have to start deciding what to leave out of the main UI for the sake of the sanity of general users. In fact, I might go so far as to say that one of Windows' problems is that they include far too many options in the main UI. IE's Internet Options, for example. What a cluster fuck.
The problem with Linux is not that it uses text files for configuration, but that a lot of the more common options are still in such places. Well, maybe not so much in the last couple years with certain distributions, but that's traditionally been its problems in terms general acceptance. I mean, something as simple as changing your screen resolution used to be a big hassle.
I've been also saying that Blu-ray is dead (long live blu-ray) ever since it came out. I really don't care to own a plastic disc with a movie burned on it when I can fire up my laptop or PC or Playstation or Wii and watch any move I want, anywhere I have an internet connection.
Ya, except that Netflix streaming quality is pretty bad much of the time. At least when blown up to fit my 46" HD TV. I think full Bluray still has the advantage of being MUCH higher quality. It ain't going away anytime soon.
DVD-level? Hmm, I didn't get a 46" HD TV to watch DVD quality video, I'll tell you that. But yeah, streamed NEtflix quailty is often pretty lacking. Some videos I can hardly read the text of the opening credits it is so bad. For any movie I'm serious about watching, I'm going to wait for the Bluray or Torrent it. Netflix streaming is just for watching random movies when I'm bored.
That's really not true any more, because you can do so much in the web browser today. Again, most users never do anything you can't do inside a web browser.
Can do is not the same as want to do. The market for Windows apps is still huge. Demand isn't going away just because a few companies have done a few neat tricks with HTML and pushed the web beyond what it was designed to do.
I think Google Apps are neat, but god help me if that was my ONLY way to edit documents. The interface is still incredibly clunky.
Which, again, is totally pointless because I actually think that Chrome OS is too light, but to claim that it doesn't offer any advantage is ridiculous.
Then name one. You haven't listed a single practical advantage to ChromeOS that isn't satisfied by a Netbook... and then some. Is a Netbook not virtually the same level of hardware that ChromeOS would run on? Why wouldn't I just run Chrome on a Netbook?
As far as languages go C# is "cleaner" than Java in that many features were thought out ahead of time and not bolted on after the fact. C# also supports more language features (closures/anonymous functions, for example). But none of that is enough to make me want to use C# on anything but Windows. I hate shoehorning non-native APIs into a platform just for the sake of portability or using your favorite language.
Yeah, I'm torn between a dedicated docking station and just the ability to plug in your own monitor (w/ bluetooth input devices). I only say that because MOST of my work is at my desk, but then I wouldn't have the "laptop" function.
This is where we return to our car analogy. If you're never going to drive off-road then buying a big 4WD SUV is stupid because you're hauling around a bunch of functionality that you're never going to use and the framework has to be stronger, thus heavier and more expensive, to support it.
And this is where we get back to my criticism of your analogy. A Chromebook is not significantly lighter hardware-wise than, say, a Netbook. It is not at all like comparing an SUV to an econobox. The correct analogy is taking an regular car (say a Honda Civic) and installing software that removes its extra capabilities to make it behave like a scooter.
By the same token, if you're never going to do anything outside a web browser, then you don't need anything but a browser; and there are numerous common tasks which could easily be done inside the browser with the addition of local file access, which Google has already brought to Chrome OS.
But how do you know you're never going to do anything outside of a web browser? I still say you're better off running Chrome on something like a netbook running Linux. You get lightweight hardware, Chrome, a low attack profile, and the ability to run desktop apps if you later find you want to. ChromeOS adds nothing to the equation. It only takes away. It has no place. Especially as the hardware gets cheaper, smaller, and more powerful. It kinda reminds me of the early/mid 90's when typewriter companies were trying to sell "word processors" which were basically small computers built into typewriters. That didn't last long because soon enough, desktop computers were common and they could do the same and more. It is getting like that with mobile phones now. A few years ago there was still value in having a simple phone that just made calls and could text. You really saved money and hassle that way. But it is getting to the point where the technology is so good that it doesn't make sense NOT to have a GPS, web browser, video recorder, music, apps, etc all in one device in your pocket. I'm a total luddite when it comes to gadgets and even I'm having a hard time resisting the appeal of iPhone/Android.
As a resident of the first world I am able to have both a car and a 4x4 truck, just as I have a desktop, a subnotebook, and a tiny netbook, as well as a PDA I don't even use (among others, of course...) For those so advantaged, there is even more utility in such a device?
So, you already have a netbook. You think a Chromebook would be significantly lighter than that? I don't think so. Probably about the same hardware, except the netbook can do more. And using Linux, your attack profile is pretty low. I don't see how ChomeOS fits in here at all.
Chrome OS is the Honda Civic in this analogy, of course.
You're joking, right? ChromeOS is the small motorcycle in this analogy.
