Windows 7 Forums
Welcome to Windows 7 Forums. Our forum is dedicated to helping you find support and solutions for any problems regarding your Windows 7 PC be it Dell, HP, Acer, Asus or a custom build. We also provide an extensive Windows 7 tutorial section that covers a wide range of tips and tricks.


Windows 7: Your tech career depends on preparing for the cloud

08 Jan 2011   #61
BCXtreme

Windows 7 Home Premium x64
 
 

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by Colonel Travis View Post
Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by BCXtreme View Post
Your statement wasn't simply that Google is a potentially dangerous company (if it was, I would've agreed).
I didn't say Google is dangerous, potentially or otherwise. I said was that Orwell would make fun of Google. The man wrote a lot more than 1984.

You keep going back to Android, which I never even brought up. I own an Android phone and love it. But Android is 180 degrees from the Chrome OS, which is somewhat Orwellian, which is what I was talking about. It was asked here if you could use FF with Chrome. No. What else can you not do with the Chrome OS?

You can't run programs from your PC if you're offline.
You can't store Chrome data on your PC.
You can't update Chrome OS programs.
You can't install software on a Chrome OS.
You can't even download Android apps and install them on Chrome
You can't do squat with Chrome OS unless Google says you can.

You call that open?
What you're missing is that Chrome OS, despite it's name, is not being designed as a fully-functional operating system. I don't even know if it can run software in the traditional sense. It's designed as an OS-independent web browser that attains productivity through web apps. It's a very different concept than, say, an OS like Windows or Mac on the cloud. Chrome "OS" is no more of an operating system than the menu screen on my television (meaning, it's an OS in technical definition, but not in functionality). I wouldn't expect Chrome OS to do the things you mentioned anymore than I would expect Firefox or IE or Safari to do those things. It's a web browser.

According to Wikipedia, a platform is "hardware architecture and software framework (including application frameworks) that allows software to run." Thus, by that definition, Chrome OS isn't even a platform, and is therefore irrelevant to this discussion.

However, isn't Chrome OS going to be able to view web apps from any website, just like any browser can? I was not under the impression that only Google-developed web apps will work in it.

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by Frank1 View Post
I've been doing a little reading about this so-called Cloud Computing when a thought occurred to me: Lets say that I subscribe to it and all of my personal data is out there some place. Then let's say that I die (which I will some day). Then let's say that I authorized no one to access my data. What happens to all that stuff out there---somewhere???????
Most likely the same thing that often happens to a person's various Internet personas when they die: nothing. It just sits there forever unless you did instruct a friend or relative to shut it all down for you in the event of your death. The only way this would be avoidable (I think) is if the government took over the whole thing and ran it like Social Security, where you get XX GB of storage when you're born, tied to your SS number, and it just goes away or gets reallocated when you die.

Oh crap ... I hope no one in DC reads that...


My System SpecsSystem Spec
.
08 Jan 2011   #62
Colonel Travis

Black Label 7 x64
 
 

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by BCXtreme View Post

According to Wikipedia, a platform is "hardware architecture and software framework (including application frameworks) that allows software to run." Thus, by that definition, Chrome OS isn't even a platform, and is therefore irrelevant to this discussion.
Yeah, that's awesome. According to Google, Chrome OS is an open source operating system that operates totally on The Cloud, whatever the hell that is, which is what I thought we were talking about. Instead, you're steering the conversation to "platforms" and "Android" and what I apparently think about stuff that I've never even said.

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by BCXtreme View Post
I don't even know if it can run software in the traditional sense.
It doesn't. I mentioned that in the post above yours.

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by BCXtreme View Post
I was not under the impression that only Google-developed web apps will work in it.
I was not under the impression that I said or implied that. Google-developed is different than Google-approved. And the only apps that can run on the Chrome OS are those that are Google-approved.
My System SpecsSystem Spec
08 Jan 2011   #63
Tepid

Win 7 Ultimate 32bit
 
 

Google Chrome OS

Think WebTV for your PC.

Wow what a waste of resources and computing power.

You know, the thing is, you can do more with a small foot print version of Linux on a netbook, than you can with Chrome OS. Not to mention, Linux is free, and far more secure than Google having access to all of your data.

All your data are belong to us
My System SpecsSystem Spec
.

