Google enters OS market

[msbae]

You seem to, however, be missing the part where this is aimed at netbooks not full laptops or desktops. That really is a different space in terms of OS requirements.

And also... it being a shell on top of a Linux kernel is no reason to denigrate it like that. In basic terms, that's essentially what OSX is... an easy to use shell on top of a FreeBSD derivative. So saying that an OS does "so much more" when, as it's based off of Linux it ALREADY should be capable of everything an OS needs to do doesn't make a lot of sense. The only real difference here is that getting the user into a browser as quickly as possible is their main goal.

If Google really wants to compete with M$, they need a full OS. Appealing to habitual web surfers won't be enough. Appealing to businesses as a true Windows alternative will be enough.

The moment they get significant market share, someone will start writing viruses for Chrome. It's only a matter of time.

Not really. Malware, probably. Viruses, no. Those are still very rare in the *nix world. And because it's based around webapps... which do not run locally on the machine... attacking the system is going to be a lot more difficult.

Here's a pretty good article on Ars that talks about some of the potential impacts of this: Google's Chrome OS: what it means, why it matters

Just because it's more difficult does not mean that it's impossible. All a virus does is make the computer do more work than it can handle, freezing up the system. That can be done to any machine with any kind of installed software.

Well many netbooks really get used for nothing more than portable web terminals and although you put office etc on them that's not really what they are aimed at hence being called Netbooks.

And lets face it the cpu in those things isn't blazingly faster (I don't know about the latest Atom but the original model at 1.6GB could be out paced by a Celeron at 900mhz - 1Ghz) so they aren't going to be great at something requires reasonable processing power.

Finally don't forget about Google Apps - all Web Based so you really just do need just a Web terminal or as some-one else mentioned - pretty it's pretty much just goign to do a thin client job.

If it can't handle Office 2003, The original Doom games, The Bejeweled series and (maybe) Photoshop, then these devices are almost useless to me. None of those programs (except possible Photoshop) require a lot of power.

^^^So, they created a Linux shell easy enough for Noobs to use and called that a competitor to Windows? That seems a bit far-fetched. An OS does so much more than web surfing and running the hardware/software interactions.

An OS does more for you and I because we know we know how to use them and want all the various options available to us, but for most people all they really need is an internet browser and a word processor. People like to feel smart, so when most people open the Windows Control Panel and don't know what they are doing it makes them feel small, I imagine they would love to have a simple browser-focused OS that they will have absolutely no problem understanding every aspect of.

I need Windows, there is no way that I could live with an OS which allows just the basics, but if this Chrome OS is simple and stable I could see it breaking out of the net-book market and providing some serious competition to Microsoft. Apple can't take on MS because its computers are priced higher than PCs, Linux can't take them on because nobody knows what it is, but Google is a much-loved brand known for their simplicity. If anyone can make this work it will be Google, for good or bad.

I can see Chrome OS going places too, once Google makes it something more than a shell on top of Linux. Right now, it's a 21st Century equivalent to Windows 1.0-3.12; just a GUI shell sitting on top of DOS. I think Google can do much better.

 

[Marc]

Google have named those who will partner them hardware wise for ChromeOS

http://www.itpro.co.uk/612541/google-reveals-chrome-hardware-partners

 

[Arrqh]

It says "initial".

Because that's their target platform.

 

[DiSiLLUSiON]

No, it's the platform they're more likely to get initial grip on, which strengthens their position when they try to take over the desktops.

 

[Arrqh]

...which is what the term "target platform" implies in this case.

 

[DiSiLLUSiON]

... Which doesn't mean it's being developed or meant exclusively for netbooks, just that it'll be pre-installed on those first.

 

[Arrqh]

...which doesn't contradict anything that I said. Right now, they want the thing on netbooks. That is their current goal. What they do in the future doesn't change that.

 

[Jerikka Dawn]

...which doesn't contradict anything that I said. Right now, they want the thing on netbooks. That is their current goal. What they do in the future doesn't change that.

