Thanks. I am aware of the issue, and wasn't able to fix it easily, but will try. Also I didn't spend much time with web version, because on mobile there are much better native apps. Actually, I might even remove the Play Online option from mobile.
- I deliberately de-emphasize the Play Online option. This game is much, much more fun to play on a smartphone. I even thought about not having web version at all. If you have a smartphone, try downloading the game.
- Generally people are happy about "no instructions at all" design, and that again is deliberate. I'll think about improving tutorial ramp a bit, there are some things to improve.
- This design choice comes from mobile. There I want to show the completed design so you could screenshot it and share it, or just use as wallpaper.
I like it just as it is, without score and with random levels. I think that having an easier level after a harder one makes me want the play it even more.
Please author, if you add those suggestions, maybe add them as a different play mode, since some of us enjoy it exactly as it is. So much so, that I've rated the game on Google play, I think it's my first one.
What's the issue with Google Drive? Do you suggest they should come up with their own whole backup solution? Why reinvent the wheel anyways. Not to mention it's possible that only certain teams use it, not all the teams, nor the teams who have truly sensitive information in the spirit they don't want Google to see.
Their FAQ contains some more information, but still does not explain everything. They say "however, instead of being installed on your local machine, it is running in a virtualized environment so can be accessed from any Chrome browser or Chromebook. Because this version of Photoshop is running in a virtualized environment, you open, save, export and recover files from/to your Google Drive rather than your local file share."
It would seem that they are indeed streaming the video (VNC-style). More over, space requirement is only 350MB (Photoshop is normally much bigger), and there's also this:
"If network connectivity is lost, you will need to launch a new session. A recovery folder called ‘Photoshop Recovery’ will be created in the root of your Google drive. To recover files, simply double click to open a file."
Overall, this doesn't sound good at all. If they are streaming screen "video", color correction and pixel-level precision in design is going to be tough. Photoshop seems like one of the most difficult programs to work via VNC.
Whose to say this is VNC-based? VNC is very old technology. RDP/NX solve a lot of these problems. Or this could a x-server like application. Who knows, but I doubt Adobe is launching something that uses VNC-type technology where it samples and over-compresses the screen. I imagine things like color precision are well taken care of.
Also, anyone else notice this amusing note at the bottom of the FAQ:
The color correction can be done on the server. It just needs to get and upload your monitor profile, and Photoshop on the server returns color corrected pixels. Of course, Chrome cannot even read the monitor profile on Linux yet. I'm not sure if this also applies to Chromebooks though. Since it's a fixed device, it probably ships with the monitor profile file factory stored somewhere. Or Adobe gets the files for the few dozen or so Chromebooks from Google, and the browser only sends an identifier.
Adobe has spent decades worrying about color accuracy in their applications in every path it can take to your eyeball and they're not just going to screw up the last hop because it didn't occur to them to take the effect of whatever remoting technology they're using into account.
Photoshop seems like one of the most difficult programs to work via VNC.
I think it's actually the opposite. Usually only a small amount of the screen is changing, so response is fast. For full-screen or complicated effects they can provide more CPU horsepower than your average laptop, so the operation may actually complete faster, even if screen redraw takes more time.
FWIW I've used Photoshop over Remote Desktop in the past and with a good connection it feels perfectly usable. There's a little input lag which is only noticeable with sweeping brush effects, not UI interactions, and like I say large area screen redraw (e.g. scrolling) suffers. There's no visible compression or artifacts and I don't see why color correction would be an issue.
> Overall, this doesn't sound good at all. If they are streaming screen "video", color correction and pixel-level precision in design is going to be tough. Photoshop seems like one of the most difficult programs to work via VNC.
This would be a huge issue for the professional market. But it appears that they are targeting education with this first (or maybe just that market). Color precision is likely not the highest of priorities.
I suspect that it's built using Native Client (https://developer.chrome.com/native-client), not using VNC. "Streaming" in this context probably means that the code and files are dynamically served by the server, rather than referring to streaming video.
Nothing in this discussion indicates that anyone knows what streaming technology they're using. However of course there are better and worse technology. Streaming RDP from a Windows box a thousand miles away, for instance, is a world more enjoyable and usable than VNCing to the Mac box connected via a 1Gbps twisted pair. App level virtualization through the same, interacting and engaging with the rest of your desktop, is close to magical.
IS it possible that there is a localized virtual machine setup and the image itself is what is streamed over the network? IE you would have a locally installed version of linux on a virtual machine and an additional drive is essentially steamed over the network via SMB os something that contains the PS application?
I can't see any practical reason why this would be the case. Photoshop is a pretty hefty application in terms of RAM/CPU, so it makes a lot more sense to run it remotely, since Chrome Books are built to be cheap, not powerful.
I agree, although perhaps ChromeBooks are "cheap and weak" because there are no applications that use the power (hence the failure of the Chrome Pixel). If ChromeBooks are to become ubiquitous, I think local VMs is a great solution for legacy applications.
"Also, I wonder how this affects bandwidth. Are you just constantly streaming HD? Are there latency issues? What about if the network gets congested? It sounds pretty terrible."
I can imagine, given experience with VNC or even some crappy RDP implementations, it sounds like it would be terrible. But those are pretty old and bad technologies for remote desktop usage, with known issues. You can do better.
I'm sure there are situations where the experience is not ideal.
But remember that you are talking about people using chromebooks here. They are computers basically built with the expectation that you have good internet, and they are targeting the education market here.
I would point out that neither Adobe, nor Google, would want people in the education market (one of Adobe's prime targets) to have a crappy experience with Photoshop, as it would be really bad for both parties (if Google makes a bad first impression with chromebooks, people write them off and never try them again. If Adobe makes a bad impression with photoshop, people won't pay hundreds later on to buy it).
So one would imagine they would not release a terrible experience :)
the expectation that you have good internet, and they are targeting the education market
Sadly I don't think I've ever been in an educational institution where the wifi was particularly reliable. Wired ethernet yes, so a computer-lab setup can work well with remote-desktop type stuff. But that's getting increasingly old-fashioned, and everyone connects on wifi now, which seems to often not be up to the task. We have some huge pipe at the university I work at, and my wired office connection is great, but the wifi? Frequent dropouts and latency spikes, especially if a bunch of people in one room are doing network-intensive stuff. I can believe our IT infrastructure isn't among the best, but it's not the only place I've had that trouble either.
For one, doing client-side color correction (for example with WebGL) is technically possible. It's probably not in this solution, but let's not use words like "impossible" unless they're actually impossible.
But more importantly, I think you're just complaining about latency, but then you're using the phrase "impossible."
EDIT: I thought you were talking about gamma correction and the color space of the display, where the program running on the server wouldn't know about the gamma and color characteristics of the monitor on your current browser. Thus, "monitor settings." But no, you're just worried in general about whole-screen fill rate latency. Again, I think using terms like "impossible" is hyperbole. It will be fine for some users, and not for others.