Google: Windows is torturing users

P

pxc

Extremely [H]
Joined
Oct 22, 2000
Messages
33,063
http://www.networkworld.com/news/2011/051111-chrome-os-first-look.html?hpg1=bn

The statement is flame bait of course, but it does have a bit of truth and applies to other OSs that use similar types of apps and management.

There are certainly some types of applications that can be run in a browser without loss of functionality. Many just don't translate well, become very inefficient or have unacceptable reliability/security (hello HBSGary/Federal, nice emails you stored in the cloud).

Desktop management is so unnecessarily complex, even for home users. I think that is true.

This is what, the 10th run at converting the world to thin clients? I think Google's chromebooks will have the same fate as previous attempts.
 
pxc said:
This is what, the 10th run at converting the world to thin clients? I think Google's chromebooks will have the same fate as previous attempts.
Click to expand...

I agree. These have a niche somewhere (retirement homes maybe?), but Windows and other full blown OS's work just fine for the vast majority of it's users.
 
He may be right about the current system being flawed, but I'm not sure cloud integration is the solution. It seems as though the more traditional approach, if allowed to be significantly overhauled, would be the right one. At least at this current point in time.

It's funny, but he said the vast majority of Googlers would be working with a Chrome OS machine, but what exactly is going to replace traditional development environments and development tools? So far, I've seen nothing that could ever possibly replace software like Visual Studio/Xcode on the web.
 
cloud computing requires two things

fast fast fast servers
fast fast pipes to said server

I have no issues using windows as it is a VAST VAST VAST improvement over DOS based options
 
he's just hurt that ChromeOS is nothing but a cut down linux build with a focus on the web broswer :p
 
phide said:
So far, I've seen nothing that could ever possibly replace software like Visual Studio/Xcode on the web.
Click to expand...
Funny, but MS did have a version of Visual Studio that ran from the web several years ago. http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/virtuallabs/vstudio2005/default.aspx (dead link) That was just a test and obviously not something worth pursuing.

Not all of Google's employees would move to a chromebook. 80% are on Linux or OS X. It just sounded like Google wanted to get rid of the remaining Windows systems. It doesn't mean Google can't run Windows apps centrally via a XenApp-type of client/server. What OS the client runs doesn't matter much, and that solves the whole management and service pack/library version compatibility headaches.
 
While I appreciate what Google is trying to accomplish, it's only natural they would "call out" Windows as torturous - they gotta scare up interest in their product, obviously.

I disagree completely, of course. It's a nice "toy" OS, meaning ChromeOS, but for someone like myself that'll never be an OS of choice. I'll play with it as time goes by so I can learn about it and how to support it since there is no way any computer OS will ever be maintenance free; we're talking about humans too in this.

But, it's Google. They have tended to get things right more often than just about anybody else.
 
I think the idea of chrome OS is cool, but it SHOULD NOT be a replacement for the standard desktop operating system. I am totally against the push for pure "cloud computing". I don't want my data stored on some server I have no control over, and I don't want my apps hosted on some server I have no control over, or have to pay monthly fees for, and I don't want all this to be reliant on my internet connection, where if it goes down, I'm dead in the water.

If google wanted to peak my interest with it's cloud computing stuff more, they would have to actually release their server OS so I could host my own apps. I'm all about being self sufficiant, and I'm sure lot of companies are like that too. Cut out the middle man.
 
Looking at these "Chromebooks" I just can't see the appeal. $500 for a 12" netbook with an Atom Processor that can only run web apps. Currently if disconnected from the internet it's useless. They promise "core apps" will run off line, but it still means reduced function when flying on a plane without WiFi, or in places with poor cell reception.

They don't offer superior battery life, looking at the estimates I have seen and given that the same web based apps Chrome OS offers supposedly work on any computer with any browser (isn't that one of the marketting points?), so all I see is an underpowered netbook, with limited functionality, without any cost savings over a fully functional laptop or netbook.
 
500 bucks? I thought they were suppose to be more like 200 bucks (at least that's what I read in a separate article). Yeah for 500 bucks I would rather buy a playbook or ipad if all I care about is http plus those will do more.
 
Nobody ever got fired for choosing Microsoft.

