Because Shiny Things Are Fun - The New New Windows v Linux Thread

Originally Posted by Kenny_Strawn Oh come on. It should be dauntingly easy, especially with the combination of HTML5, WebGL, and JavaScript. However, writing a clone of a game would make me run into software patents, so it isn't a good idea unless the company who develops MassEffect does it.

"Dauntlingly easy", eh? You have no idea of the amount of code that goes into making a game's AI or making the physics realistic.
It needn't be a clone of Mass Effect. All I want to see is someone working on a game of the same caliber that will run on Chrome OS.

Impossible? Probably not...
Monumentally impractical? Definitely.

I'm talking about those who spend all day on Facebook and YouTube. That's pretty much everybody I know. The guys like games (though they also go on social networks), and the girls go on Facebook and YouTube. It's those girls that Chrome OS will appeal to, because it is so easy to use. The girls would simply boot and be in the Web, rather than having to wait 60 minutes for the computer to boot and then launch a browser just to get on the Web. You see, they don't want all that extra Windows junk on their computers that makes the computer take two minutes to boot. They just want their computer to be instantly on and in the Web, without having to wait and without having to launch a browser (which also takes time). They want to be in the Web, and they want to be in the Web now.

Originally Posted by Kenny_Strawn I'm talking about those who spend all day on Facebook and YouTube. That's pretty much everybody I know. The guys like games (though they also go on social networks), and the girls go on Facebook and YouTube. It's those girls that Chrome OS will appeal to, because it is so easy to use. The girls would simply boot and be in the Web, rather than having to wait 60 minutes for the computer to boot and then launch a browser just to get on the Web. You see, they don't want all that extra Windows junk on their computers that makes the computer take two minutes to boot. They just want their computer to be instantly on and in the Web, without having to wait and without having to launch a browser (which also takes time). They want to be in the Web, and they want to be in the Web now.

Isn't that what smartphones are for?

Originally Posted by Jeebizz Isn't that what smartphones are for?

Even on smartphones, you still need to boot a (sometimes bloated) OS and then launch a (sometimes bloated) browser. Think of Chrome OS devices as to the Web as TVs are to cable. How would someone like it if they had to boot their television and THEN launch a "TV browser" just to watch TV? It would be a waste of time. The same thing should be with a computer and the Internet: Users, especially those who live on the Web, don't like having to wait several minutes for their computer to boot AND THEN launch a browser just to browse the Web. They want the Web and they want it now.

Originally Posted by Kenny_Strawn Even on smartphones, you still need to boot a (sometimes bloated) OS and then launch a (sometimes bloated) browser. Think of Chrome OS devices as to the Web as TVs are to cable. How would someone like it if they had to boot their television and THEN launch a "TV browser" just to watch TV? It would be a waste of time. The same thing should be with a computer and the Internet: Users, especially those who live on the Web, don't like having to wait several minutes for their computer to boot AND THEN launch a browser just to browse the Web. They want the Web and they want it now.

Damn, you got a CR-48? How long did it take Google to send it to you after you applied?

Originally Posted by lupusarcanus Damn, you got a CR-48? How long did it take Google to send it to you after you applied?

About two months. I got it on Wednesday.

Edit: And I applied before Christmas. Okay, you may be thinking it shouldn't take that long, but it just did.

Originally Posted by Kenny_Strawn Even on smartphones, you still need to boot a (sometimes bloated) OS and then launch a (sometimes bloated) browser. Think of Chrome OS devices as to the Web as TVs are to cable. How would someone like it if they had to boot their television and THEN launch a "TV browser" just to watch TV? It would be a waste of time. The same thing should be with a computer and the Internet: Users, especially those who live on the Web, don't like having to wait several minutes for their computer to boot AND THEN launch a browser just to browse the Web. They want the Web and they want it now.

Oh come on, how long does it take to boot from NAND-flash!? Also you're implying that even watching TV doesn't take a few seconds switching from channel to channel.