People know and understand Windows on the desktop. Windows UI simply does not map very well to a mobile device. Small touch screens require a very specialized interface. And they're not running the same applications on the mobile device, so application incompatibility is moot.
If I could "dock" it and use it like a laptop for work, I'd buy something like that. Though not with Windows. An iPhone with full OS X, more RAM, decent storage (~100GB would be fine), and DVI/HDMI out would rock. Otherwise, there's no point in running a full desktop OS on a phone. Androids and iPhones are doing just fine.
Most people are buying an SUV and then using it like a roadster, or what's worse, an econobox. If you get a SUV with good enough suspension or a small enough motor you can do those things (respectively) but not as well as the real thing.
Are you suggesting that Chrome running on a traditional system is not "the real thing?" I would say it is and this is where your car analogy breaks down.
For the average computer user who never actually does anything outside their browser that couldn't be done as well inside of it (e.g. they might download from their digital camera or something) they are buying way too much computer.
This presumes that a ChromeOS system is much less of a computer than one running Chrome on top of a traditional OS. Add a few more megs of RAM and a little more local storage and you have a system that could run Chrome AND most anything else you might want/need (see: Netbook). The difference in hardware is minor. And the hardware just keep getting cheaper and cheaper. It is not like the difference between an economy car and an SUV at all. With ChromeOS, you're essentially taking the same hardware that could just about run a regular OS, and crippling it for no good reason except to save maybe $50.
ChromeOS does not provide the the same stuff in the different way. It provides less stuff in the same way as other systems. I can run an HTML5 browser an most any modern platform. Why in the world would i want to handicap myself for no good reason? At least an EV has the advantage of, you know, not burning gas. That's different. Running an HTML5 compliant web browser is not different. ChromeOS is exactly the wrong direction to go. Handheld devices are getting cheaper and more powerful. They need an OS that can take advantage of all that extra capability, not lock people into a web browser in the name of "simplicity." It is bad enough that companies like Apple lock us into specific software distribtion channels in the name of simplicity and security, but at least you're not stuck inside a web browser.
So, what good does syncplicity do you in offline mode? What can you do with your Google Docs backups if Google is down and you've positioned yourself such that your only document editor is Google Docs? Sounds like you have to find some other software, download your backups, and edit the "old fashioned way."
I'm still pretty skeptical of the overall value of Google Docs as an application (the UI part.). Don't get me wrong, it is impressive that they could get so much functionality into a web browser and make it desktop-like and I love having multiple people working on the same document at the same time, but what I'd like to see are more desktop apps that can hit the Google API, pull from syncplicity if necessary, or just edit a local document. In a similar vein, I like Google mail as a service, but I mostly just use IMAP to aggregate mail from different services into one desktop app. Gmail web interface is just there for when I'm not at my own computer. Desktop apps with online functionality are almost always better than browser based equivalents and HTML5 isn't going to change that a whole lot.
But people already have offline functionality. Why do they need ChromeOS to give it to them? To use the obligatory car analogy, selling ChromeOS is like selling a car that is designed specifically to run on interstate highways and advertising the fact that it can also run on some local roads as a "feature." Gee, thanks, but my current car can already run on interstate highways and local roads without any restrictions.
I'm not sure why anyone was ever excited by ChromeOS. It just seems stupid to intentionally cripple an otherwise powerful handheld device by putting an OS on it that can do very little other than run a web browser. It isn't like you can really save much on hardware costs. Web browsers, Chrome included, are notorious resource hogs. Javascript isn't exactly optimized for performance.
Can you explain your initial excitement about ChromeOS? Was it just because it is Google and that anything Google does it awesome? I just don't get it...
Slashdot Mirror
No, BSD is just so stable that it has a stablizing effect on all application running on it. It automatically detects and repairs bugs on the fly.
Sure, but at some point you're going to have to write and maintain all that platform dependent code. Who is going to do it? GNOME, of course, so what's the advantage over what they're doing now?
All 3 of those OSes have a completely different init system, completely different firewall system, etc.
Not to mention the differences between various LInux distributions.
Doesn't a good mobile app need to be designed specifically for the device rather than the OS? That's certainly how Apple and Google have succeeded and MIcrosoft has failed with tablets and other mobile platforms. Microsoft keeps trying to shoehorn a desktop OS and desktop style apps into mobile devices. I think Microsoft should encourage developers to "think different" about mobile and tablet applications rather than yield to laziness and allow developers to keep doing things the same way as they did before. Sure, they should obviously leverage .NET and basic APIs like Apple does with Objective-C on the iPhone, but the application should behave very differently. And the development approach should be different.
But whatever, I'm happy to see Microsoft fail yet again on mobile devices.
I doubt that's a huge factor. Sometimes you just get bored with games or they don't have a lot of replay value given their nature (highly story or puzzle based like Portal, for example). Doesn't necessarily mean there is anything WRONG with the game.
