Chrome
Google's latest squeeze in the slow strangulation of Microsoft is something that's been on my software wishlist ever since the catchphrase "Web 2.0" started getting thrown around: a browser architecture that's designed on the principle that web apps really are individual apps and should be treated accordingly by the hardware, rather than having one thread to rule them all and in the darkness bind them. It's faster and cleaner than Firefox and has a few nice little UI touches of the kind that I've come to expect from Google. The fact that they kept the features to a minimum is consistent with Google's MO -- they win because they focus on doing basic things very well, minimally impinging on the user's consciousness and maximally enabling developers.
This is a design philosophy that, whatever they might say, anyone making a conventional OS for end-users can't fully embrace -- not Microsoft, not Apple, not Linux -- because by their nature they're trying to do too much. User needs are many, varied and often contradictory, so once your design goals commit you to catering to more than a few of them you're immediately committed to kludgery. All OSes suck in some sense for the reason things designed by a committee usually suck -- they represent an equilibrium between a strife of divergent ends, which mollifies most but satisfies few.
Google knows which way the wind blows and are doing their best to add their impetus to it. When people get used to doing their work and their play through a simple "browser"* that enables them to smoothly interact with remote servers but otherwise shuts up and gets out of the way, then it won't be long before they start wondering why they're spending so much for expensive hardware and software when all they need is a simple, relatively cheap web-interface device. We'll soon witness the return of the dumb terminal, but this time it's like Terminator 2 -- instead of serving evil sysadmins it'll be serving the user. And the first generation might even have a G logo on it somewhere.
But that's getting way ahead. My main quibble with Chrome right now is the lack of plug-ins, but I expect that to change fast. My main need is for integration with a few web-based apps I use daily, and the ability to block things -- e.g. flash objects and sites I don't want to be tempted to mess around on. Once that's in place I'll be switching to it full time.
* An archaic term which needs to be replaced. I'm thinking "gateway", but suggestions welcome.
This is a design philosophy that, whatever they might say, anyone making a conventional OS for end-users can't fully embrace -- not Microsoft, not Apple, not Linux -- because by their nature they're trying to do too much. User needs are many, varied and often contradictory, so once your design goals commit you to catering to more than a few of them you're immediately committed to kludgery. All OSes suck in some sense for the reason things designed by a committee usually suck -- they represent an equilibrium between a strife of divergent ends, which mollifies most but satisfies few.
Google knows which way the wind blows and are doing their best to add their impetus to it. When people get used to doing their work and their play through a simple "browser"* that enables them to smoothly interact with remote servers but otherwise shuts up and gets out of the way, then it won't be long before they start wondering why they're spending so much for expensive hardware and software when all they need is a simple, relatively cheap web-interface device. We'll soon witness the return of the dumb terminal, but this time it's like Terminator 2 -- instead of serving evil sysadmins it'll be serving the user. And the first generation might even have a G logo on it somewhere.
But that's getting way ahead. My main quibble with Chrome right now is the lack of plug-ins, but I expect that to change fast. My main need is for integration with a few web-based apps I use daily, and the ability to block things -- e.g. flash objects and sites I don't want to be tempted to mess around on. Once that's in place I'll be switching to it full time.
* An archaic term which needs to be replaced. I'm thinking "gateway", but suggestions welcome.