08 Jan 2011   #64
BCXtreme

Windows 7 Home Premium x64
 
 

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by Colonel Travis View Post
Yeah, that's awesome. According to Google, Chrome OS is an open source operating system that operates totally on The Cloud, whatever the hell that is, which is what I thought we were talking about. Instead, you're steering the conversation to "platforms" and "Android" and what I apparently think about stuff that I've never even said.
We're obviously talking about different things. I'm talking about the idea that major OSes like Windows and OS X someday being hosted on a server, where the PC/Mac logs into them at the boot level by essentially "booting" onto the cloud, like a network boot on steroids. Chrome OS is stored locally, and by Google's own admission, it isn't much more than the Chrome web browser re-designed to run without anything as a base layer. It operates on "the cloud" in the sense that a web browser does: all content is accessed remotely, but the software itself (and really by definition, the potential to hack/modify it) remains on a local hard drive or memory of some kind. Also by Google's own admission, it is targeted towards people who do everything on the Internet through their browser anyways, and thus don't really have a need for a comparatively complicated OS like Windows. It's not being marketed or designed as an "everybody will be running this for everything, from casual users to business execs and developers" solution. What I'm talking about (and what I believe the original article is talking about) is an entirely cloud-based future, where everything that everyone does will end up on the cloud, even stuff like Visual Studio and Photoshop Extended, and any/all local IT becomes profoundly obsolete.

I'm not steering this conversation. The word "Android" didn't even appear in my last post. My point was that you are talking about Chrome OS as though it's capability was being limited artificially by Google and/or their policies, and that's simply not the case. It's limited by the scope of its purpose and functionality as a web browser (I don't really care what Google wants to call it; if that's all it does, then that's all it is).

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by Colonel Travis View Post
It doesn't. I mentioned that in the post above yours.
Exactly. And my point here is that, it's not supposed to run software, it's a web browser repackaged as a low-power "operating system" for netbooks. Why would you expect it to be able to run software?

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by Colonel Travis View Post
I was not under the impression that I said or implied that. Google-developed is different than Google-approved. And the only apps that can run on the Chrome OS are those that are Google-approved.
I was entirely unaware of that. I did not know that Chrome OS restricted what apps you can access. I would presume that means that you cannot go to web apps like Hotmail, Office Web, or any other service that would not meet Google's criteria. I was unaware that Chrome OS is actually more limited in functionality than a standard web browser.
My System SpecsSystem Spec
08 Jan 2011   #65
Colonel Travis

Black Label 7 x64
 
 

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by BCXtreme View Post

We're obviously talking about different things.
Thank you.
My System SpecsSystem Spec
08 Jan 2011   #66
Tepid

Win 7 Ultimate 32bit
 
 

Ha, that's funny, my previous post directly responds to your post above.

But I want to add that........ With Windows, or even Linux, they too can be locked down to a Kiosk level of usage, which all Chrome OS is really doing. And again, you have far more control over the data than allowing Google to have access to it.

Heck, you can even set them up to access directly cloud services such as.....

A company web server with web services

A more trusting remote storage company (maybe) like DropBox (just naming other cloud company of some sort) or something.

And still retain local storage with limited access to only the user logged in.

So much more power and control can be had over Windows and Linux than Chrome OS.
Especially on Netbooks.

You can even have the ability to load local apps that can only run for certain users.
Your imagination is only limited by what your are able to run on a system.

Is Full on Cloud Computing going to afford that luxury?
My System SpecsSystem Spec
08 Jan 2011   #67
lehnerus2000

W7 Ultimate SP1, LM18.2 MATE, W10 Home, #All 64 bit
 
 
I think that we both agree about the "Cloud"

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by BCXtreme View Post
If you recall, Microsoft got in trouble because (among other reasons) it was suspected that they were intentionally making it difficult to install alternative programs (other media players, browsers, etc) on Windows PCs; it didn't matter to the courts that you could simply buy another OS like Mac and get different options.
I contend that is because you owned the hardware.
I can't see any Government (D or R) ordering Microsoft (or Apple, Google, etc.) to install a competitor's software on their own servers.

I think that it would be more like cable TV.
In Australia, you subscribe to a provider and choose you programs based on the packages they offer.
You cannot demand packages from other providers.
The only way to get those packages is to subscribe to the other provider as well.
You cannot "unbundle" programs from those provider-based packages either.

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by BCXtreme View Post
If you've ever studied American government, you know that the part of our government that is in charge of that enforcement is the executive branch (the White House and the bureaucracy).
I wasn't aware that the President (D or R) had direct unfettered control, over all Government departments (in non-emergency circumstances).

