Introducing the Google Chrome OS!!

[zmatt]

I can see cloud computing for a library or something within a school district, but even at that I've heard from neighboring districts that they've had tremendous trouble getting them to work properly - even on the best gigabit/fiber Cisco hardware. However, cloud computing within a basic lab... I can see it. I'd still rather just get some low powered computers and image them and have each workstation as a stand-alone, but I can still see why some people would utilize cloud computing in situations like that.

But I'm still failing to see what the "Oh! This makes sense!" kicker is for a home user like myself.

Call me old school, stuck in the past, or completely retarded, it doesn't matter - there's just something about having *all* of your data on your hard drives - in your computer - on your desk - in your computer room - in your house that just... well... makes sense.

Google is a powerhouse company, and a **** good one at that. If anybody can make it work, they're one of the few that would have the capability of making it happen, in my opinion. I'm just... not too sure about it. Although, I am excited to see what comes about.

zmatt - "And yes you are right. I am very unwilling to change. Going cloud takes the power from the user and puts it back in the hands of the company. That is the opposite of what the internet is all about."

QFT

heh thanks

You basically just described a thin client system. Cloud computing is on a much larger scale. namely the internet. That's one of the reasons it wont work. As you said, a network server is easy enough to fail, and it's just down the hallway. What about servers 1000 miles away? No dice.

I agree with most of what you said, except for this part. You're visualizing a cross between Kim Jong Il and Hitler running the theoretical company. That's the worst case scenario, where the fine print does include something like the price changes you said (or anything similar).

Can you honestly say you think something like that is going to be implemented? Does your ISP have hidden price hikes hidden in your contract? Why would this be any different?
Don't be so cynical. Take a step back, weigh up the pros and cons, and I agree right now it's not such a good idea. However, at a near point in the future, this will be viable. More than that, it will be a reality.

Your being naive dude. Companies have done stuff just as bad before. I wouldn't put anything past them. And I still don't think it's viable. Do you know how often the internet goes down here? Living without internet is bad enough the way things are. With cloud computing your computer is useless without the internet. I have weighed the pros and cons and It is a loosing proposition. Also, there have been many fads in the pc industry over the years that people assumed would catch on. Cloud computing can just as easily be another fad that doesn't live up. I hope for the sake of us all that it is just that.

 

[yzmxer608]

And this will be a server farm, with most likely every server having a backup sitting close by. The server goes down and then you're screwed? what bs is that? That may be true of smaller networks, but on something as giant as this will be of COURSE they will have built in redundancy.
The same goes for the security concern. Don't you think some people already have some very sensitive data? Why hasn't that been hacked? The technology is out there for a properly configured network to be virtually impregnable.

Anything is possible, hardware can fail. If this happened, virus/malware coders won't be coding anymore for viruses of today, infections of our programs ect. They would be coding to get into the main database, yeah they could protect it, but that doesn't ensure some crack team doesn't make some super virus or something. Inside jobs, some lazy janitor, all sorts of stuff could happen. Yeah they wouldn't hire some random guy off the street to work there, but stuff like this has happened to other companies before.

 

[zmatt]

Even Google, who is known for the almighty server farm has downtime for maintenance. Nothing is fool proof.

 

[S0ULphIRE]

Fair enough, security is a problem for this. Then again, I could use the arguement that the data on your hdd isn't really safe either. Normal people get hacked too you know, as my parents experienced a few years back. Security has been put up a lot as a fault with the idea, completely missing the point that it's an issue no matter whether your data is in a 'cloud' or on your own hard drive.

I do get the fact that not everywhere has internet, and some places that do don't even have reliable internet, but on the whole that's changing rapidly. We rely so much on networks to do everything, they're going to have to be upgraded to keep up with the demand. IMO in 10 years or so most places will have reliable internet connections. And dial-up will definitely be a thing of the past. Heck, some current broadband connections will also be very outdated. Just look how far the internet's come in the last 10 years.

I also get that companies do bad things. lol, duh. However I don't see the EULA including any statements like the ones mentioned in other posts, and I DO see the eula being searched with a fine toothed comb by skeptics. So, to sum it up I guess I think yes I like the idea in theory, but no not right now.

 

[zmatt]

speak for yourself, the data on my hard drive is pretty secure.