That only answers the question of why they are still around, not why we let them push us around. I think people might be falling for the flawed principle of intellectual property. Once upon a time, nobody would give a second thought to redistributing, copying, sampling, sharing intellectual works. Now it is (or could be) a felony to show an NFL game at your bar without express written permission. Sad.
I'm not typical, but I still have an AIM account as well as Yahoo IM and Gtalk. I use Yahoo IM a lot. The thing is that they're almost completely interchangeable and the only reason to have one account over another is where your friends are. I'm not sure why the article is focusing on AIM. AIM might not be a well used IM service anymore, but IM is still relevant. What's really changed? Did anyone really care whether it was AOL, Microsoft, Yahoo, or Google running the IM service?This is false nostalgia.
You can't really expect there to be a UI and checkbox for every possible option or setting even in the most user friendly of system that is above a certain level of complexity. At some point you have to start deciding what to leave out of the main UI for the sake of the sanity of general users. In fact, I might go so far as to say that one of Windows' problems is that they include far too many options in the main UI. IE's Internet Options, for example. What a cluster fuck.
The problem with Linux is not that it uses text files for configuration, but that a lot of the more common options are still in such places. Well, maybe not so much in the last couple years with certain distributions, but that's traditionally been its problems in terms general acceptance. I mean, something as simple as changing your screen resolution used to be a big hassle.
I've been also saying that Blu-ray is dead (long live blu-ray) ever since it came out. I really don't care to own a plastic disc with a movie burned on it when I can fire up my laptop or PC or Playstation or Wii and watch any move I want, anywhere I have an internet connection.
Ya, except that Netflix streaming quality is pretty bad much of the time. At least when blown up to fit my 46" HD TV. I think full Bluray still has the advantage of being MUCH higher quality. It ain't going away anytime soon.
DVD-level? Hmm, I didn't get a 46" HD TV to watch DVD quality video, I'll tell you that. But yeah, streamed NEtflix quailty is often pretty lacking. Some videos I can hardly read the text of the opening credits it is so bad. For any movie I'm serious about watching, I'm going to wait for the Bluray or Torrent it. Netflix streaming is just for watching random movies when I'm bored.
That's really not true any more, because you can do so much in the web browser today. Again, most users never do anything you can't do inside a web browser.
Can do is not the same as want to do. The market for Windows apps is still huge. Demand isn't going away just because a few companies have done a few neat tricks with HTML and pushed the web beyond what it was designed to do. I think Google Apps are neat, but god help me if that was my ONLY way to edit documents. The interface is still incredibly clunky.
Which, again, is totally pointless because I actually think that Chrome OS is too light, but to claim that it doesn't offer any advantage is ridiculous.
Then name one. You haven't listed a single practical advantage to ChromeOS that isn't satisfied by a Netbook... and then some. Is a Netbook not virtually the same level of hardware that ChromeOS would run on? Why wouldn't I just run Chrome on a Netbook?
As far as languages go C# is "cleaner" than Java in that many features were thought out ahead of time and not bolted on after the fact. C# also supports more language features (closures/anonymous functions, for example). But none of that is enough to make me want to use C# on anything but Windows. I hate shoehorning non-native APIs into a platform just for the sake of portability or using your favorite language.
Yeah, I'm torn between a dedicated docking station and just the ability to plug in your own monitor (w/ bluetooth input devices). I only say that because MOST of my work is at my desk, but then I wouldn't have the "laptop" function.
This is where we return to our car analogy. If you're never going to drive off-road then buying a big 4WD SUV is stupid because you're hauling around a bunch of functionality that you're never going to use and the framework has to be stronger, thus heavier and more expensive, to support it.
And this is where we get back to my criticism of your analogy. A Chromebook is not significantly lighter hardware-wise than, say, a Netbook. It is not at all like comparing an SUV to an econobox. The correct analogy is taking an regular car (say a Honda Civic) and installing software that removes its extra capabilities to make it behave like a scooter.
By the same token, if you're never going to do anything outside a web browser, then you don't need anything but a browser; and there are numerous common tasks which could easily be done inside the browser with the addition of local file access, which Google has already brought to Chrome OS.
But how do you know you're never going to do anything outside of a web browser? I still say you're better off running Chrome on something like a netbook running Linux. You get lightweight hardware, Chrome, a low attack profile, and the ability to run desktop apps if you later find you want to. ChromeOS adds nothing to the equation. It only takes away. It has no place. Especially as the hardware gets cheaper, smaller, and more powerful. It kinda reminds me of the early/mid 90's when typewriter companies were trying to sell "word processors" which were basically small computers built into typewriters. That didn't last long because soon enough, desktop computers were common and they could do the same and more. It is getting like that with mobile phones now. A few years ago there was still value in having a simple phone that just made calls and could text. You really saved money and hassle that way. But it is getting to the point where the technology is so good that it doesn't make sense NOT to have a GPS, web browser, video recorder, music, apps, etc all in one device in your pocket. I'm a total luddite when it comes to gadgets and even I'm having a hard time resisting the appeal of iPhone/Android.
