Google OS: the end of the hard drive?

 Hmmmm. I don't like keeping my head in the cloud\s, I'll stay with a local based OS and storage. Can't say for others, if it's "their thing" that's fine, just as long as I have the option to not have to use the cloud. It's bad enough keeping info private as possible and I don't care if they send me a written guarantee signed by Google itself that my info will be "safe", I'm not buying it.  Anyone who looks back knows, no matter how secure the claim, someone will break that security. If companies and everyone do stray to cloud based OS's, kiss net admin and many pc repair jobs goodbye as well.

Chrome OS netbooks will not have traditional hard disk drives -- they will rely on non-volatile flash memory and Internet-based storage for saving all of your data.

This may be progress... but dangerous progress! If you store your data on the web, what if the Google database gets compromised? There goes all your precious data. It's aimed towards college students, so all their files and work can be stolen in a matter of days.

What if you don't have internet?

All the applications will be web-based, meaning users won't have to install apps, manage updates or even backup their data. All data will be stored in the cloud, and users won't even have to bother with anti-virus software: Google claims it will monitor code to prevent malicious activity in Chrome OS web apps.

That is a step way to far. So say you have a Video Game, your saved games are saved on the internet? Personally, "Clouds" are a bit to far for me to call a safe zone.

[Moderator]

kiss net admin and many pc repair jobs goodbye as well.

Why exactly would this take place ? ?
PC's still have to physically run...
Net Admin positions would if anything be in larger demand...

I don't get it.

Hmmmm. I don't like keeping my head in the cloud\s, ...   ... kiss net admin and many pc repair jobs goodbye as well.

I think your head is in the clouds...

More relevant than ever.....

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/technology/article675014.ece

I touched on this before. Sun Microsystem already tried this, they called them "net PCs" they needed to be connected to broadband to even boot up. It was simply awful. Some said they were ahead of their time. I say the Dumb Terminal->Time shared server system, whatever the architecture (web or Local area network) was put out of use for a reason, and it wasn't because the "technology had to mature" it was because the concept had security and architectural flaws that were both inherent in the very concepts themselves, namely the "time-sharing" concept.

VAX-VMS users were able to "force" the VMS to give them either larger time-slices then other users or even take it over themselves, simply with a few clever commands and some compiled BASIC. If google wishes to go through with this AGAIN but using the slower and less robust Web as a conduit for this data then they better be ready to actually implement some form of cross-dumb-terminal security.

Really Google is too excited about this. What does it bring to the table? People will have access to their data anywhere? How is this relevant? If somebody wants ot take their data with them- thaey take it WITH them. If you have access to your own data anywhere, so will anybody else who knows about it, so it stands to reason that all this is doing is increasing the data theft attack surfaces.

It also does something else that has seemingly been forgotten, but I believe it might have been one of the concepts Quantos was describing; the fact that this makes google not only the one in charge of the storage of our data, but it also makes them the exclusive owner. Remember the EULA for chrome? Do you really think they did that "by accident"? that forum posts and the like posted from within Chrome would become their intellectual property... "oh sorry, don't know how that got in there" Google doesn't just want control of our data, they want it. If they can get people in colleges and so forth to use this technology then they have absolute control over the flow of education and research data that they couldn't acquire via other means. I'm sure their lawyers are hard at work looking for a way to phrase their EUL so it doesn't seem as threatening but has the same effect.


if Microsoft was doing this there would already be theories abound about the "real reason" and yet when it comes to google, people actually trust them. I don't trust ANY corporation because at no point are they doing it for "public interest", they are always out to do something for themselves- what appears to be a "good deed" may in fact be a publicity stunt, and in cases such as this one where there is a potential for people to simply "hand-over" their hard work to a corporation that has already made compromisory EULA agreements that IMO were even worse then those put forth by MS, which people hold as a "shining example" of EULA's designed to limit people's rights.

Why exactly would this take place ? ?
PC's still have to physically run...
Net Admin positions would if anything be in larger demand...

I don't get it.

For one, a majority of PC repair, statistic wise has to do with software, operating systems, infections, etc... if most of this becomes based on a server somewhere, what is there for you or I to fix? Second, don't you feel that if Google put out hardware that was only compatible with their "cloud" method, that most would simply have to send it in or get a replacement? I doubt it would be like working on a standard PC at the moment. Just what could net admins control? What would there be to control? Internet access? The servers could be set up for specific company needs if stored all in a cloud, they would have the machines to access that cloud only, or just that authority no? I can't see where an network admin would be needed. The only issue would be with connections from time to time, going back to the specific hardware from Google, I think they would also have specific people to deal with that too or like stated above, simply replace it. Just like cell phones, a dime a dozen but people actually pay for the service. How many actually repair a cell phone?

I think your head is in the clouds...

Nice and intelligent comeback to my opinion. Remind me to play chess with you some day, I love to win in 3 moves or less.

[Moderator]

I still don't get it...sorry.

Hardware still has to function...so your "majority idea" of PC repair is flawed...

2nd  Net Admins run and keep networks going so it doesn't matter if they are doing traditional computing or cloud computing...the network still has to be maintained for either to happen...

3rd your assertion of google hardware is just too ridiculous to comment on...even though i just did.

Remind me to play chess with you some day, I love to win in 3 moves or less.

Hey and he's funny too...

Google  is currently working with unnamed computer manufacturers to define specifications for these computers, which Pichai said will include larger netbook-style computers with full-size keyboards, large trackpads and large displays.

 Chrome OS netbooks will not have traditional hard disk drives -- they will rely on non-volatile flash memory and Internet-based storage for saving all of your data.

