PDA

View Full Version : MacBook Air completely on cloud




Blackberryroid
Aug 10, 2012, 11:40 PM
What if everything on the MacBook Air becomes on iCloud, would that be a good idea? You have the base OS and some basic applications on the SSD, but every file, complex applications and settings are on the cloud. So if you're on the iMac, and made a file and saved it on the desktop, it would be on the MacBook Air's desktop too. It syncs files and settings. It could also solve the small SSD issue.

Do you think it's a good/bad idea?



miles01110
Aug 10, 2012, 11:56 PM
It's not a good idea, but that's the direction things are headed in.

Uguubot
Aug 11, 2012, 12:00 AM
What about when you have no internet access?

ihakim
Aug 11, 2012, 12:01 AM
Options and flexibility are a good thing. Having it available to users if they so choose to use it would be an improvement.

urkel
Aug 11, 2012, 12:03 AM
Im not against the cloud, but theres a lot more reasons for why the cloud sucks as to why it's a benefit.

jsolares
Aug 11, 2012, 12:09 AM
What if everything on the MacBook Air becomes on iCloud, would that be a good idea? You have the base OS and some basic applications on the SSD, but every file, complex applications and settings are on the cloud. So if you're on the iMac, and made a file and saved it on the desktop, it would be on the MacBook Air's desktop too. It syncs files and settings. It could also solve the small SSD issue.

Do you think it's a good/bad idea?

So a chromebook? no thanks.

Blackberryroid
Aug 11, 2012, 12:17 AM
So a chromebook? no thanks.

Not exactly. You still have desktop class applications, but they aren't on your local storage. You're loading them off the cloud.

But the OS is definitely inside the local storage (it's so frustrating to download 8 GB of files just to boot up a computer).

miles01110
Aug 11, 2012, 12:20 AM
Not exactly. You still have desktop class applications, but they aren't on your local storage. You're loading them off the cloud.

But the OS is definitely inside the local storage (it's so frustrating to download 8 GB of files just to boot up a computer).

Right. So exactly like Chromebook.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromebook


Chromebooks are shipped with Chrome OS, which uses the Linux kernel, and the Google Chrome web browser with an integrated media player.[4][5] With limited offline capability and a boot time, according to Google, of eight seconds, Chromebooks are primarily designed to be used while connected to the Internet.[6] Instead of installing traditional applications such as word processing and instant messaging, users add web apps from the Chrome Web Store.[7] Google claims that a multi-layer security architecture eliminates the need for anti-virus software.[3]

Blackberryroid
Aug 11, 2012, 12:24 AM
Right. So exactly like Chromebook.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromebook

I guess. So it's a Chromebook but with Mac OS and Apple hardware.

So, why is it a good/bad idea?

miles01110
Aug 11, 2012, 12:28 AM
So, why is it a good/bad idea?

It's a good idea because it eliminates most of the problems associated with file synchronization and loss of data due to not backing up your machine (assuming the cloud provider maintains some kind of data integrity standards). This translates into ease of use for the user.

It's a bad idea because the cloud security world has not caught up with the reality of today's threat environment. Data breaches for cloud systems can compromise all of your information in one attack. Also, internet connections are not ubiquitous enough to make a computer that is completely reliant on the cloud an attractive option. Cellular data connections are quite expensive as well.

Matt Leaf
Aug 11, 2012, 02:08 AM
Yeah. It makes sense if the Internet is everywhere, but if youre somewhere remote without a connection, then it's not much use. It would be a great option though. Cloud rendering would be great, to get way more computing power than your personal system could manage. In this way, we might reach a realtime rendering point for desktop video production apps. But you can use Dropbox and stuff to hol a lot of files online - they're still stored on your desktop, but stored online for access across devices. This is a nice start and I use it pretty regularly.

Wokis
Aug 11, 2012, 04:20 AM
Not exactly. You still have desktop class applications, but they aren't on your local storage. You're loading them off the cloud.