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by BCXtreme View Post
Basically, enforcement != power. Decision-making authority = power.
OK I see where our difference of opinion lies.
I contend that "Decision-making" & "Enforcement" are both Government powers and if either (or both) are increased, so is Government power.

Both of the examples I cited, require judicial intervention.
Somebody has to pay for all or the judges, court officials and buildings.
In Australia that "Somebody" is the taxpayer, via the Government.
I contend that if you have less money, you have less freedom of choice and therefore less power.

Apologies to everyone for not shutting up after I said that I would.
I'll pinch part of your disclaimer.

Disclaimer:
The above was not written as any kind of political statement and should not be considered as such.

It is my opinion on the mechanics of Government
.

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by BCXtreme View Post
I'm talking about a situation where the line is "You have to store all of your personal data on our servers...", because every available OS has gone completely cloud-based and dropped support for local storage. One says "the cloud will be a part of the future", and I agree, it will be probably for a short time. Another says "the cloud will BE the future", and I disagree.
I think that our positions are actually the same (just expressed differently).

Initially they will try to sucker people in by exaggerating the convenience factor.
Once your PC becomes a just a keyboard and monitor (i.e. dumb terminal) you will have no choice but to swap to an online OS.

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by BCXtreme View Post
Either way, I think the whole thing is going to fall apart as soon as one hacker or a team of hackers cracks one of the servers and steals 150,000 identities at once, or secretly swipes data to pass on to potential stalkers (for a fee of course).
If they are smart (e.g. organised criminals) they'll wait until a certain level of market penetration has been achieved.
If all of the PC makers are wiped out by the "Cloud", it will be too late to go back to the "good old days".

Worse, they could step up attacks against non-"Cloud" users.
This could force people to swap and boost the illusion that "Cloud" services are more secure.

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by BCXtreme View Post
I think it's the non-cloud-based companies that will sue the cloud-based companies first, especially if the cloud-based companies are the ones that Microsoft and Apple that will have the ability to completely close the entire platform with a light switch.
That is a valid possibility.

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by BCXtreme View Post
First of all, dishonesty is dishonesty regardless of what anyone else knows. Either way, in this particular case, we are talking about the target consumer not really knowing what he/she wants because the company is not telling the truth.
Agreed.
I suspect that's why some companies "bash" their opposition, rather than extolling the actual virtues of their own products.
We never hear, "the whole truth and nothing but the truth".
My System SpecsSystem Spec
08 Jan 2011   #68
BCXtreme

Windows 7 Home Premium x64
 
 

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by lehnerus2000 View Post
I contend that is because you owned the hardware. I can't see any Government (D or R) ordering Microsoft (or Apple, Google, etc.) to install a competitor's software on their own servers.
To be honest, under current laws, I have no clue what would happen. You would end up with an oligopoly, where only software made by a cloud host or their preferred partners is allowed to even exist. Whereas under the current IT system you can choose to switch platforms, hardware, or pretty much anything else if the status quo is too "closed", the future we're envisioning is one where you can't switch, because nothing else exists. The U.S. government and judicial system don't usually look kindly on that kind of setup.

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by lehnerus2000 View Post
I wasn't aware that the President (D or R) had direct unfettered control, over all Government departments (in non-emergency circumstances).
The President of the United States is "the man" in the executive branch. He can issue an executive order at any time, for any reason, and as long as that order does not contradict or blatantly exceed the power (of any kind) that has been granted to that particular bureaucracy, they have the authority to carry out the order. The POTUS usually chooses not to micromanage every office himself, because our bureaucracy is so gigantic by now that it would be next to impossible. But, within the scope of the authority granted by Congress, yes he can exercise direct unfettered control if he so chooses. And whenever you hear about the bureaucracy in this country doing this, that, or the other thing, that order generally came from someone else in the executive branch. It is very very rare for Congress to take action on that level, partially because it would take them weeks to write a resolution and get it passed in both houses, whereas the President can just sign a piece of paper. Congress also has the collective authority to give detailed orders to our military, but they rarely, if ever, exercise that authority because, like law enforcement, it's not their job and it is very time-consuming and complicated for them.

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by lehnerus2000 View Post
OK I see where our difference of opinion lies. I contend that "Decision-making" & "Enforcement" are both Government powers and if either (or both) are increased, so is Government power.