As a resident of the first world I am able to have both a car and a 4x4 truck, just as I have a desktop, a subnotebook, and a tiny netbook, as well as a PDA I don't even use (among others, of course...) For those so advantaged, there is even more utility in such a device?
So, you already have a netbook. You think a Chromebook would be significantly lighter than that? I don't think so. Probably about the same hardware, except the netbook can do more. And using Linux, your attack profile is pretty low. I don't see how ChomeOS fits in here at all.
Chrome OS is the Honda Civic in this analogy, of course.
You're joking, right? ChromeOS is the small motorcycle in this analogy.
A mobile parasitic device! Awesome!
People know and understand Windows on the desktop. Windows UI simply does not map very well to a mobile device. Small touch screens require a very specialized interface. And they're not running the same applications on the mobile device, so application incompatibility is moot.
If I could "dock" it and use it like a laptop for work, I'd buy something like that. Though not with Windows. An iPhone with full OS X, more RAM, decent storage (~100GB would be fine), and DVI/HDMI out would rock. Otherwise, there's no point in running a full desktop OS on a phone. Androids and iPhones are doing just fine.
A long time Windows user, are you? Sad that it has come to this.
Less functionality also means less functionality. That's a hard sell to all but the most paranoid among us.
Most people are buying an SUV and then using it like a roadster, or what's worse, an econobox. If you get a SUV with good enough suspension or a small enough motor you can do those things (respectively) but not as well as the real thing.
Are you suggesting that Chrome running on a traditional system is not "the real thing?" I would say it is and this is where your car analogy breaks down.
For the average computer user who never actually does anything outside their browser that couldn't be done as well inside of it (e.g. they might download from their digital camera or something) they are buying way too much computer.
This presumes that a ChromeOS system is much less of a computer than one running Chrome on top of a traditional OS. Add a few more megs of RAM and a little more local storage and you have a system that could run Chrome AND most anything else you might want/need (see: Netbook). The difference in hardware is minor. And the hardware just keep getting cheaper and cheaper. It is not like the difference between an economy car and an SUV at all. With ChromeOS, you're essentially taking the same hardware that could just about run a regular OS, and crippling it for no good reason except to save maybe $50.
ChromeOS does not provide the the same stuff in the different way. It provides less stuff in the same way as other systems. I can run an HTML5 browser an most any modern platform. Why in the world would i want to handicap myself for no good reason? At least an EV has the advantage of, you know, not burning gas. That's different. Running an HTML5 compliant web browser is not different. ChromeOS is exactly the wrong direction to go. Handheld devices are getting cheaper and more powerful. They need an OS that can take advantage of all that extra capability, not lock people into a web browser in the name of "simplicity." It is bad enough that companies like Apple lock us into specific software distribtion channels in the name of simplicity and security, but at least you're not stuck inside a web browser.
So, what good does syncplicity do you in offline mode? What can you do with your Google Docs backups if Google is down and you've positioned yourself such that your only document editor is Google Docs? Sounds like you have to find some other software, download your backups, and edit the "old fashioned way." I'm still pretty skeptical of the overall value of Google Docs as an application (the UI part.). Don't get me wrong, it is impressive that they could get so much functionality into a web browser and make it desktop-like and I love having multiple people working on the same document at the same time, but what I'd like to see are more desktop apps that can hit the Google API, pull from syncplicity if necessary, or just edit a local document. In a similar vein, I like Google mail as a service, but I mostly just use IMAP to aggregate mail from different services into one desktop app. Gmail web interface is just there for when I'm not at my own computer. Desktop apps with online functionality are almost always better than browser based equivalents and HTML5 isn't going to change that a whole lot.
But people already have offline functionality. Why do they need ChromeOS to give it to them? To use the obligatory car analogy, selling ChromeOS is like selling a car that is designed specifically to run on interstate highways and advertising the fact that it can also run on some local roads as a "feature." Gee, thanks, but my current car can already run on interstate highways and local roads without any restrictions.
I'm not sure why anyone was ever excited by ChromeOS. It just seems stupid to intentionally cripple an otherwise powerful handheld device by putting an OS on it that can do very little other than run a web browser. It isn't like you can really save much on hardware costs. Web browsers, Chrome included, are notorious resource hogs. Javascript isn't exactly optimized for performance. Can you explain your initial excitement about ChromeOS? Was it just because it is Google and that anything Google does it awesome? I just don't get it...
To be fair, 20+ servers is a lot.
Maybe. It doesn't sound the the Wii2 will be particularly powerful. For me, the only viable alternative to the PS3 is the Xbox360.