No matter who you are or what you do, people are always complaining about how slow their computers are. We groan about how much time it takes for that spreadsheet to load or how jittery the graphics in that new videogame is. And that is after spending loads of money to get that blazing fast new processor and motherboard. When it comes to giga-hertz and giga-bytes, It seems we are simply obsessed with speed. Faster is always better.
That is why somebody who would say that all that processing power is maybe too much for us strikes you as somewhat odd. I have a friend who says just that. He thinks that we are simply being forced to upgrade to newer and faster hardware because of the evil nexus that exists between hardware vendors and software companies.
He might have a good case though. The latest operating system won't run with hardware that is now in the market, you would have to wait two more months for that to happen. Indeed, it might very well be the case that clueless consumers are being forced to upgrade to software that is by no means better, but definitely expensive and requires nothing less than a supercomputer to run on. But then, we have great visionaries like Bill Gates who made a software empire make statements like 640 K should be sufficient for anyone. Maybe he is seeing the glass half-empty. (To be fair to Mr. Gates, the authenticity of that quote has not been established beyond doubt.)
Consider what we have seen in the last decade in personal computing. To be more specific and really to the point, let us take computer games. Would you really believe that someone who was playing Dave in 1995 can play Halo 2 or FIFA 2006 now? (If you have actually played through all those games, you would get my point more easily.)
This revolution in the industry didn't happen because we sat tight with what we had. No, we decided to push the limits. When software was too demanding on the hardware, we made faster hardware. When we got better hardware, we wrote better code to take full advantage of its capabilities. This virtuous cycle is what drives innovation and indeed, the entire industry. It is not that we never seem to have enough, we just shouldn't. Maybe our obsession with speed isn't accidental, it very well could have been hardwired into us. So the next time you are wondering why that document is taking too long to open, you might be actually fueling innovation.
Aug 19, 2006
Jul 8, 2006
YouOS Web Operating System
Seriously speaking, the title of this article is a bit misleading. YouOS is more like a bunch of useful apps put together that distantly resembles an operating system like Windows or Linux. Indeed, the application works on your browser, which itself requires another operating system to run. However, the idea is to have a virtual desktop that you can access from a Web enabled device, from anywhere around the world.
The system is in alpha testing, and what is more, it even comes with your own little shell for all that command-typing wizards out there. And as can be expected, 'ls' and 'mkdir' is about as advanced it gets. But what really impresses me is the idea behind it.
To actually have an operating system that runs on the Web is quite intriguing, something like even more personalised computing for people who are always on the go. We inevitably comes across a paradox in this situation though - how can you access an operating system that runs on the Web because don't you already require a Web browser to access the site? Hmm.
The idea is not that new, actually. In these very columns, I had toured another similar application - Goowy. It also had its own desktop, text editors and stuff and also a very attractive email system. What makes YouOS different is that it is done using AJAX instead of Flash, as Goowy is. Not that being done in AJAX itself merits more credit, it is just that I find the whole AJAX thing very interesting.
YouOS gives you the ability to write your own app for the system, and if you think that is not your cup of tea, you can install other apps from a nice little collection that you can browse within the system. You even get virtual sticky notes that you can set as reminders.
For sometime now, the idea of the Web based Operating System has been doing the rounds on the Web. Once we get around the paradox we mentioned before, maybe we will get to a real Web OS. Something like where the software for starting up the computer itself is received from a remote server, and all the usual operating system routines like IO, File and memory management is done by a remote service. I don't know if something like that exists already, forgive my ignorance if it does. Are the giants of the Web listening?
The system is in alpha testing, and what is more, it even comes with your own little shell for all that command-typing wizards out there. And as can be expected, 'ls' and 'mkdir' is about as advanced it gets. But what really impresses me is the idea behind it.
To actually have an operating system that runs on the Web is quite intriguing, something like even more personalised computing for people who are always on the go. We inevitably comes across a paradox in this situation though - how can you access an operating system that runs on the Web because don't you already require a Web browser to access the site? Hmm.
The idea is not that new, actually. In these very columns, I had toured another similar application - Goowy. It also had its own desktop, text editors and stuff and also a very attractive email system. What makes YouOS different is that it is done using AJAX instead of Flash, as Goowy is. Not that being done in AJAX itself merits more credit, it is just that I find the whole AJAX thing very interesting.
YouOS gives you the ability to write your own app for the system, and if you think that is not your cup of tea, you can install other apps from a nice little collection that you can browse within the system. You even get virtual sticky notes that you can set as reminders.
For sometime now, the idea of the Web based Operating System has been doing the rounds on the Web. Once we get around the paradox we mentioned before, maybe we will get to a real Web OS. Something like where the software for starting up the computer itself is received from a remote server, and all the usual operating system routines like IO, File and memory management is done by a remote service. I don't know if something like that exists already, forgive my ignorance if it does. Are the giants of the Web listening?
Jun 30, 2006
The Instant Messaging battle
Consider this - how would it be if you could send an email only to another user on the same domain? Or you could call a subscriber on the same telephone network alone? Not many would welcome the idea, but that is how it is now with Instant Messaging.
