R
Robert Myers
To overturn the megabuggy world of Microsoft attached to the 'Net?
Link lifed from slashdot:
http://www.nypost.com/business/30438.htm
<quote>
The broader concept Google is pursuing is similar to the "network
computer" envisioned by Oracle chief Larry Ellison during a speech in 1995.
The idea is that companies or consumers could buy a machine that costs
only about $200, or less, but that has very little hard drive space and
almost no software. Instead, users would access a network through a
browser and access all their programs and data there.
The concept floundered, but programmers note that Google could easily
pick up the ball. Already, its Gmail free e-mail system gives users 100
megabytes of storage space on a remote network — providing consumers a
virtual hard drive.
"I think a similar thing [to the got network computer] is developing in
a more organic way now," said Jason Kottke, a New York-based Web
developer who follows Google's moves. "People are ready for it. Instead
of most of your interaction happening with Windows or Mac, you're
spending a lot of time with Google-built interfaces."
</quote>
In a quick perusal of the slashdot posts, I didn't see anyone picking up
on what I take to be the main point: this is trouble not only for
Microsoft, but for the platform, as well. Not my original notion by a
long shot, nor the first time I've talked about it, but if your
environment is not on your PC but one some far away server, there is
very little left for your PC to do and very little reason to spend much
money on it.
The idea has huge implications for security and privacy, not all of them
bad, and the net effect on the business, both hardware and software,
could be positive, as well. If someone is going to take over the
future, I'm much happier that it should be the principals of google and
not Gates and Ballmer We Are the World, Inc.
RM
Link lifed from slashdot:
http://www.nypost.com/business/30438.htm
<quote>
The broader concept Google is pursuing is similar to the "network
computer" envisioned by Oracle chief Larry Ellison during a speech in 1995.
The idea is that companies or consumers could buy a machine that costs
only about $200, or less, but that has very little hard drive space and
almost no software. Instead, users would access a network through a
browser and access all their programs and data there.
The concept floundered, but programmers note that Google could easily
pick up the ball. Already, its Gmail free e-mail system gives users 100
megabytes of storage space on a remote network — providing consumers a
virtual hard drive.
"I think a similar thing [to the got network computer] is developing in
a more organic way now," said Jason Kottke, a New York-based Web
developer who follows Google's moves. "People are ready for it. Instead
of most of your interaction happening with Windows or Mac, you're
spending a lot of time with Google-built interfaces."
</quote>
In a quick perusal of the slashdot posts, I didn't see anyone picking up
on what I take to be the main point: this is trouble not only for
Microsoft, but for the platform, as well. Not my original notion by a
long shot, nor the first time I've talked about it, but if your
environment is not on your PC but one some far away server, there is
very little left for your PC to do and very little reason to spend much
money on it.
The idea has huge implications for security and privacy, not all of them
bad, and the net effect on the business, both hardware and software,
could be positive, as well. If someone is going to take over the
future, I'm much happier that it should be the principals of google and
not Gates and Ballmer We Are the World, Inc.
RM