If you have digital cable or sat. it takes at least 1-2 seconds to switch a channel, it takes almost a full 4 seconds if it is an HD channel.

Smartphones is as fast as you're ever going to get in cutting any sort of loading time, and until SSDs become truly viable on PCs, there is always going to be some loading time.

There are demands, and then there are unrealistic demands. If said users really can't wait a few measly seconds or even milliseconds, then they are hopeless and will never understand anything about how engineering works. (Moot statement, since they won't want to know obviously).

Programmers and engineers can only do so much you know.

Originally Posted by Kenny_Strawn I'm talking about those who spend all day on Facebook and YouTube. That's pretty much everybody I know. The guys like games (though they also go on social networks), and the girls go on Facebook and YouTube. It's those girls that Chrome OS will appeal to, because it is so easy to use. The girls would simply boot and be in the Web, rather than having to wait 60 minutes for the computer to boot and then launch a browser just to get on the Web. You see, they don't want all that extra Windows junk on their computers that makes the computer take two minutes to boot. They just want their computer to be instantly on and in the Web, without having to wait and without having to launch a browser (which also takes time). They want to be in the Web, and they want to be in the Web now.

And you can guarantee with absolute certainty that these people will rather shell out 300 dollars for a new computer than wait 2 minutes to boot Windows? Or what about if they install DamnSmallLinux and their current computers boot instantly and they can use the net just as easily as with chrome OS?

The main point here is that chrome OS doesn't bring anything groundbreaking to the table. It's not a killer-app.
You also presume too much about what you think others want on their computers.

Maybe some people will like Chrome OS and living completely on the web, but:

I do programming. How can I do that in a browser?

I want to be in control of my own data and not rely on a hosting site staying online/in business and a working internet connection to access and edit it.

There are many great applications and games that run natively on Linux. Do I want to abandon those for online "apps"? No!

There are some things that take too much computing resources to run in a browser.

I like the feel of native applications.

Originally Posted by Kenny_Strawn HTML5 will make games *much* easier to create (thanks to WebGL and the built-in HTML5 canvas), because it's a markup language like you said, not a programming language. Games would be so easy to program in HTML compared to C++ or Java that people will easily be able to write games for it, and thus the explosion of popular games comes.

In this part you are seriously mistaken.
Tools that allow create a game relatively easily has been available for a long time. There are multiple freely available engines (including freely available Unreal Development Kit - which is Unreal Engine 3), tools suitable for non-programmers. There are easy to use APIs available for programmers which cover physics, sound and graphics. There is flash. What we have today is very close to being a paradise for game maker - we aren't in 90s anymore, now you won't have to write render/physics/sounds engines yourself, and you won't have to invent all currently available technologies (starting with relatively simple things like skinned meshes, invisible surface removale algorithms, shaders, post-processing, etc).
However, this "paradise" didn't produce many quality products - there aren't many high quality games. Any idiot can attempt to write a game currently, but not everyone can actually finish making it, and not everyone can make something good (game require effort, determination and funding). As a result there are currently rare high-quality products, and a sea of crap (which includes many casual games which are mostly suitable for torturing somebody). I have no reason to believe that with Chrome situation will be any different - easy api means that there will be a sea of crap available for platform, and nothing else. It doesn't magically fix the fact that you may have to spend a MONTH to make, animate, and texture ONE character, it doesn't remove development costs, and it doesn't remove need for talented people.

Also, in my opinion writing anything 3D in non-compiled language is a sign of inexperience, especially for portable platform where battery life is important.

Originally Posted by Kenny_Strawn Oh come on. It should be dauntingly easy, especially with the combination of HTML5, WebGL, and JavaScript.

Is this supposed to be a joke, or do you seriously think this way? Have you worked with unreal engine before, or do you have any gamedev experience? Do you have any idea of the amount of work (including non-programming work) associated? Have you ever made a game engine? Do you have a game you made published?
If you think it is dauntingly easy, then make it. Otherwise it is an opinion of person with zero gamedev/programming experience. You may want to know that game like this normally costs around $25000000 to make (ME2 budget was somewhere around 40 million usds, I think).