Except for the part where you said it's not being aimed at desktops.

 

[Australis]

There's some criticism, comparing GCos (you saw it here first, folks!) + Linux to Win 3.10 + DOS 6.22. I don't have a problem with this. It's an excellent way to prototype and test before building a system, equivalent to WinNT that is less penetrable for users and not as flexible. Especially considering the number of *nix and Open Source developers out there.

And ultimately, if Google want to succeed, it'll have to be able to be deployed across any type of PC, netbook, notebook, laptop, desktop. The first version is being initially developed for netbooks, and presumably v2 will be for laptops or desktops. Keep in mind the code is probably being built ON desktops. I hope this clears up any problem with semantics, which were getting a little tedious.

 

[Charlie Kelly]

I don't find the idea of a web centric OS very appealing on a netbook. Despite their name they are mobile devices and will not always have an internet connection. Besides I don't think the Internet is ready for this sort of thing.

Charlie

 

[Jerikka Dawn]

What I don't get is the constant rumbling everywhere about how Netbooks are "crippled" and are only good for web browsing.

I have a 900MHz eeePC with 1GB of RAM and in addition to a web browser, I run Office 2007, Winamp, IM clients, and Quickbooks - at the same time, I might add. Additionally, desktop machines with specs less than this were doing all of these things a few years ago. I'm not saying you can play Warhammer Online or World of Warcraft, but they are by no means crippled. If I need more memory (for whatever reason that I haven't come across yet), I can pop a chip in.

Especially with apps like Office, Winamp, IM, Quickbooks -- things like that, the processing power is damn near meaningless since the processor will sit there idle most of the time.

Ironically, the most processor intensive activity that a netbook is probably prone to do is access web applications like Google Docs due to all of the Javascript -- and Google writes *good* Javascript -- most other web apps are written badly and will peg your processor just displaying a page.

 

[Galactus]

Well it probably stopped me from buying Windows 7. I will just live with what I have or Ubuntu (if I ever can get it to work) until this comes out. If it does as advertised I will be a happy camper especially if it is free. Could never believe no one else has done this a long time ago. It really is like nothing else, absolutely no other serious competition.

 

[msbae]

The Google OS Is Doomed

Five reasons why the new Chrome operating system is a bad idea.
​

Source: http://www.slate.com/id/2222564/

1.) Linux is hard to love
2.) We aren't ready to run everything on the Web
3.) Microsoft is a formidable opponent (Vista still sells, despite its crappiness.)
4.) Google fails often (Knol, Lively and Orkut anyone?)
5.) The Chrome OS makes no business sense

From the article:

An MBA might describe the Chrome OS as a wasteful customer acquisition expense; Google would be wiser to use all the cash that it's pouring into developing the new program for advertising instead. But a gangster would call this move what it really is: The point of Chrome OS—the only point of Chrome OS—is to screw with Microsoft.

And that's fine. When you've got money to burn, why not? Microsoft often does things for no reason other than to frustrate its rivals—its new search engine Bing being a prime example. But by focusing so much attention on a venture that's unlikely to do the company any good, Google will only hurt itself.

QFT

 

[Galactus]

Any one read this article?

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-10281966-92.html?tag=mncol;txt

Do you agree or disagree?

 

[DiSiLLUSiON]

There's a thread over at TNZ where the more technical aspects of this OS are discussed for a bit.

 

[msbae]

Any one read this article?

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-10281966-92.html?tag=mncol;txt

Do you agree or disagree?

I've never used Ubuntu so, I can't offer any kind of comment ont his author's piece.

There's a thread over at TNZ where the more technical aspects of this OS are discussed for a bit.

Link please.

 

[DiSiLLUSiON]

There's a thread over at TNZ where the more technical aspects of this OS are discussed for a bit.

Link please.

Here you go.

 

[Stone_Cold_Sisko]

Developer Preview video here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_UyVmITiYQ&

Pretty cool stuff