They aren't the same company they were 20 years ago. They are losing ground in some area's. But they are still MS, they still have a megaton of cash, and the know how to stay on top. Look at all the bad press that IE got over the years. What browser is still on top even though many viable options exist.

You don't have to be a fanboy to realize that the OS market is, and will remain MS'es. MS is playing catch up in the phone market, they know how Google feels on the desktop.
 
I guess I'm in the minority but I'm a pretty big fan of Microsoft. I think their products are pretty damn solid. Windows 7 is the best OS ever in my opinion., IE9 is a great browser and MSE is the best anti virus software I've used and its free!

I'm a big fan of Google too especially for Android but them talking like this just makes them loom petty.
 
I think this couldn't come at a worse time for google. internet service providers are all switching to tiered or capped plans while google is trying to push for storing all your data online. seems pretty doomed to me. not to mention the fact that i tried online storage and it took a week just for 10 gigs which i never even got to max out. and that was before bandwidth caps.
 
pxc said:
This is what, the 10th run at converting the world to thin clients? I think Google's chromebooks will have the same fate as previous attempts.
Click to expand...

Nothing here we've not seen before. It's really a matter of where you put the complexity. All of the server, all on the client or both. In the real world both has always been the answer and since bandwidth at least in places like the US isn't getting any cheaper it will continue to say that way.

But yeah, attacking Windows 7 with a product that's yet to see the light of day that's essentially a browser-in-a-box, that's going nowhere for now.
 
pxc said:
This is what, the 10th run at converting the world to thin clients? I think Google's chromebooks will have the same fate as previous attempts.
Click to expand...

Agreed. They still haven't addressed the main reason that thin client stuff fails: There's no real cost savings that make up for the tradeoffs. In some cases, it could be argued that thin client setups could be a lot more costly. $350-$500 notebooks aren't going to cut it when I can buy desktops for that price, use lower-spec servers in return, and have greater security/reliability/flexibility.

YeuEmMaiMai said:
cloud computing requires two things

fast fast fast servers
fast fast pipes to said server

I have no issues using windows as it is a VAST VAST VAST improvement over DOS based options
Click to expand...

Yep. I still can't grok why Google and Amazon think this is going to work when it really seems like net access is still limited and expensive for the markets they have to target. I guess that's no problem for Google, since it would be their pipes going back to their own data centers, but the rest of the enterprise world isn't going to see that kind of opportunity.
 
Cax6ton said:
Agreed. They still haven't addressed the main reason that thin client stuff fails: There's no real cost savings that make up for the tradeoffs. In some cases, it could be argued that thin client setups could be a lot more costly. $350-$500 notebooks aren't going to cut it when I can buy desktops for that price, use lower-spec servers in return, and have greater security/reliability/flexibility.



Yep. I still can't grok why Google and Amazon think this is going to work when it really seems like net access is still limited and expensive for the markets they have to target. I guess that's no problem for Google, since it would be their pipes going back to their own data centers, but the rest of the enterprise world isn't going to see that kind of opportunity.
Click to expand...
If even, cloud for home or office sux, why should I gave control of my computer to some company? I'm afraid that if cloud become what they want to, then it will be digital torture
 
Google Web Store --> many trying similar idea as Apple App Store.

However, Google has public web search, and Google also provides Google Search Appliance for enterprise.

If Google Chrome OS is viable, soon you may have Google App Appliance for on-site deployment.

One idea maybe similar to Redhat SpaceWalk to cache updates/contents to local locked-down Google App Appliance.

This addresses the slow update over slow public Internet line issue, if your intention is enterprise deployment.

Since it may be locked-down and automatic, you gain all the benefits without overhead of managing your own Chrome OS laptop/nettop infrastructure.

Plus if you really insist, USB-ports are there for locally attached data drive. However, OS can be returned to Google managed factory image or local custom setup if the facility is available.

Even Microsoft itself is suggesting advance Cloud entry, so sooner or later many will find services out in the open cloud. In that case, a web browser is what's relevant. Secondly, Google Native Client is waiting in line, just like iOS objective-C native app.
 
lightp2:

People do a lot more than type up stuff or use google's web apps. :p There are tons of business specific applications that would need to be rewritten, or an infrastructure built ala XenApp, to use with a thin client. Even most home users would lose massive functionality. The reasons why thin clients have failed has not changed much.

