Linked by Eugenia Loli on Mon 27th Mar 2006 19:30 UTC
Google Phil Sim, a professional with technology editor journalist background, has written three interesting blog posts recently, discussing the much-rumored Google OS (1, 2, 3). He speculates that all user's data will be stored online on Google's servers and so one's desktop and files can be retrieved exactly as left by any other PC station, anywhere in the world, by simply using his Gmail credentials. It's like having your OS on a usb key with you at all times, only, without the usb key...
Thread beginning with comment 108567
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Don't need Google for this
by KenJackson on Mon 27th Mar 2006 20:08 UTC
Member since:

...there are bandwidth and storage limitations that currently are preventing them from achieving the nirvana of a total online experience.

If Comcast didn't limit my upload speed, I could simply run TightVNC on a computer at home and achieve the same thing, but under my own control.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Don't need Google for this
by Eugenia on Mon 27th Mar 2006 20:12 in reply to "Don't need Google for this"
Eugenia Member since:

Which is why Google's paradigm is better, because when, let's say, you download a big video file from the web, it's Google that will download this for you, and NOT you. And if this same video is on Google's cache, a downloading of a 500 MB video on your G:Drive, will be INSTANTANEOUS.

As I said above, Google's paradigm as described by Phil has its ups and downs, but I think it can work for 90% of the things people want to do with their computers. For the rest 10%, there will always be Windows, Mac or a more traditional Linux.

Edited 2006-03-27 20:15

Reply Parent Score: 5

KenJackson Member since:

Ah, but there is the under my own control clause. Isn't everyone a little afraid that big brother is watching? Or that someone evil will buy Google and sell all my private information to the high bidder? If I secure my TightVNC server with OpenSSH or OpenVPN, I can have reasonable security against prying eyes.

Reply Parent Score: 2

mbreese Member since:

Video is a silly argument. You still have to get the pixels pushed over the network to you somehow...

The only thing that having Google download the video would do is change which is the weakest link inthe network. So, instead of getting that 500MB video from a remote server, you are getting it from Google. This means that your connection to Google is now the weakest network link (the only point actually).

This may speed up your video download a bit, but it wouldn't be instantaneous, and you'd completely lose the decentralized aspects of the internet. Thus creating a single point of convergence (obviously it would be geographically distributed, but still consolidated). When everyone is running their GoogleOS, and if it works as you'd suggest, can you imagine the network congestion on Google's side? Everyone would be attempting to receive more data from Google and less from everywhere else, which is not a good thing.

The problem is, the screen and speakers are still on your desk, not Google's.

Reply Parent Score: 5

Duffman Member since:

"And if this same video is on Google's cache, a downloading of a 500 MB video on your G:Drive, will be INSTANTANEOUS"

Yes, and watching the video will be in STREAMING. So instead of downloading ONE TIME 500 MB on your hardrive, you will use 500 MB EACH TIME you want to see this video.

Soooooo cool .. wait no, it just suckes.

"Google's paradigm as described by Phil has its ups and downs"

There is no "ups" with an OS without privacy ...

Reply Parent Score: 2

Soulbender Member since:

"And if this same video is on Google's cache, a downloading of a 500 MB video on your G:Drive, will be INSTANTANEOUS."

That's because you're not downloading anything to your "g: drive". In order to actaully WATCH or DO anything with the video the same 500Mb still need to be moved to your local machine, wether it be by streaming or download. There's no real difference, all you have accomplished is changing the bottleneck from being between you and the video file provider to you and Google. Wether this is better or not depends on where you are, your ISP, the internet between you and Google etc etc. Nothing has actually been gained.

Reply Parent Score: 1

axilmar Member since:

But in order to watch the video, it will be downloaded anyway to your local there is no actual advantage. Actually, it would be worse than the current situation, because currently solutions like Torrent allow a distributed video download. Unless Google can scale like Torrent, there is really no advantage to this.

Reply Parent Score: 1