Originally Posted by Kenny_Strawn including those I associate with at school.

Well, if you're a teen, that explains a lot about your opinions/attitude. If you had your age in your profile, people at least would know what to expect. No offense.

Originally Posted by Kenny_Strawn and the girls go on Facebook and YouTube. It's those girls that Chrome OS will appeal to, because it is so easy to use.

So the Chrome is supposed to be appealing to teens that waste a lot of time on youtube, social networks, and play farmville. "Great".

Also, you still didn't say if it is actually useful in offline mode.

Originally Posted by Kenny_Strawn rather than having to wait 60 minutes for the computer to boot

Do them a favor, and tell them about "hibernate" feature. Instead of shutting down machine, hibernate it (without closing browser). When you power it on next time, it'll boot roughly in 15 seconds and browser will be already open. You may have to reconnect to internet, though. You even won't have to buy Chrome notebook, so you'll be able to save $300 or whatever Cr-48 is supposed to cost.

Originally Posted by easuter And you can guarantee with absolute certainty that these people will rather shell out 300 dollars for a new computer than wait 2 minutes to boot Windows?

There is hibernation feature, which is very useful on windows machine.

Originally Posted by easuter The main point here is that chrome OS doesn't bring anything groundbreaking to the table. It's not a killer-app.

Which is what I've been talking about.

Originally Posted by MTK358 I do programming. How can I do that in a browser?

Technically, it is possible to implement a mockup of IDE in a browser (java/javascript/flash), but it will be VERY sluggish. While this might be suitable for a newbie (who isn't even familiar with keyboard layout), it will definitely make any person capable of touchtyping furious (subjective).

Originally Posted by MTK358 Maybe some people will like Chrome OS and living completely on the web, but: I do programming. How can I do that in a browser?

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/_7...212-100252.png

Originally Posted by MTK358 I want to be in control of my own data and not rely on a hosting site staying online/in business and a working internet connection to access and edit it.

That screenshot above shows an app that runs offline, as a Chrome extension, rather than as an online service.

Originally Posted by MTK358 There are many great applications and games that run natively on Linux. Do I want to abandon those for online "apps"? No!

This is definitely a valid point, because native Linux does have good apps and games. However, Chrome OS is based on Linux, and it's Chrome OS that really will appeal to newbies.

Originally Posted by MTK358 I like the feel of native applications.

Again, see the above screenshot. There are more apps, but in particular you will see an example of a Chrome app that actually does install inside Chrome.

SigTerm: Just so you know, the Cr-48 is reference hardware. It was free for those who applied (including me).

The first commercial Chrome OS devices will come from Acer and a few other manufacturers, and its them that will cost people. And about my profile: Look here. My full date of birth (and age) are both in there.

I wanted to try Chrome OS for fun to see what it is, but I can only find USB images, and those don't work on VirtualBox.

Originally Posted by Kenny_Strawn Again, see the above screenshot. There are more apps, but in particular you will see an example of a Chrome app that actually does install inside Chrome.

But do they use soild, themeable GUI toolkit such as GTK+ or Qt?

Originally Posted by MTK358 I wanted to try Chrome OS for fun to see what it is, but I can only find USB images, and those don't work on VirtualBox. But do they use soild, themeable GUI toolkit such as GTK+ or Qt?

The Chrome browser uses GTK+, and can be easily themed. However, all Chrome apps are HTML5-based, even though some of them might not be Web-based. Translation: The "apps" that install are really Web sites that install internally and can be run inside the browser as an extension.

So apps that run natively are basically a collection of pages downloaded to your disk so that they work offline?

When I said I like the feel of native apps, I didn't just mean "not served from another machine", but "runnign natively on the CPU and using a real UI toolkit, i.e. not a Web page".