First, why not just install the app and put a URL link on the desktop pointing to http://localhost:7777/? Second, are you really sure it makes sense to have a self hosted web app? I, for one, absolutely despise when companies ship some tool that installs a web server on my machine and makes me use it through a web browser. IIRC, HP did this kind of garbage for managing their printers. Write a god damn native app if it is just going to install on my local machine!

I realize that you probably want to save some money and not write two pieces of software that do the same thing, but how hard can it possibly be to make a UI in .NET that is at least as good as your web interface? Share code if you have to. If you've written the software correctly, you should be able to share the model level functionality between the two apps. Or install the web app on the local machine but create an API that the native app can hit.

It really sounds like you are approaching this problem from the completely wrong angle.

Look into radmind (http://rsug.itd.umich.edu/software/radmind/) for managing OS X clients. asr is still great for multicasting a single image to a lab full of similar machines though. It is really cool because the asr server will just keep cycling through an image and clients can join in the stream at any point until they have the complete image.

Yeah right. You don't really use MacOS 8.6. Do you use the old Netscape web browser?

Releasing often is a good thing, IMO. And it is where Microsoft fucked up between XP and Vista. Just because a new version comes out doesn't mean you have to jump on it, but is nice to see that the state of the art is moving forwards. Between XP and Vista, Windows totally stagnated and Vista wasn't even that good when it finally did come out. Same thing happened to Internet Explorer. Such stagnation is bad for the industry as a whole.

Oh just shut up. I'm so sick and tired of this line. My MacBook Pro was price competitive with similarly spec'd Dell laptops when I bought it. Just because they don't cater to the low/budget end of the market doesn't make them "trendy." At worst, Apple simply lacks selection in their product line. Do Macs always have the best raw price/performance ratio, maybe not, but it isn't like there's an order of magnitude difference of in price.

And there's something about Apple that doesn't allow companies to do this? I would argue that Apple makes it easier to skip generations of hardware and OSes because they release so often. Think about it. OS X is at its eighth major release cycle since Windows XP came out in 2002 whereas Microsoft has made 3 major releases for the desktop (XP, Vista, and 7). You can try to count SP1-3 if you like, they weren't really optional.

The nice thing about Apple hardware in a corporate environment is that you don't have to worry too much about drivers and maintaining a zillion different hardware configurations, many of which are not fully supported without thirst party driver support. Hell, you could even take a copy of OS X Leopard (10.5) htat was installed on an x86 based machine and copy it directly to a PPC based machine and it would just run. No modifications necessary. Microsoft couldn't even get the 32bit -> 64bit transition figured out for the longest time. Apple made all that completely seamless. In many ways there just no reason not to upgrade more often with OS X. The changes are usually incremental.

NOt that Macs are necessarily the best choice for corporate environment now, but it isnt' because of the things you mentioned.

No, they don't. They might not have support going as far back as Microsoft, but you won't suffer for skipping a generation or two. Though it is kind of funny how many people wouldn't think twice of using a Windows version released in 2002, but you'd be crazy to even consider running OS X 10.0.

Right, because Dell and Microsoft don't want you to upgrade to the latest versions....

What!? You mean Apple doesn't try to be everything to everyone? You mean to say they have a very clear vision and focus? I'm shocked!

Here's an thought. If OSX, iPad, and Macs are not for you, why don't you just shut up?

> iOS can be used to develop thos application. Oh really? How are you going to develop software that you are unable to run/test?

At the opposite end of the spectrum, you have Microsoft who is failing in the mobile arena because they keep trying to shoehorn Windows into mobile devices rather than accepting that it is a different way of using computers and approaching it accordingly.

I want you to stop for a second and ask yourself why Windows has been so successful in business. Here's a hint: It isn't because WIndows can run a web browser. If infections were such a worry and native apps were not so important, Linux would have taken over corporate environments a long time ago.

First of all, Chromebooks are not designed for heavy use. They're small, light and meant to be highly portable, not to be workhorses. You would not be assigning such a machine to your average office worker. You MIGHT give one as a take-home computer, but not to an employee in a high turnover position.

Right, like .NET is just going to suddenly be unsupported.... Really, dude? You're seriously asking why businesses use .NET and related technologies?

No, those are the people that are least likely to get on board. If LInux and OS X can't break big into business envrionemnts (on the desktop), Chrome OS has absolutely no chance.

Ok, here it is: Web apps SUCK. Developing robust web apps SUCKS. HTML is a shitty tool for building business applications that can compete with desktop equivalents. I should know, I'm a web developer. What does everyone look to as the best desktop-like web app out there? Google Apps. But look at it objectively. Aside from the ability to share documents in realtime, Google Docs is the feature and UI equivilent of MS Office from 1992. We're talking Windows 3.x. That's right, it is 20 years behind native apps and HTML5 will only be an incremental improvement.