Kind of like the opposite effect of getting an SSD then if I had to load say photoshop from the cloud. Say I get 3MB/s on my ****** work WiFi, and compare that to the 450MB/s I get from the SSD.

And if I don't have access to the web I don't get access to my software at all?

It'd be a definite down-grade in application performance. A noticeable one. Thus I feel safe to say that $1000-machines will never have its usability downgraded in such a way.

Blackberryroid
Aug 11, 2012, 04:40 AM
Kind of like the opposite effect of getting an SSD then if I had to load say photoshop from the cloud. Say I get 3MB/s on my ****** work WiFi, and compare that to the 450MB/s I get from the SSD.

And if I don't have access to the web I don't get access to my software at all?

It'd be a definite down-grade in application performance. A noticeable one. Thus I feel safe to say that $1000-machines will never have its usability downgraded in such a way.

3 MB/s is a lot. I have 2. I think, with this hypothetical Chromebook-like MacBook Air, you can choose where to put the application, in the cloud or local. Photoshop would be something you'd want to save local. But the files are in the cloud (how large are photoshop files, anyway?) I'm sure they're just 3 MB. Perfect for the cloud.

LYFK
Aug 11, 2012, 01:59 PM
I'd be comfortable with a 'cloud-based' Macbook Air, if I also happend to have a portable wireless router/server in my backpack, which would handle everything I would need locally if I couldn't access the internet through someone else.

So basically, it's a great idea to have a Macbook Air completely cloud driven, so long as I'm also driving the cloud.

Seamaster
Aug 11, 2012, 03:27 PM
I think it's a great idea, and it's pretty much how I'm living with my Air already.

Mikey-Mike
Aug 11, 2012, 04:11 PM
I don't like the cloud and I don't like the app store:

I like to have dmg's of all my apps. neatly backed up on hard drive

and I like to have an installable version of the OS on a USB key or something so that I can reload my system.

I have a copy of FCPX and the back up procedure for that is just to drag the app. from the applications folder to your back up disk.

I think that's a step backwards from when you had a dmg with an installer on it.

Gemütlichkeit
Aug 11, 2012, 04:37 PM
Not a great idea and most likely will never happen unless radical technology comes out.

Look at thin clients, people keep saying the desktop will go away but even now, thin clients are still around with an OS and simple file storage. As of right now it doesn't make sense to have a cloud based OS. Storage is too cheap to warrant the hardware needed to provide the bandwidth for all cloud based environment.

Xgm541
Aug 11, 2012, 08:29 PM
People want FAST access to files. The reason we have the SSD is to load photoshop files instantly. With 2mbps you'd be getting more lag than with a traditional HDD. Loading a 200mb program via 2mbps internet is not benefitial at all.

simsaladimbamba
Aug 11, 2012, 08:46 PM
how large are photoshop files, anyway? I'm sure they're just 3 MB.

Quite large. I took a screenshot of a Safari window and opened the resulting PNG in PS and saved it as PS (one singe layer, image size 1620 x 1171 pixel) and that small image was 3.1 MB big.
I have several PSDs ranging from 20 to 400 MB, containing multiple layers (sometimes a 100 and more, 180 is my "best") and being bigger than a measly 1620 x 1171 pixel, more like 2000 to 4000 by 1500 to 3000 pixel. And I don't use PS to make money anymore. But then again, Apple is geared more towards consumers and not people making money with they machines, though there is a shift due to BYOD policies, thus Jane Doe does not need access to 300 MB files from the cloud on a hourly basis.

PS: PSD files are that large because they don't compress the information inherent in the files, JPEGs and MP4s are so small, because they are highly compressed and have thrown away a lot of information (mostly information you don't see, but still valuable information*).
But consumers fare fine with those formats.

* like colour dynamic (shadows and highlights) and accurate pixel by pixel information, JPEG does only save the change between two set pixels

Blackberryroid
Aug 11, 2012, 08:55 PM
I don't like the cloud and I don't like the app store:

I like to have dmg's of all my apps. neatly backed up on hard drive

and I like to have an installable version of the OS on a USB key or something so that I can reload my system.