All the applications will be web-based, meaning users won't have to install apps, manage updates or even backup their data. All data will be stored in the cloud, and users won't even have to bother with anti-virus software: Google claims it will monitor code to prevent malicious activity in Chrome OS web apps.

"Chrome OS is a totally rethought computer that will let you focus on the Internet, so you can stop worrying about your computer," according to a Google promotional video shown at the event, held at the Google campus in Mountain View, California.

The OS's focus on design is consistent with the company's stance that the future is in the web. In July, Vic Gundotra, Google's engineering vice president and developer evangelist, spoke on a panel about app stores, in which he said native apps (such as those available for the iPhone) would be obsolete in the future, and that the Web will "become the platform that matters."

"Every capability you want today, in the future it will be written as a web application," Pichai said Thursday.

3rd your assertion of google hardware is just too ridiculous to comment on...even though i just did.

 My assertion, I like that. Does the above sound like my assertion?
Let's recap another part of this yet again...

so you can stop worrying about your computer

Sorry, not my assertion, it's Google's.

Hardware still has to function...so your "majority idea" of PC repair is flawed...

Er... not "my idea", it was a statistic for many reasons why software is the no.1 issue that techs repair for people. I doubt Google will make these specific machines for us to tinker with, at least not right away. And besides, without the hard drive, software, would you base your living off what's left to repair? I wouldn't.

2nd  Net Admins run and keep networks going so it doesn't matter if they are doing traditional computing or cloud computing...the network still has to be maintained for either to happen...

Not if the server "say Google based" is set up for a business where users have to log in and only to a specific account, it would be Google based if anything other than a physical mishap occurred with wiring or wireless, security isn't going to be user based, the server isn't, software isn't so what's left for the admin? Even then, if Google is having specific machines made, likely they will come with some type of service as well, knocking out the basic repair guy. Google won't want anyone to tinker with their equipment, guaranteed. So what's left besides the physical internet connection? That would be like hiring and admin to watch over a room full of people texting on their phones.

Lastly, if you actually read the above, it's not my opinion, it's a fact this is what Google is striving for. Microsoft threw rumors in the air some years ago about the same thing and if Google succeeds, this could very well put others in the green light to do the same.

So regardless, it's gearing toward "one day" putting techs out, keeping users from mucking up systems while large corporations hold our info. Maybe not 10 years from now but eventually.

What about "DOS addresses only 1 Megabyte of RAM because we cannot imagine any applications needing more." - is it sourced?

The source of "640kb ought to be enough for anybody." may have actually been "No one will need more than 637 kb of memory for a personal computer." and it may have been said in the early 1970s. // Liftarn

The earliest mention of this quote on usenet seems to be a signature by Evan Champion in 1992-07-25 (News:2175291@overmind.citadel)

LX 2.1 TD . "640K ought to be enough for your mom." - Bill Gates, 1981

the debate is academic anyway. I highly doubt Google enjoys repeating failure, but that is what they might be walking into.

The whole idea here should be to solve a problem; this web-based OS architecture is a solution looking for a non-trivial problem. With the VAX-VMS for example, and other time-shared computer architectures (not quite what google is going for, but the concepts are pretty similar in many respects) the reason they did it, was simply because the computer itself was so large and expensive; they couldn't hope to have more then one, and certainly not an entire laboratory.

The very idea of a "personal" computer should be to emphasize the "personal" idea; in that respect the google OS will not be a "personal" computer operating system, since data is not stored on a personally owned hard drive, but rather on a hard drive on some server somewhere. The question here is What exactly does this achieve? Now all disk access to that data is slower. The main thing they vouch is that it will be accessible "anywhere"; but I think they need to re-examine just how trivial it is to copy files that are necessary onto a flash drive, or the large number of ways that this can be done within other operating systems; synchronization between a local and a ftp folder, for example.

did I mention that people "personal" data will be stored on hard drives owned by google? because personally I find that a bit disconcerting.

Another important thing is wether even google could create the appropriate architecture, and how long will they? People say that MS is controlling the hardware market; but really unless you want the latest Windows OS you have no need for updated hardware; old computers still run windows 98 fine, for example.

But if google succeeds in launching this platform and it becomes popular, google can make partnerships with hardware vendors and even force users to have certain hardware in order to run, or use certain features. Google already provides advertised links that may or may not be either relevant or safe, so it's no big revelation to realize that they are in fact a company and the bottom-line is really the very reason they do anything. But what exactly does releasing this OS do for their bottom line? They will need to purchase servers and a very powerful back-end for all this data that people store; I would hope they would have backups of that as well in case of failures, not to mention 24/7 monitoring staff. This is expensive. They wouldn't be doing this if they didn't think they could profit in the long run. And sure, it sounds kind of like a conspiracy theory; but I think what Google is really after is the data itself; the ability to mine personal data and provide the very same "google experience", like "personalized" advertisements; and even the automatic subscription to services, masked under the thin veil of some sort of silly google trademark. They already mine data from peoples browsing habits via Google AdSense; by strengthening both the scope of the display of advertisements as well as the amount of data to mine (that is, browser that may be even set up to block google adsense to a entire OS developed solely for the purpose of said data mining) it would vastly improve their abilities to mass-market other companies products to the proper demographics and to people interesting in such products. This means they could boost the pricing of said contracts.

Is this what they are doing? I have no idea; it's just a theory. But given what I've seen of Google, especially with regards to Chrome's early EULA's, it would seem that this has been their goal for some time.

did I mention that people "personal" data will be stored on hard drives owned by google? because personally I find that a bit disconcerting.

I was thinking about that too.