[Rule] browser based word processor (and other apps)

[Billy Tallis]

I have not looked in-depth at the more robust ajax applications, but I
wonder how the performance compares to local applications. Right off
the bat, they will be less responsive than local apps because of
network latency. With ajax, all of the fancy GUI elements will be done
inside a complex, memory-hogging browser. The extra RAM needed for
each new application will be several times larger than if they were
using a shared library for the UI, and firefox does a very bad job of
releasing memory. Processing the javascript will also be rather slow.

Traditional client-server models put a lot more of the processing load
on the server. X leaves only the drawing of raw data for the terminal.
That is far better suited for low end machines.

On 3/28/06, Jason Bechtel <jasonmbechtel at gmail.com> wrote:
> And there's already Writely.com, which was recently purchase by Google
> and zohowriter.com.  They both implement all of the basic word
> processing features, plus some advanced features, which are
> well-suited to the always-connected model:  collaborative editing,
> publishing, and blog posting.
>
> Unfortunately, even in the environment of first-world affluence where
> connectivity is a given, I have had problems accessing Gmail at
> times...  It's a risk and not one to be taken lightly.
>
> Older PC's could be used in this way.  Of course, if all they're going
> to do is use remote apps in an always-connected environment, LTSP is
> probably a more complete and adaptable solution.
>
>
> On 3/28/06, James Miller <jamtat at mailsnare.net> wrote:
> > I see list activity is picking up again, so I wanted to forward the post
> > below, which came from a different listserv.  This attracted my attention
> > as a good solution for older PC's, at least under certain circumstances.
> > The wordprocessor worked well with the few documents I tried it on, and
> > other apps are planned.  It struck me that, for a user of an older PC, but
> > who had a fast internet connection, only Firefox would need to be
> > installed in the way of robust applications: as long as internet access
> > was working at broadband speeds, no wordprocessing software would need to
> > be installed locally on said machine.  If they finally implement other
> > major applications (as they say they will), one could get by with a
> > machine with basic system services installed locally, plus X, a
> > lightweight WM, and Firefox.  Does this scheme seem to others to hold the
> > potential for making old hardware useful (in cases where decent internet
> > connectivity exists) that it does to me?
> >
> > James
>
> _______________________________________________
> Rule-list mailing list
> Rule-list at lists.hellug.gr
> http://lists.hellug.gr/mailman/listinfo/rule-list
>