The browser as a platform still means it has to compete against a huge installed base of software. It has the same problems as any other new platform. It took OS X a good 7 years to make a sizable dent, and even then its biggest success is in the US where it's used 3x more than in the rest of the world (5% ish worldwide). And OS X is a full and complete general use OS.
 
The problem with the cloud is two fold right now:

1. It's simply not as powerful or flexible by itself for client side programs.
2. It's too expensive to be used for everything.

Until these things change hybrid computing will rule.
 
Dear PXC and HeatlessSun,

yep, both have valid practical considerations. I suppose there are even more scenario where too many factors will complicate the analysis.

That is why some are approaching with reasons, not immediate migration because it does open up a brand new path with many upcoming challenges. For now, users only explore further if it presents a reasonable scenario for individual enterprise. I suppose that is also why only Acer and Samsung are putting out machines for now because it is a fairly new scheme.

As usual, users approach anything with sensibility and reasons. Some can find new use cases, some will prefer stability and familiarity. Others probably have different considerations.

Cheers
 
My phone, my contacts, my emails, my movies, my pictures, my social life; all in the cloud, and working fine.

Realize that "cloud" is marketing speak.

Remember HP web jetdirect for managing printers? I have a similar thing for managing my wifi in many geographically disparate locations, but it's in the cloud rather than on my server.

Cloud's not so bad. Recognize the features and take advantage of them, recognize the weakness and mitigate them.

A very popular electronics store has several of their sites that deliver video and such in the cloud. They can spin up scalability in minutes, on demand.

Why can't I have a terminal (desktop) session somewhere that always works regardless of where I am and what or whose computer iPad, Android Tab or toaster I'm using?
 
Hi, That's exactly one scenario of thinking in sensibility and reason, with example.

1. Obviously many can present a particular combination to justify the path ahead, because the permutation is endless.
2. We will see almost everyone seems in possession of some kind of valid claims.

I know it is a bit hard per the topic, I apologize for the obviousness of the following:

A. Irrespective of what was claimed at every step of the way by naysayer, Apple pushes iPod/iPhone/iPad and soon OS-X will get newer enhancement.
B. Irrespective of what was claimed at every step of the way by counter-claims, Google pushes search, Android, Chrome browser, Chrome OS, Cloud services,
C. They are not always successful, that's given, there are some withdrawn or abandoned projects, just like everybody else.

D1. If you have heavy buildup in certain kind of combination, it is natural you want cohesiveness tilted in certain way.
D2. If you do not have any heavy buildup in any combination, it is natural you are much easier to adapt to different setup.

D3. These are all understood generic principles of the practical realm. If you earn fortune on desktop, hopefully things never change. If you collected golds from Cloud services, obviously many would hope all cloud services go their way.

E. In the end, most have reasons why their views should be reflected. Nothing is perfect, there will be plus and minus. Thus sensibility and proper reasoning.

here gaolong gives a suggestive scenario where cloud serves most of individual needs. PxC and HeatlessSun probably are heavily into the Windows-enterprise where a lot of custom business applications are running.

Between them, is where Apple, Google, Microsoft/Nokia, surrounding with ARM, Intel, AMD, nVidia, QualComm, ,MIPS, TI, Motorola, Samsung, too many to list (including all the premium enterprise vendors IBM, Oracle, HP, Dell, EMC, NetAPP, Cisco....) are trying to find out.

Finally, per the thread title, initially it does seem like it is aiming at Windows infrastructure. Microsoft has Cloud initiatives, and Windows 8 x86/ARM is also on the table. So on one side while Chrome OS is beginning to focus, on the other hand Microsoft is also extending its arm to find out whether the folks at other end really want open cloud, or will they folded back to the house with Windows 8 on ARM Edition ?

Cheers.
 
ChromeOS is a joke - its nothing but a shell over Linux just like a hundred other distros for netbooks, and the app store is nothing but a glorified link directory.

This is all fine and good, but once you have lots of apps, data, users you get the exact same problems any OS has and there's no place to hide. So for a new product, they can claim its 'better' but it really isn't.

This is just like Apple claiming OSX is secure because no one bothers writing malware for it, when its actually less secure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top