Both of the examples I cited, require judicial intervention.
Somebody has to pay for all or the judges, court officials and buildings.
In Australia that "Somebody" is the taxpayer, via the Government.
I contend that if you have less money, you have less freedom of choice and therefore less power.
The points you make are very good, although I feel the need to point out that having less money only reduces your freedom of choice in financial/economic ways. Having less money (in the U.S. at least) does not affect your voting rights, freedom of speech, or anything else along those lines.

I honestly don't know much about the political system in Australia. In the U.S., there is a big difference between civil lawsuits (private entity suing private entity) and criminal lawsuits (government suing private entity). The DMCA (which I do believe to be very very flawed) gave the judicial system the authority to protect private entities' intellectual property, if requested by said entity (therefore, the real power lies with the entity). In my opinion, increasing the ability of the judicial system to settle disputes between private entities is not an increase in government power (mainly because the gov't can't decide to intervene in a situation on its own, one of the parties involved has to ask them to act). There are other laws, which shall remain nameless, that have increased the power of the bureaucracy by allowing them to dictate policy and pursue resistance with criminal charges.

I think you would agree that, while you may contend both examples to be displaying "government power", one is certainly more dangerous than the other, and both have very different ramifications.

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by lehnerus2000 View Post
I think that our positions are actually the same (just expressed differently).

Initially they will try to sucker people in by exaggerating the convenience factor.
Once your PC becomes a just a keyboard and monitor (i.e. dumb terminal) you will have no choice but to swap to an online OS.
And that's the problem. Once again, I can't picture this actually happening because it would be an obvious step backward. (If I recall, central workstations with multiple dumb terminals attached to them is the way companies used to do things. They shifted away from that as it became affordable to maintain larger numbers of independent computers.) Not to mention, it would shut down the entire OEM industry.



Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by lehnerus2000 View Post
If the are smart (e.g. organised criminals) they'll wait until a certain level of market penetration has been achieved.
If all of the PC makers are wiped out by the "Cloud", it will be too late to go back to the "good old days".

Worse, they could step up attacks against non-"Cloud" users.
This could force people to swap and boost the illusion that "Cloud" services are more secure.
I'm not sure why they would attack non-cloud users more, when the cloud users would be so much more lucrative.

The first option is a doomsday scenario. The infrastructure of every major government would collapse overnight due to heavy volume of identity theft (which would start with a few 100k, then probably increase to a few 100m in very short order). Society would completely fall apart. You wouldn't even be able to punish criminals, because they could raid five towns a day, and use a different stolen identity each time; you'd imprison entire populations just trying to catch them.

At present, there are no major platforms on the cloud. (Chrome OS doesn't and won't count because it is still stored locally.) We need to keep it that way. Perhaps solutions like MS Windows Azure will be the answer. If they are refined enough, people will be able to use them to manage clouds of their very own, so that less data is pushed to the web. Now that concept I like!
My System SpecsSystem Spec
09 Jan 2011   #69
lehnerus2000

W7 Ultimate SP1, LM18.2 MATE, W10 Home, #All 64 bit
 
 
I think that we are mostly in agreement, "Cloud" = Bad

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by BCXtreme View Post
The President of the United States is "the man" in the executive branch. He can issue an executive order at any time, for any reason, and as long as that order does not contradict or blatantly exceed the power (of any kind) that has been granted to that particular bureaucracy, they have the authority to carry out the order.
I am aware of the President's Executive Order ability/power.
I am also aware that it is rarely used, because of the howls of outrage it normally provokes.

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by BCXtreme View Post
The points you make are very good, although I feel the need to point out that having less money only reduces your freedom of choice in financial/economic ways. Having less money (in the U.S. at least) does not affect your voting rights, freedom of speech, or anything else along those lines.
My point is a bit esoteric.
If you have less money, you couldn't donate as much to charities, protest groups or opposition parties.

A computing example (to avoid politics):
Say you needed/wanted a computer, but you were cash strapped.
You would be forced to buy a Windows or Linux "equipped" PC, because you couldn't afford a Mac.
If you hated MS and wished to withhold your money as a consumer protest (about their business practices, for example) you would have to accept the Linux PC.

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by BCXtreme View Post
I think you would agree that, while you may contend both examples to be displaying "government power", one is certainly more dangerous than the other, and both have very different ramifications.
Agreed.

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by BCXtreme View Post
I'm not sure why they would attack non-cloud users more, when the cloud users would be so much more lucrative.
This would be to encourage people to move to the "Cloud", with its inherently weaker security.
Once enough people are in the "Cloud", you would then launch an all-out assault against them.
They wouldn't even have the option of unplugging their PCs to protect themselves.
This would cause your "Doomsday scenario" (below).

