4 ms·

Would You Miss Windows With a Google Operating System?

4 points by newacc 17y ago

makecheck 17y ago
"There is a tiny little downside here: no local software. Browsers don’t yet do everything, and there are two decades of Windows applications that have been written, performing functions that can’t yet be replicated in a browser." There are a few problems with that view. One, the applications that matter to people are changing. For many people, programs like web browsers and iTunes are now opened frequently, whereas a decade ago those apps either didn't exist or weren't nearly as relevant. So who is to say that 2 decades of Windows software adds up to much these days? Then there's the fact that many desktop apps were not written to coexist, so a legacy on Windows means something much different than on, say, Unix. Unlike Unix, where very old programs are still part of the ecosystem of utilities, Windows apps are just too random and fleeting. Then there's the fact that desktop programs have grown and grown, and most users don't seem to adopt even a fraction of the features. What took two decades to develop will not take two decades to "replace", because only a fraction of the features will really be required for most people to make the jump. And most of those huge apps should have been stopped at version 2.0. After awhile, big version numbers are meaningless; even for Apple, what on Earth makes the latest iTunes worthy of a version 8? They're still over-hyping the software, but not much is being added, so these old apps are not really as sophisticated as they appear to be.
- bep 17y ago
  One, the applications that matter to people are changing. For many people, programs like web browsers and iTunes are now opened frequently, whereas a decade ago those apps either didn't exist or weren't nearly as relevant. So who is to say that 2 decades of Windows software adds up to much these days? Ignoring old applications that an enterprise needs to use, the amount of aplications that Windows has in the last 2 years are very vast, and lots of people need them. Then there's the fact that desktop programs have grown and grown, and most users don't seem to adopt even a fraction of the features. What took two decades to develop will not take two decades to "replace", because only a fraction of the features will really be required for most people to make the jump. Not everyone uses the same 20% of features. Joel Spolsky said it better than me: http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000020.html http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000020.html Besides, develop the core of the programs doesn't mean they are useful or polish. Or that people who hates change (like the ones who hate the Office ribbon) will like to learn to use another program. And most of those huge apps should have been stopped at version 2.0. After awhile, big version numbers are meaningless; even for Apple, what on Earth makes the latest iTunes worthy of a version 8? They're still over-hyping the software, but not much is being added, so these old apps are not really as sophisticated as they appear to be. Versions are usually overhyped, after all they need to sell. That doesn't mean they haven't do anything worthy. The majority of software is very different between 2 major versions.
tokenadult 17y ago
"Or is there something special about Windows and its applications for which you’d be willing to pay an extra $50?" Years ago, I started using Windoze (rather than DOS) because of a specific application. I just read the sentence I've quoted above from the submitted article, and I quickly reviewed which programs I regularly use to get actual paying work done. I can see a definitely possibility of giving up Windoze entirely--my son already runs Linux nearly all the time, rather Windows, but for a few sorry applications that don't have Linux ports--and I would like that. I've never enjoyed computing on the Windoze environment, but for the clipboard, which of course will be replicated in Google Chrome.
csomar 17y ago
I think HTML, Flash or silverlight won't be enough to build a highly flexible system like Desktop applications (whether it's OSX or Windows) So Google needs to create a new platform to support its next generation Web App. This means we need another 10 years to get a high performing OS. "Good Software takes 10 years" (http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000017.html http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000017.html). so this means a waste of time and money. Why do i really need Google OS, Windows or OSX are flexible enough and the features that will be made available in Google OS, can be cloned in windows or OSX. About Speed: If Chrome OS is going to use Remote Web Applications, it's going to be slow, whatever they makes it light. Network traffic is the thing that most slows down a computer.
I_got_fifty 17y ago
Already run linux :)
- dflock 17y ago
  Yeah - I haven't missed it in the last few years, I don't see why I would start now. I actually used it yesterday to play Tales of Monkey Island (excellent, btw) and I remembered why I switched; what a huge pain in the ass everything is.