I have a copy of FCPX and the back up procedure for that is just to drag the app. from the applications folder to your back up disk.

I think that's a step backwards from when you had a dmg with an installer on it.

DMGs, ISOs, ZIPs, what's so special about them, anyway? It's just a fancy container - no different than a folder.

filmbuff
Aug 11, 2012, 09:32 PM
I will be okay with having my computer completely in the cloud when Apple can provide a computer with a built in cell connection with at least 4g speed, and unlimited data for $25 a month. We're a long way off. Even then I would still need a hard drive for video editing since an internet connection will never be fast enough for that.

ZBoater
Aug 12, 2012, 07:40 AM
I will be okay with having my computer completely in the cloud when Apple can provide a computer with a built in cell connection with at least 4g speed, and unlimited data for $25 a month. We're a long way off. Even then I would still need a hard drive for video editing since an internet connection will never be fast enough for that.

I agree. The cloud is not ready for prime time, especially with metered data plans and spotty cellular coverage/performance.

dyn
Aug 12, 2012, 08:57 AM
It's a good idea because it eliminates most of the problems associated with file synchronization and loss of data due to not backing up your machine (assuming the cloud provider maintains some kind of data integrity standards). This translates into ease of use for the user.
No it actually causes more problems with file sync and data because backups are not safe at all: How Apple and Amazon Security Flaws Led to My Epic Hacking (http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2012/08/apple-amazon-mat-honan-hacking).

That article also shows many of the other risks to cloud computing. If your hdd crashes you can still get the data off of it. If something goes wrong in the cloud you are at the mercy of whoever runs it. By using the cloud people actually have to create an entire security and backup plan since you do not control your data any more. Which is the main reason why cloud only will never ever be possible. There are too many laws that will forbid such a construction (data integrity, privacy, etc.).

miles01110
Aug 12, 2012, 12:46 PM
No it actually causes more problems with file sync and data because backups are not safe at all: How Apple and Amazon Security Flaws Led to My Epic Hacking (http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2012/08/apple-amazon-mat-honan-hacking).
Did you even read the story? The author himself even admits that with a modicum of good security measures (oh I don't know... maybe you shouldn't have a common password to every online service you use) the attack would have been dead in the water at step 2.
If your hdd crashes you can still get the data off of it.
Not all the time.
If something goes wrong in the cloud you are at the mercy of whoever runs it.
True.
By using the cloud people actually have to create an entire security and backup plan since you do not control your data any more. Which is the main reason why cloud only will never ever be possible.
People already need to create an entire security and backup plan.
There are too many laws that will forbid such a construction (data integrity, privacy, etc.).

Really? Name one.

dyn
Aug 12, 2012, 02:44 PM
Did you even read the story? The author himself even admits that with a modicum of good security measures (oh I don't know... maybe you shouldn't have a common password to every online service you use) the attack would have been dead in the water at step 2.

Yes I did but you apparently didn't. Most of what he says is his own fault because he didn't think of it. He trusted the cloud too much. He made backups in the cloud but never thought of making one offline too. And that is exactly what I wanted to point out: the cloud is far more complex because people are completely dependent on others. They stop thinking about things themselves. This does not seem to happen when things are stored locally. It suddenly makes sense to backup stuff and store that backup somewhere safe.

You see something similar happen to money: cash says more to people than a number on the online banking site of their bank. When you look in your wallet you know exactly how much you can spend. You can't do the same by looking at your credit card or debit card.


Not all the time.

Exactly: not all the time. With the cloud you are sure you can't get the data back. Period. That's quite a difference: hope vs no hope at all.


People already need to create an entire security and backup plan.

No they don't. They have think of security and backup but they do not have think up an entire plan/strategy for it. They will have to when to go cloud computing. Suddenly all kind of other things come in to play, say laws and who's responsible for what.


Really? Name one.
Put your reading glasses on and then read it again. I've named 2!

Hint: not everybody is from the USA ;)