Good lord! I'd honestly rather use Windows than have to use Google Apps as my primary office tool. Or I can run MS Office on my Mac. Or run some critical business program inside Parallels. Or you can setup a Windows Remote Desktop server and I can run all business apps through that. There are options for me if I want to use a Mac in a business environment. Fortunately for me, I've been able to avoid running Windows on my desktop at home and work for almost 20 years. I've always been able to run LInux or OS X as my desktop.

I don't know what problem you think you're solving by pushing shitty web apps on people when native apps work perfectly fine. Bottom line is that I just don't WANT everything to become web based. The web is good for some things, but absolutely terrible for others.

Actually, my experience drivign in cities is exactly why I thnk flying cars would be many times worse. Usually in cities you're mainly just facing fender-benders, at worst. Most of the time you're just yelling at other drivers, not actually hitting them. ;)

You lack imagination, son.

I think you're working pretty hard to make sense of their predictions. They specifically said "sophisticate new forms of buildings." They didn't say "buildings with better technology." The latter is just a given. Of course newer materials, heating/cooling techniques will be used in the future. But they're largely the same structures with the same functions. Also, there hasn't been a significant move to the cities. They were way off on that one. If anything, people are trying to get out of cities to own land. At least in the US. NOt sure how it applies to the Britain.

No, the error was in thinking that buildings would radically change. They haven't. No new "forms" of buildings. Honestly, I don't even really know what that's supposed to mean.

Also, no choosing our children. While some genetic screening is certainly possible, most people will not opt to do it. So they were off on that one also.

And for computers they predicted... more software? Um, ok.

They did get the importance of satellites right.

They got TV's right, I guess. Though it wasn't too amazing of a prediction. I think we can safely say that technology will get "smaller" without taking much risk.

They really didnt' get much right.

Either that or having thousands of semi-trained pilots flying around major cities is just not a good idea. :-)

You mean until they allowed apps? Apple did the same thing. They thought the Safari on the phone would be all people would need, especially with the HTML extensions available to enhance websites for the phone. Turns out people really love apps. Now, why would you create a platform that goes out of its way to prevent people from installing the native apps they love? It is somewhat odd the Google didn't learn this lesson from Android.

Not even close, dude. Browser based programs are EXTREMELY limited in what they can do. They have almost no access to the system outside of the browser sandbox. And that makes local storage nearly useless. Read the reviews. You can download stuff, but the OS is only aware of a very small subset of mime types. It is just a terrible user experience all around. Basically a Chromebook is a crippled netbook.

At that point you might just as well allow native apps. You do know that native apps can hit remote APIs, don't you? Facebook, Google, Twitter... they all have public APIs that you can hit with any sort of program you want. That capability is not unique to browser based programs. You coudl write slick native apps that store data in the "cloud." How do you think Dropbox works? How do you think the camera app on your phone syncs photos to your facebook account? That kind of integration and seamlessness is what people want.

Sure it is technically doable, but they'd have to completely change their current approach, which is all web, all the time. Why wouldn't you just get a netbook which already has plenty of native apps available as well as your choice of operating system?

Who cares? I'm perfectly happy with my traditional native apps on OS X and I know WIndows users aren't exactly complaining about software choices. I certainly don't want my apps to force me to use Chrome. Bottom line is that for any device that has a critical mass of market share, there WILL be plenty of native apps. The portability argument is moot. I don't need your Chrome-bound apps.

So why a Chromebook and not a netbook running Chrome + any other misc. native apps? That's the basic question yet to be answered here. If you can already run Chrome on netbook class hardware and not be limited to only a browser, what advantage does ChromeOS have?

Even burning it isn't necesary. You can copy the files on the disc image to a HD partition for flash drive using Disk Utility and it will boot and install without modification. Or at least you could with (Snow) Leopard. Really pretty slick, actually.

Sure, but that's what a netbook is for. You can run Chrome AND apps on a netbook. You've basically paid $500 for a crippled netbook. And that's just stupid. I hope you didn't pay for that Chromebook out of your own pocket.

You'd be doing her an injustice. But whatever, if yo uwant to handle questions like "Why can't I run this Java game?" "Why can't I install an IM client?" That's up to you. If she's got a Mac, she likely has everything she needs.

Right, because trackbpad gestures are what make a Mac a Mac /rolleyes

But what if you could get one tool that does multiple tasks just as well as as the single purpose tool?