Still As Life

Google Chrome, the most recent browser to join the fray. Is Chrome just a browser though?

I have to say I don’t think so. The release of Chrome reinforces my views that Google are directly targeting the operating system and integrated applications market. Be warned that the below is entirely my thoughts and theories based on my own observations and are not in any particular order but hopefully make sense.

Think about IT, Google already have a suite of applications and the support of Sun who tried to push cloud computing a while back (but failed). Now this suite of applications runs through the browser, not as feature rich as their counterparts like Microsoft Word, Apple Pages, Open Office and so on, but with enough features for most general consumers.

If you can run most applications through the browser, then the operating system can be reduced. At this stage, the only things that you really need to run on a local computer are graphic or data intense programs, such as games, video processing, 3D rendering etc, however, ultimately as bandwidth increases, these could potentially be run over the internet as well, further reducing the operating system. All you would need is to boot into the browser. It’s already built in to Windows and OS X, Explorer and Finder. Of course these are limited as far as internet activity goes, but you get the idea.

Google have been working on Android, a mobile operating system, now a computer operating system would be much more of a challenge to make immediately viable, despite the huge amount of BSD and linux distributions around that could be used as a basis. A browser is a logical step in this direction.

Separating tab processes, if you are running one application, you don’t want another to crash. When you are running them in a browser this doesn’t change, separating the processes makes for a nice stepping stone into what could potentially be an operating system.

Now, here’s another thought, Google pours how much money into the Mozilla Foundation, so why use Webkit as the layout engine for Chrome instead of Gecko? Afterall, Gecko is the one that Google have been funding so extensively.

Did you know that Webkit is a KHTML fork that was started by Apple? Webkit is also a more advanced layout engine than Gecko, the features that are available in it that are used in the iPhone and are slowly seeping into desktop Safari virtually do away with the need for plugins like Flash and Silverlight (not entirely, but it is getting there). Webkit is also funded by Nokia for use in the S60 browser. So, with two mobile browsers using it as the layout engine where none currently use the Gecko engine (that I’m aware of), Webkit is a tried and true engine for mobile devices.

So, Webkit has established mobile support from both one of the largest mobile manufacturers and from Apple for both the iPhone and desktop versions of Safari. While Opera and their Presto layout engine is the best for Windows Mobile devices, it is not open source and despite its quality, it doesn’t have the budgets of Nokia and Apple pushing it’s development. Webkit makes sense to use for the layout engine on Android, and subsequently for Chrome.

So, we have 3 mobile operating system producers utilizing Webkit, I don’t know the exact market share figures, but Nokia are the dominant mobile manufacturer and almost all of their phones use the S60 operating system. Apple’s iPhone has snapped up a large share of the market as well considering their inexperience in this area and Android has the potential to end up very widespread as well, all using variants of the same layout engine. There is a huge amount of potential here for Google to extend their mobile advertising, not just on Android phones.

Migrate to the desktop segment and what do you have? Safari is on every Apple computer and is also available on Windows, Chrome is supposedly going to be available on Windows, Mac and Linux. Then there are a number of other smaller browsers using Webkit. With the distribution of Safari and the potential distribution of Chrome, it would be entirely possible for Google to start gradually offering features of their applications that are only fully available on a Webkit based browser, and then ultimately, only on Chrome.

Doing something like this would be a risky path and would have to be done very slowly and gradually or it would alienate millions of users, but there is potential there for it.

Now, the Google CEO - Eric Schmidt - is also on the Apple Board of Directors, so he has interests in furthering both companies. So it makes sense as well, that Google is going to benefit Apple and Apple are going to benefit Google, at least to some degree.

Lets head in a slightly different direction, I was reading Simon Griffiths thoughts on Chrome today and came across a new development from Mozilla that I hadn’t heard of before, Ubiquity for Firefox.

Ubiquity takes a variety of Google Applications and takes them out of Google’s interface to integrate them into a quick and easy to use system. Simon explained it very well:

“…you open up a dialogue box with a keystroke and then type a command. This allows you access to functionality in a few keystrokes. With Ubiquity you can add maps into gmail, add calendar items and much more all by typing a few keys.”

If Google controls the interface, they control the advertising. If ubiquity combines many of Googles applications without the advertising, this represents a possible exposure reduction of many, many millions, the more it expands in popularity, the greater the reduction.

Since they control Chrome, there is the potential for Google to integrate all of their applications into it in a similar way to Ubiquity, and thus allowing them to retain their advertising. So as Simon suggested, Chrome is in direct competition with Mozilla’s Ubiquity.

Anyhow, just some thoughts on everything happening in this area at the moment. What do you think? Are Google going too far? Not far enough? Perhaps getting too power hungry?

Popularity: 37% [?]

I recently set up an external hard drive to use with Time Machine on my Macbook Pro. As nice as the wireless backups of an Apple Time Capsule would be, I don’t need it and thus can’t justify spending the extra on one.

My Macbook Pro had a 120gb hard drive in it at the time and my external hard drive is 750gb, so I figured it should be fine for a backup drive. I turned on Time Machine and once the 750gb drive had been initialised and formatted, it immediately told me that the drive was suitable to use for backing up. It asked if I would like to use it with Time Machine and I said yes.