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by BCXtreme View Post
The first option is a doomsday scenario. The infrastructure of every major government would collapse overnight due to heavy volume of identity theft (which would start with a few 100k, then probably increase to a few 100m in very short order). Society would completely fall apart. You wouldn't even be able to punish criminals, because they could raid five towns a day, and use a different stolen identity each time; you'd imprison entire populations just trying to catch them.
Agreed.
You probably couldn't identify the perpetrators anyway.

This is only slightly related to the topic at hand:
I don't know if you've ever seen "Ghost in the Shell" (an anime series).
Most people had computer implants to enhance their abilities.
Most security personnel had enhanced eyesight.
Everyone seemed to be connected to the Internet via their implants.
However, hackers could feed false info to your computer eyes (and security cameras) rendering themselves invisible.
My System SpecsSystem Spec
09 Jan 2011   #70
Colonel Travis

Black Label 7 x64
 
 

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by BCXtreme View Post
The President of the United States is "the man" in the executive branch. He can issue an executive order at any time, for any reason, and as long as that order does not contradict or blatantly exceed the power (of any kind) that has been granted to that particular bureaucracy, they have the authority to carry out the order. The POTUS usually chooses not to micromanage every office himself, because our bureaucracy is so gigantic by now that it would be next to impossible. But, within the scope of the authority granted by Congress, yes he can exercise direct unfettered control if he so chooses. And whenever you hear about the bureaucracy in this country doing this, that, or the other thing, that order generally came from someone else in the executive branch. It is very very rare for Congress to take action on that level, partially because it would take them weeks to write a resolution and get it passed in both houses, whereas the President can just sign a piece of paper. Congress also has the collective authority to give detailed orders to our military, but they rarely, if ever, exercise that authority because, like law enforcement, it's not their job and it is very time-consuming and complicated for them.
BCXtreme, you and I agree on many fronts and I'm not trying to bash you - but this stuff is absolutely incorrect.

1.) A clear, concise explanation of executive order authority may be found here, courtesy the Congressional Research Service.

2.) Congress cannot give detailed orders to the military. The only things Congress can do is fund it, say where it goes, how long it can stay there, and declare war. The president can trump all of that except the funding part. He can be checked by the other two branches if he does trump it - nonetheless, Congress has extremely limited and specific Constitutional powers over the military.

3.) I used to work for a member of Congress. And "whenever you hear about the bureaucracy in this country doing this, that, or the other thing" it is far too frequently because Congress has intruded down to the level of stuff like what kind of @#$%! pencil you must use when writing down info. that's to be reported back to the federal gov't.
My System SpecsSystem Spec
Reply

 Your tech career depends on preparing for the cloud




Thread Tools




Similar help and support threads
Thread Forum
IT career - Personal Stuffs
Greetings everyone, I have recently graduated from High School. I'm thinking about my future and I've chosen IT as my career choice. This is a huge field, mind mindbogglingly huge. I'm not looking towards software or web development, but towards Networking and Security, Help Desk, Sysadmin, that...
Chillout Room
Looking for a career change
Most of my life I've been working in retail. I did my A+ certification in 2005. Recently I've taken my MS Word Advanced and Excel Intermediate from my local college. I would like to work in either an office or IT, but ever since the 90s I have been passionate about computers and technology. If I...
Chillout Room
Win7 Partition depends on Vista's one
Hi, I've instaled Win 7 as a second system next to My Vista (both x64). Now I'm emotionally ready to get rid of Vista for number of reasons. Of course Win7 become fully operational and "personalized" system so I don't wont to reinstal Win7...just remove Vista. But my Win7 needs Vista's...
Installation & Setup
IT Career
Hey all! I'm an inspiring IT Technitian (Don't know if i used that the proper way ;)) I can troubleshoot and fix most common PC problems. I just signed up for college at Springfield Technical Community College in Springfield Massachusetts. The course that i plan on taking is Computer Systems...
Chillout Room


Our Sites

Site Links

About Us

Find Us

Windows 7 Forums is an independent web site and has not been authorized, sponsored, or otherwise approved by Microsoft Corporation. "Windows 7" and related materials are trademarks of Microsoft Corp.

Designer Media Ltd

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 15:44.
Twitter Facebook Google+ Seven Forums iOS App Seven Forums Android App