4 ms·

When I used ChromeOS for a weekend I concluded that I couldn't recommend it to my mother because support for playing (arbitrary format) videos and browsing pict

by jlgreco 13y ago

When I used ChromeOS for a weekend I concluded that I couldn't recommend it to my mother because support for playing (arbitrary format) videos and browsing pictures off portable harddrives was really lacking (in the case of pictures, it could do it obviously, but with a worse user experience than windows by far). Probably 25% of what my mother does with her computer is hook it up to her cameras and show her friends her pictures. I think that Google has been neglecting the non-intensive tasks that people still perform on their computers locally, not through a webbrowser. Not supporting Crysis, SolidWorks, Microsoft Office, or Eclipse... that is all fine, regular users don't really need that sort of stuff. Not supporting something with the functionality of VLC or a good image browser seems like a big oversight. Those sorts of tasks could be done well with ChromeOS, with their programming model and in that form-factor, but from what I have seen that stuff just isn't ready.

notatoad 13y ago
that use-case specifically contradicts the whole motivation for chromeOS though. you shouldn't be opening a file browser to play things off a hard drive. if you want to share a video with friends, you should upload it to google+. in fact, chromeOS does this automatically for you - install the google+ photos app, and it will copy any photos off an inserted SD card to your private "ready to share" google+ storage.
- jlgreco 13y ago
  It may go against the "idea" or motivation of ChromeOS, but my mother ain't uploading several GB of photos and videos so that she can sit on a couch with her friends and chat about that crap over a bottle of wine. Whether or not it fits with the motivation of the OS, it is what the OS needs if it wants to be something I can recommend to anybody. They are making an OS for people that, as far as I can tell, do not exist: technically inclined and willing users who have very restricted requirements. I know, I know, "most people do nothing but Facebook". That is the standard justification of ChromeOS, I've heard that all before... In my experience however those people still perform some (really quite minimal) non-intensive local tasks that ChromeOS falls flat on. I'll sooner tell those people to get an iPad than a Chromebook. And to be clear, ChromeOS does let you browse images locally, so that is already something they have consigned themselves to doing. ChromeOS isn't saying "this isn't something that you can't or shouldn't do". The problem is that they do it poorly; the UI is shoddy.
- DanBC 13y ago
  Uploading gigabytes of photos so that I can then download them to view them is insane. Especially with the lousy lousy internet connection that I have. I haven't seen a Chromebook's handling of locally stored photos, but it's a shame if it can't handle it nicely. The only thing stopping me from getting a Chromebook now is the lack of functionality without an internet connection (I'd install a Linux, but that feels like a weird solution).

by jlgreco 13y ago

notatoad 13y ago

that use-case specifically contradicts the whole motivation for chromeOS though. you shouldn't be opening a file browser to play things off a hard drive. if you want to share a video with friends, you should upload it to google+. in fact, chromeOS does this automatically for you - install the google+ photos app, and it will copy any photos off an inserted SD card to your private "ready to share" google+ storage.

jlgreco 13y ago
It may go against the "idea" or motivation of ChromeOS, but my mother ain't uploading several GB of photos and videos so that she can sit on a couch with her friends and chat about that crap over a bottle of wine. Whether or not it fits with the motivation of the OS, it is what the OS needs if it wants to be something I can recommend to anybody. They are making an OS for people that, as far as I can tell, do not exist: technically inclined and willing users who have very restricted requirements. I know, I know, "most people do nothing but Facebook". That is the standard justification of ChromeOS, I've heard that all before... In my experience however those people still perform some (really quite minimal) non-intensive local tasks that ChromeOS falls flat on. I'll sooner tell those people to get an iPad than a Chromebook. And to be clear, ChromeOS does let you browse images locally, so that is already something they have consigned themselves to doing. ChromeOS isn't saying "this isn't something that you can't or shouldn't do". The problem is that they do it poorly; the UI is shoddy.
DanBC 13y ago
Uploading gigabytes of photos so that I can then download them to view them is insane. Especially with the lousy lousy internet connection that I have. I haven't seen a Chromebook's handling of locally stored photos, but it's a shame if it can't handle it nicely. The only thing stopping me from getting a Chromebook now is the lack of functionality without an internet connection (I'd install a Linux, but that feels like a weird solution).