Linked by Eugenia Loli on Mon 27th Mar 2006 19:30 UTC
Permalink for comment 108565
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/20/13 6:17 UTC, submitted by MOS6510
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/19/13 23:02 UTC, submitted by M.Onty
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/19/13 22:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Anonymous on 06/18/13 22:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:25 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:32 UTC, submitted by poundsmack
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:58 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:52 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-06-28
It's an "online OS", not a "web OS" (the first is a real OS that uses data stored online, the second one is based on DHTML).
As for bandwidth, you must think first what Google has plenty of: storage and bandwidth. Also, remember the recent "Free WiFi in the Bay Area" initiative from Google. And also, we should not forget that such an OS won't be ready tomorrow, but in a few years from now. Maybe a normal 802.11g connection is enough to do most things well with such an OS, I don't know.
And then, don't forget Ajax. You don't have to wait for applications to launch anymore, but you will wait for data to come through. And I can tell you, Google's Gmail is faster searching for me all my email than when I search on my "Archived Inbox" on my Outlook Express which has 70,000 emails in it. So while loading big pictures on an image viewer will be slower loading the same picture from a local drive, other kind of data and application loading will be faster. It's a trade off I guess, and depends on what people are used to think as "fast" or "slow". And besides, I don't think that this OS will ONLY be online, but it might allow for offline storage, so the problem gets balanced out.