 

[Jayce]

speak for yourself, the data on my hard drive is pretty secure.

Thumbs up to that. I have several drives copying one another twice a day along with DVD backups of the most important stuff I make on a bi-monthly basis.

I'm sorry to be naive, but I still cannot possibly fathom how I can benefit from an operating system which houses my data 1,000 miles away. It's just fine on my hard drives. Why does it need to be anywhere else?

 

[S0ULphIRE]

o god. Please broaden the scope of your vision just a little. Do you think the average user, or even the average 'power' user, is going to have drives copying to drives copying to dvds on a bi-monthly basis? no? now there's a revelation!
oy vey...

 

[Jayce]

o god. Please broaden the scope of your vision just a little. Do you think the average user, or even the average 'power' user, is going to have drives copying to drives copying to dvds on a bi-monthly basis? no? now there's a revelation!
oy vey...

I hate to be a little "obvious" here with my answer, but... no ****, dude. I know I'm not the average user, and that the average user probably doesn't run a backup in their life. Guess what? The average user also doesn't acknowledge that hard drives can fail at any time. At the same token, if the average user IS aware that drives can die at any time, they will run some sort of backup with an external drive using the good ole copy and paste commands.

With that being said, I'm begging for my same question to be answered.

How can the average user with 120gb of music, 20gb of pictures, and their own stash of work documents benefit from having their data 1,000 miles away as opposed to on their computer?

In terms of "data redundancy" being the answer, I can't help but to think that:

- If it's a user who is so basic they don't know about backing up and that drives aren't fail-proof, they're not going to give a **** anyway.
- If it's a user who is adept enough to acknowledge drives can fail, they'll more than likely have an external drive with their important data on it.
- If it's a user who is more than adept to understand basic raid functionality or even just backup scripting, they certainly wouldn't be caring much about their data in another state under somebody else's watch.

So, who would?

 

[zmatt]

I hate to be a little "obvious" here with my answer, but... no ****, dude. I know I'm not the average user, and that the average user probably doesn't run a backup in their life. Guess what? The average user also doesn't acknowledge that hard drives can fail at any time. At the same token, if the average user IS aware that drives can die at any time, they will run some sort of backup with an external drive using the good ole copy and paste commands.

With that being said, I'm begging for my same question to be answered.

How can the average user with 120gb of music, 20gb of pictures, and their own stash of work documents benefit from having their data 1,000 miles away as opposed to on their computer?

In terms of "data redundancy" being the answer, I can't help but to think that:

- If it's a user who is so basic they don't know about backing up and that drives aren't fail-proof, they're not going to give a **** anyway.
- If it's a user who is adept enough to acknowledge drives can fail, they'll more than likely have an external drive with their important data on it.
- If it's a user who is more than adept to understand basic raid functionality or even just backup scripting, they certainly wouldn't be caring much about their data in another state under somebody else's watch.

So, who would?

QFT!

It's a useless redundancy.

 

[S0ULphIRE]

It's a useless redundancy because why? o yeah, because you've already got backups going. Again, you're missing the point. With this system you wouldn't need to worry about that anymore. It does it for you! Does that make it useless? but of COURSE it does, why didn't I see that?

Also, in the first place I wasn't talking about redundancy, I was talking about data security. As in, no matter how many copies of your data you make someone can still steal it. And the average home user will NOT have an adequate security system in place to protect their data.

- If it's a user so basic they don't backup anything then the will be grateful when they WOULD have lost their data that they haven't. And they haven't had to do anything extra for it.

- If it's either of those other two people, then they can still keep backups for themselves if they so choose. Their data will still be backed up for them as an extra insurance policy.

And WHO CARES that it's 1000 miles away? It's all electronic. It may as well be 1000 miles away on your hdd, for all the difference it makes to you. The ONLY problem would be speed, and I believe I've addressed that several times. In case you weren't listening (which you obviously weren't) I said

in 10 years or so most places will have reliable internet connections. And dial-up will definitely be a thing of the past. Heck, some current broadband connections will also be very outdated. Just look how far the internet's come in the last 10 years.

Now, are you going to repeat the same arguments you've been going on about? security? your crappy internet connections? how 'useless' redundancy is?