Off-Topic > Off-Topic - Tiny Tux's Corner

tiny core linux vs chrome OS

(1/3) > >>

julianb:
Is it just me, or is TinyCoreLinux everything Chrome OS wants-to-be?

Well, I'm kidding. Partly.

tinycore is super fast. It has the potential to be distributed with a super-easy installer if folks want that. It'll get you on the web and let you do nothing but the web. Easy-and-fast.

But it won't force that on you because you can use ordinary programs for offline computing if you like.

It doesn't need a virus checker and doesn't have known, real-life/in-the-wild security problems.

To add another level of ease-of-use, what if (i have no reason to believe this will actually happen) OEMs like Asus or Dell installed tinycore on some of their new machines?

roberts:
Nice of you to notice.

I have been playing with Chromium OS Cherry (build) on my Dell Mini 9 and Asus S101 via pendrive. It is quite large, needs a 1 GB pendrive, has many processes running, hits the disk quite often. The wireless on Dell Mini 9 means wait 5 minutes.

Tiny Core boots quick and no wait for wireless, (when appropriate extension is loaded), gives you your choice of browser and with flash loaded it is pretty much what Chromium OS offers. I suppoe if  those Google Apps icons were in Tiny Core we would be pretty much there and at a fraction of their size.

As you say, not only is it your choice of browsers, but your choice of a wide collection of local apps.

thane:
I first started using Tiny Core as an experiment to find out the minimum number of apps I could actually get by with. Basically have only a browser (Opera), pdf viewer (epdfview), and media player (MPlayer), plus supporting extensions and a few games etc.

FWIW my experience is that web-based apps are still "clunkier" than their desktop equivalents. For instance there are on-line pdf viewers but it's still less hassle to download a pdf and view it locally. The same is often true for audio and video. I use Google Docs occasionally but if I had a lot of writing to do I'd prefer a local app. GMail on the other hand works fine for me.

Part of it may be my location; internet to Hawaii has some bandwidth limitations that less remote areas may not have.

julianb:
I really like the Chrome browser. Like, better than the other browsers (chrome doesn't waste screen space).

I also am not interested in having a computer that doesn't know how to do anything "off the cloud".

And I don't really see how Chrome OS has any useful advantages over tinycore. But then again, throw a few million bucks at improving Chrome OS and all kinds of things are possible.  ;D


--- Quote ---FWIW my experience is that web-based apps are still "clunkier" than their desktop equivalents.
--- End quote ---

In my experience, it is POSSIBLE to see web based apps run light-and-quick, but inevitably most present-day web apps run slow if you limit your processor-power+RAM.

OldAdamUser2:
Like roberts, I have given Chrome OS a brief spin. In fairness I didn't use a new usb stick so I don't think I ever got a bug free boot. But I was amazed at the size of the OS. Its boot time wasn't particularly impressive. And its inability to connect to the web quickly (or consistently) was dismaying.

In my view Tiny Core is the clear winner. Why should Chrome have all that bulk just to do  one simple thing, which it doesn't yet do well?

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page