On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 4:22 PM, Temlakos <temlakos(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 03/23/2013 02:42 AM, Tim wrote:
>
> Joe Zeff (How do you produce with a browser?):
>>
>> Do you expect authors, as an example, to do all their writing in a
>> browser? Do you expect lawyers to compose their briefs and court
>> documents in a browser? How about accountants? How about programmers,
>> graphic artists and musicians? The question isn't am I serious, but
>> have you really given any thought to your position?
>
> In essence, the same way as companies used to use a main frame (and
> those who still do must be laughing their asses off at all the problems
> companies face who use scads of individual Windows PCs).
>
> However, the average ISP service is too slow for using a cloud as a
> straightforward replacement for a mainframe. Even if your ISP was your
> cloud service provider, the lag may be too much. You'd need a half and
> half solution, where the main application is on the cloud, and your
> client has an more complicated interface than just remote display and
> input.
>
That last is true today. Will it remain true? Are you sure, in other words,
that we have reached the limit of throughput speed, and lag will always be
the deal-killer?
Temlakos
Two things:
1. "Fiber to the home" is really fast. E.g. I've got 100Mbps to my
ISP; more than enough to power web-based applications. In many ways,
GMail on my Android is far faster than GNOME Evolution has ever been -
even though Evolution ran on far more capable hardware. (E.g. search
on a 4GB mailbox).
2. The huge investment on javaqscript compilers makes optimized
client-side-computing an interesting alternative. Instead of letting
the server-side crunch all the information into static HTMLs and
images, send the raw information to the client, and let the heavily
optimized JS do the heavy lifting instead.
I suggest you take a look at how Google, Facebook and Twitter optimize
their user experience.
- Gilboa