<p>"Desktop in my terms refers to a usable interface that does not require a web browser to be open."</p>
<p>Its there, its done, go reinvent the wheel for all I care. Without a streaming flow of data via the internet, there is no internet based program. If there is no flow of data, there is a desktop program. Its either or. Its like saying, we want a cover over our head without actually having a cover. Your assertion is physically impossible. There has be a stream of data to the program if it is hosted on another computer. If it hosted on the end user's computer, it is a downloadable application. Companies are trying to produce inet based apps because its userfriendly. Updates that downloadable software companies would make are updates that end users won't like(difficult to install, changes performance etc). Thus, there are webbrowser programs. Programs that can be updated by companies. Programs that don't make users download and manually install updates. Programs that are more userfriendly. Think before you talk. The browser based application will be with us forever. It just won't look like a browser based application in 10 years because of advanced coding but in its beauty, it will still be launched from a browser or a downloaded application(stuff that already exists today, you're about 11 years too late, windows 95 hyper terminal). If you still don't understand the scope of the internet, then I just don't know what to say. It will hold the future for atleast 200 more years. </p>
<p>I like to get in the last word. BTW: its good to see that you reedit/delete after I reply to one of your posts. Continue reading the directions to forum codes because it'll come in handy when you tell your boss that you struck gold by developing an application that launches an internet app via a downloaded application. She'll most likely say, "get out of here you drunkard."</p>
<p>classes are challenging, the students are really hardworking. Definitely need to put more work in to get a good grade, but the material is doable. I just hoping to do well this semester, need to quit slacking :)</p>
<p>Focus on the word synscronize. Look at applications such as ny times reader, windows web live writer beta, use of office excel word for sharepoint/blogging, secondlife, webaroo, picasaweb, R/WW. So in essence, if the only development occurs with web 2.0 or the future web 3.0, then we are going to be living our lives on the computer through a client, rather than our own utilites – our computer.
[quote]
I rely on various web applications to create documents, presentations, spreadsheets; share images, videos, data; manage and organize tasks, projects and life. But I still believe the future of computing isn't entirely web-based. It's necessary to have the desktop as the pivotal point, because the power of the desktop is important for a rich user experience - and will be, for a very long time to come.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
I had expressed my dissent over embracing Web for all tasks and have wondered if this trend is driving us back to the future of mainframes. The problem with using the Web for everything is that the network availability is being taken for granted. With all due respect to the city-wide WiFis, there a lot of areas in the world where Internet access is not very convenient or affordable and this questions its basic usability. With the web-based operating environments or office suites, we are making the Web a mandatory factor in our critical tasks. What happens when I want to edit the document in a vehicle or when my network goes down because of some problems out of my control? As against this, my desktop is in my control. An even more ridiculous thing is that all these functionalities are already available for the desktops, including free and open source versions.</p>
<p>A more practical problem, or rather waste of a resource is not using the ever-increasing performance and efficiency of the desktop processors. With everything on the Web, why do we need them? We can conveniently go back go the older desktop operating systems and older hardware and use the Web. Isn’t something amiss? If the Web becomes the only application platform shouldn’t the desktop processors development stop?
<p>Southpasadena: HAHA.... Dude, did I not mention the motorola que and broadband access anywhere a phone gets reception???? You could go ahead and make your applications. The fact of the matter is that they are desktop applications that connect to a server to upload information. You don't even understand the concept of the application and you're just posting frivalous quotes from speculators. Do you understand what those two quotes mean?</p>
<p>1) "The future of computing isn't entirely web based." - He's saying that desktop applications are still powerful. Yes. Will it die out? Certainly not. I never said desktop computing would. I only mentioned that the bigger players in the startup sector would be the internet sector as compared to desktop application oriented programming. But for you to think that the desktop tech sector would be able to compete against players like microsoft/symantec is just ridiculous.</p>
<p>2)"The problem with using the Web for everything is that the network availability is being taken for granted." How long do you think it will be before a company launches one of the most highly effective broadband satellite systems? People have said to reach nearly 100k/s by the use of a motorola que. Are you absolutely incapable of seeing the future because of some idiotic speculator that is just trying to create buzz. Network availability is going to be everywhere. These speculators that you're quoting may have forgotten that the internet has been around for only 16 years. What do you think people were saying when SBC was laying landlines for telephones 100 years ago???? The same exact thing in this quote(pertaining to morse code).</p>
<p>I first used a 9600kbps modem almost 12 years ago. I signed up with cable internet 7 years ago. I watched DSL expand into my neighborhood. I changed from a peer to peer networking configuration to a router. I changed from a basic 10mbps cat5 router to wifi. Now i'm gearing up for the motorola que. This industry has moved and is moving fast. You haven't seen the changes, you don't even know what's in store. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that we'll soon see an effective low cost satellite broadband system that gets the entire world online.</p>
<p>Keep reading quotes from idiotic speculators.</p>
<p>as my rude post was deleted, i will apologize and kindly correct you that the phone is referred to as the Motorola Q, not que, such as techy would have known. </p>
<p>Satellite service is something that is not at all at the lime light, if you would actually follow the news, WiMax will be the next generation of broadband. </p>
<p>May i point you to a reception map for the continental US. 1/3 of the entire country has no coverage, 1/3 is moderate coverage and a large portion is partner coverage. So everyone will truly have access..No they won't. And these maps represent a developing, yet one of the most developed cellular regions. You speak of the internet as a global project, which it is, companies in the US are competing for markets in foreign countries. That is fairly understandable, but question is...do they have the same cellular infrastructure that we have. And that is an easy answer. No.</p>
<p>And satellites..would you like to have a satellite everywhere with you? The smallest satellite being 60-80 cm with increasing interference with increasing satellites.</p>
<p>It is redundant to use a satellite when companies such as verizon are spending billions for FIOS networks.</p>
<p>And please explain how having internet for the past some odd years makes you knowledgeable about anything. I have been alive for 20 years, does that make me a knowledgeable doctor or biologist?</p>
<p>And Dhl3, i think it is easy to discern that either school will do, except i still wont stray from the fact that UCB has greater recruitment for consulting positions. If you give me time...which you have to since decisions dont come out for a while, i may be able to get more information from both schools actual career centers. Maybe 3 weeks when my winter calc class will be over</p>
<p>Obviously trying to explain something to you in the most logical manner is impossible. My experiences with the internet were meant to show a trend. But you can't see it. WiMax is limited, its not effective. The very thought of WiMax is great but the world isn't flat. There has to be a compromise in WiMax, distance or speed. Now imagine a system of satellites where there is no distance or speed compromise. The essential reason that I say that there will be a company, not that there is. I was referring to the future. Although, many have been working on such a system for the last decade.</p>
<p>Your reference to a 1/3 of the country with no coverage is a problem. I wasn't aware of that but if you are aware of the topographical nature of the country, you'd understand that WiMax technology isn't a solution to that problem. There's mountains, there's hills. That's where a satellite system will be more effective(if created). Of course, satellite will have to emphasize the importance of distance as the varying levels of elevation. However, there will be very little obstruction as compared to mountain ranges that WiMax will face.</p>
<p>Its not all about technology, there's some geography in this business stuff too.</p>
<p>I never referrred to carrying a satellite with me. Do you know what I meant by a satellite broadband system?</p>
<p>You can correct little spelling errors all you want. But it doesn't make you look smart when you're referring to information that you looked up at some website. Try to create your own conclusions and thoughts instead of stealing others.</p>