I run Windows 7 Ultimate on a $219 Aspire One that I added a decent 60GB SSD to ($100) and an extra 9 cell battery $59. Between both batteries, I have enough charge to last my from Barcelona to San Francisco with a 4 hour layover at JFK. And, I have a full web experience, any files I need are perfectly synced without any hassle via Dropbox. And, I can use most any desktop software I like.
3G service from most any carrier that I've tried is barely adequate for surfing the web on my Android cell phone. I would hate to have to rely on 3G service for all external storage for my computer.
I don't see how eliminating local storage on my computer and putting all my data on Google's servers is better than having access to that data locally. Random access to an SSD is 10^(3-4) ns, a random seek on disks with spindles is 10^(6-7)ns and a packet sent round trip across the country is 10^(8-9)ns.
I can buy a 16GB flash drive at Frys for $15. When local storage is so ubiquitous and cheap, I don't understand why would you want to develop an OS that relied on packet transfer for permanent storage rather than local storage with delayed synchronization.
It's not like having local permanent storage is much of a hindrance. I've never said, "Damn, if I could only get rid of 60GB of local storage on my computer, every thing would be great". I do find myself cursing my lack of network coverage on a regular basis, however.
I suppose that it makes sense if you are Google and you want as much of people's data on your servers so you can money by mining that data. Aside from that, I just don't get it.
3G service from most any carrier that I've tried is barely adequate for surfing the web on my Android cell phone. I would hate to have to rely on 3G service for all external storage for my computer.
I don't see how eliminating local storage on my computer and putting all my data on Google's servers is better than having access to that data locally. Random access to an SSD is 10^(3-4) ns, a random seek on disks with spindles is 10^(6-7)ns and a packet sent round trip across the country is 10^(8-9)ns.
I can buy a 16GB flash drive at Frys for $15. When local storage is so ubiquitous and cheap, I don't understand why would you want to develop an OS that relied on packet transfer for permanent storage rather than local storage with delayed synchronization.
It's not like having local permanent storage is much of a hindrance. I've never said, "Damn, if I could only get rid of 60GB of local storage on my computer, every thing would be great". I do find myself cursing my lack of network coverage on a regular basis, however.
I suppose that it makes sense if you are Google and you want as much of people's data on your servers so you can money by mining that data. Aside from that, I just don't get it.