4 points by newacc 17y ago

"There is a tiny little downside here: no local software. Browsers don’t yet do everything, and there are two decades of Windows applications that have been written, performing functions that can’t yet be replicated in a browser." There are a few problems with that view. One, the applications that matter to people are changing. For many people, programs like web browsers and iTunes are now opened frequently, whereas a decade ago those apps either didn't exist or weren't nearly as relevant. So who is to say that 2 decades of Windows software adds up to much these days? Then there's the fact that many desktop apps were not written to coexist, so a legacy on Windows means something much different than on, say, Unix. Unlike Unix, where very old programs are still part of the ecosystem of utilities, Windows apps are just too random and fleeting. Then there's the fact that desktop programs have grown and grown, and most users don't seem to adopt even a fraction of the features. What took two decades to develop will not take two decades to "replace", because only a fraction of the features will really be required for most people to make the jump. And most of those huge apps should have been stopped at version 2.0. After awhile, big version numbers are meaningless; even for Apple, what on Earth makes the latest iTunes worthy of a version 8? They're still over-hyping the software, but not much is being added, so these old apps are not really as sophisticated as they appear to be.

bep 17y ago
One, the applications that matter to people are changing. For many people, programs like web browsers and iTunes are now opened frequently, whereas a decade ago those apps either didn't exist or weren't nearly as relevant. So who is to say that 2 decades of Windows software adds up to much these days? Ignoring old applications that an enterprise needs to use, the amount of aplications that Windows has in the last 2 years are very vast, and lots of people need them. Then there's the fact that desktop programs have grown and grown, and most users don't seem to adopt even a fraction of the features. What took two decades to develop will not take two decades to "replace", because only a fraction of the features will really be required for most people to make the jump. Not everyone uses the same 20% of features. Joel Spolsky said it better than me: http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000020.html http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000020.html Besides, develop the core of the programs doesn't mean they are useful or polish. Or that people who hates change (like the ones who hate the Office ribbon) will like to learn to use another program. And most of those huge apps should have been stopped at version 2.0. After awhile, big version numbers are meaningless; even for Apple, what on Earth makes the latest iTunes worthy of a version 8? They're still over-hyping the software, but not much is being added, so these old apps are not really as sophisticated as they appear to be. Versions are usually overhyped, after all they need to sell. That doesn't mean they haven't do anything worthy. The majority of software is very different between 2 major versions.

tokenadult 17y ago

"Or is there something special about Windows and its applications for which you’d be willing to pay an extra $50?" Years ago, I started using Windoze (rather than DOS) because of a specific application. I just read the sentence I've quoted above from the submitted article, and I quickly reviewed which programs I regularly use to get actual paying work done. I can see a definitely possibility of giving up Windoze entirely--my son already runs Linux nearly all the time, rather Windows, but for a few sorry applications that don't have Linux ports--and I would like that. I've never enjoyed computing on the Windoze environment, but for the clipboard, which of course will be replicated in Google Chrome.

csomar 17y ago

I think HTML, Flash or silverlight won't be enough to build a highly flexible system like Desktop applications (whether it's OSX or Windows) So Google needs to create a new platform to support its next generation Web App. This means we need another 10 years to get a high performing OS. "Good Software takes 10 years" (http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000017.html http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000017.html). so this means a waste of time and money. Why do i really need Google OS, Windows or OSX are flexible enough and the features that will be made available in Google OS, can be cloned in windows or OSX. About Speed: If Chrome OS is going to use Remote Web Applications, it's going to be slow, whatever they makes it light. Network traffic is the thing that most slows down a computer.

I_got_fifty 17y ago

Already run linux :)

dflock 17y ago
Yeah - I haven't missed it in the last few years, I don't see why I would start now. I actually used it yesterday to play Tales of Monkey Island (excellent, btw) and I remembered why I switched; what a huge pain in the ass everything is.