Instant Messaging is a must-have tool in a world that runs on real-time. If you can't communicate now, better forget it. But all the big operators that provide IM services right now - MSN, Yahoo, AOL and Gmail prefer to use proprietary standards and that means communicating within their own network and only that. So, even if you are a regular Yahoo! IM user but has a friend on MSN, one of you two would have to register with the other's service to communicate. Had the operators been charging for new registrations, you wouldn't quite fancy that option, would you?
Metcalfe's law (also referred to as the Network Effect) states that value of a communications network is proportional to the square of the number of users. What it essentially conveys is that the more the number of people using the same system, the better for everyone. You wouldn't need different softwares, different protocols and all the difficulties that come with them. Then why are they all still separate?
Of course there are numerous apps out there that can work with the different services, but still they are all running on different systems, and no standard has yet been defined. On the other hand, take IRC(Internet Relay Chat). Although now made obsolete by the more interactive and graphical substitutes offered by MSN, Yahoo and the like, IRC is an open system. Any user with an IRC client can connect to the server, and chat - it is as simple as that. It supports one of the basic tenets of the Internet that its founders dreamt of - accessibility. The more modern versions of IM do not. And that is a big problem.
If only the big IM services would just sit together and agree on a common standard, one which would work transparently and all the users in a single database, just imagine the value of the network as proposed by Metcalfe's law.
P.S: There are practical difficulties, of course, of uniting all these user bases into a single one, like overlapping usernames and database considerations, but technology has come so far, can't we work something out?
Instant Messaging is a must-have tool in a world that runs on real-time. If you can't communicate now, better forget it. But all the big operators that provide IM services right now - MSN, Yahoo, AOL and Gmail prefer to use proprietary standards and that means communicating within their own network and only that. So, even if you are a regular Yahoo! IM user but has a friend on MSN, one of you two would have to register with the other's service to communicate. Had the operators been charging for new registrations, you wouldn't quite fancy that option, would you?
Metcalfe's law (also referred to as the Network Effect) states that value of a communications network is proportional to the square of the number of users. What it essentially conveys is that the more the number of people using the same system, the better for everyone. You wouldn't need different softwares, different protocols and all the difficulties that come with them. Then why are they all still separate?
Of course there are numerous apps out there that can work with the different services, but still they are all running on different systems, and no standard has yet been defined. On the other hand, take IRC(Internet Relay Chat). Although now made obsolete by the more interactive and graphical substitutes offered by MSN, Yahoo and the like, IRC is an open system. Any user with an IRC client can connect to the server, and chat - it is as simple as that. It supports one of the basic tenets of the Internet that its founders dreamt of - accessibility. The more modern versions of IM do not. And that is a big problem.
If only the big IM services would just sit together and agree on a common standard, one which would work transparently and all the users in a single database, just imagine the value of the network as proposed by Metcalfe's law.
P.S: There are practical difficulties, of course, of uniting all these user bases into a single one, like overlapping usernames and database considerations, but technology has come so far, can't we work something out?
May 26, 2006
Picasa - A cool photo management software
Picasa, the software that is available as a part of Google Pack, is a great piece of software for your image management requirements. As like all other Google services, it comes for free.
For starters, Picasa gives a simple point and click interface which requires minimal effort to master. You can lighten dark shots, apply color balance, crop and cut, zoom in or out. Other effects like sepia, black and white are also available, along with a red-eye removal feature. It can search for images on your hard drive, maintain a library that is easy to manage and find images effortlessly. It can save the finished images to the hard disk or burn it to a CD or DVD or upload it to the Net.
Give Picasa a try and you will not look at your photographs the same way again. Download now, it's free!
For starters, Picasa gives a simple point and click interface which requires minimal effort to master. You can lighten dark shots, apply color balance, crop and cut, zoom in or out. Other effects like sepia, black and white are also available, along with a red-eye removal feature. It can search for images on your hard drive, maintain a library that is easy to manage and find images effortlessly. It can save the finished images to the hard disk or burn it to a CD or DVD or upload it to the Net.
Give Picasa a try and you will not look at your photographs the same way again. Download now, it's free!
May 25, 2006
The new mobile web
Accessing Internet and email on your mobile device is nothing new. However, from last week, businesses have been buying up .mobi domain names, which will indicate that the site is designed specifically for mobile devices, and therefore optimising performance in terms of speed and accessibility. The Internet regulatory authority ICANN had approved the concept almost a year back, but the domain names are available only recently.
Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor of the Web, have shown clear dislike for the idea. In his argument, he has stated that the new top-level domain names (TLD) will fragment the web. Instead, he says, the content should be made smart to recognise what kind of device it is being viewed on, mobile or not.
The opposing group, the ones who are supporting .mobi domains are saying that the .mobi domains are intended to serve as a trust mark, which will assure users that the site will work on their mobile phone.
Source: BBC
Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor of the Web, have shown clear dislike for the idea. In his argument, he has stated that the new top-level domain names (TLD) will fragment the web. Instead, he says, the content should be made smart to recognise what kind of device it is being viewed on, mobile or not.
The opposing group, the ones who are supporting .mobi domains are saying that the .mobi domains are intended to serve as a trust mark, which will assure users that the site will work on their mobile phone.
Source: BBC
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)