After that I simply had to specify if I wanted to use the whole drive for backups or only part of it. Once I told it I wanted to use the whole drive thats all that there was for me to setup and it took care of the rest.

Time Machine automatically keeps hourly backups for a 24 hour period as long as the drive is connected. After 24 hours, it keeps daily back ups for a month, and then weekly backups from there on until the back up disk is full. Since it only backs up changes from the original backed up image, it means that it can take quite a while to fill the back up drive. Since I’m running Windows XP in a virtual machine on my Macbook Pro and I suspend it when I’m not using it rather then shutting it down, both the XP disk image and the suspended image are the cause of my largest back ups. Subsequently I back up a minimum of 8gb for pretty much every back up, yet I’ve still only used 360gb of my backup disk in a month.

Accessing your back ups is a breeze. All you have to do is either double click on the Time Capsule disk image on the desktop, or click the “Time Machine” icon in the menu bar and click “Enter Time Machine” from the drop down menu.

Time Machine will slide in over the screen with your current hard drive state shown in a Finder window in the foreground. Behind the current Finder window are a series of smaller Finder windows that gradually get smaller and smaller as they disappear into the background. Each of these windows contains the state of the hard drive at a particular time in chronological order with the most recent behind the current window and the oldest way back in the distance.

Clicking any window will take you straight to that back up, or you can move between back ups using the arrows or the time line. The time line is probably the easiest method for getting a specified back up since it lists the back up times and dates and allows you to quickly jump to a particular time.

To restore a backed up file, all you have to do is go to it and click restore, Time Machine does the rest for you. It really is extremely easy to use and a great way of allowing back ups to be accessed and restored.

Popularity: 34% [?]

The Cooler Master X Craft 350 Lite is an external USB (there is an e-SATA version as well) enclosure for 3.5″ hard drives. It has a fairly schmick design and comes with an upright stand, however, if you have more than one, they are designed to be stackable as well.

I picked one up about a month ago along with a 750gb Samsung 3.5″ hard drive to setup as a basic back up system for my Macbook Pro using Time Machine. Since it’s just for back ups, I’m not really worried about the aesthetics of the case, it just needs to do the job, and what attracted me to the X Craft is that it was the cheapest in stock at Umart that was not a generic brand. However, as luck may have it, it’s also one of the nicest looking external enclosures and the design is very reminiscent of many of the Cooler Master computer cases.

The design is excellent and setting it up is extremely easy. The bottom and front of the enclosure are mesh, so the hard drive is well ventilated. The top and sides of the case are aluminium, making it a reasonably good heat conductor. This means the heat from the hard drive is fairly effectively transferred, and the circuitry is well ventilated. If you use the upright stand that puts the enclosure on it’s side, the vents on the bottom of the case are much more effective. In general it doesn’t get very hot at all.

As I mentioned earlier, they are stackable if you have more then one of them and they look like they should fit together very nicely and the rubber feet on the bottom of them should hold them together well (it sticks to the table nicely too). The stand was a little bit confusing at first since it doesn’t click into place, however once I figured it out, it’s a great idea. It is solid aluminium with rubber feet, so it is very slip-resistent, and both sides of the enclosure have runners along them that the stand slides onto. There are a couple of rivets that hold it in place on the stand once it is on, however, if you need to take it off, its as easy as tilting it slightly to one side and sliding it forward and its straight off. While I don’t have a need to remove it from the stand, I think this is a great idea since you don’t have to touch any screws or even any clips to take it on or off the stand, but nor can you easily bump it out or off of the stand.

Speaking of screws, you don’t even need to use a screwdriver to set it up. On the back of the case there is a button, pushing this will allow you to slide the back panel backwards slightly. Once it is back, you simply lift the aluminium cover off of the top and you are in.You don’t have to screw the hard drive in either, there are four suspension stands that line up with the four screw holes on the bottom of standard 3.5″ hard drives. First off, you plug in the SATA connector and power cable, then you just stick the hard drive on top of these stands, making sure that each one fits inside the appropriate screw hole. If you look at the inside of the aluminium cover, you will see a thermal strip and some rails. Take the covering off the thermal strip to help the heat transfer from the hard drive, and then stick the cover back on. You will notice that the rails sit perfectly around the hard drive and thus hold it in place on the stands. Slide the back panel back in and it will automatically clip on.There you have it, very quick and easy installation.

My Macbook Pro recognised the external drive immediately and allowed me to format the drive and then straight up let me use it as a “Time Capsule” with Time Machine. I’ve been running it like that since.

It has been very stable and very reliable, I haven’t had any problems with the connection, which is particularly important since it gets unplugged and plugged back in on a regular basis as my laptop is regularly coming and going with me. It in general keeps the hard drive quite cool, which is something I was a little worried about since it doesn’t have any active cooling.

Overall, it’s a nice little box and well worth the $38 I paid for it. I highly recommend it if you are in need of a cheap, external case that looks good and runs cool. It is available in black or silver.

Popularity: 32% [?]