Slashdot Mirror
Google's Chrome OS To Launch In Fall
Kidfork writes "On Wednesday Google's vice president of product management said that this fall Google will launch Chrome OS to compete with Microsoft Windows. More than 70 million users already use the Chrome Browser, and Google expects at least 1 million users of the OS by day one of release."
Gonna give this one a try on the ol Dell Mini 9. I wonder though...how will gamers respond?
Living With a Nerd
I prefer to keep my data where it belongs, on my machine and encrypted on backup servers.
We can only guess what information it will suck up and report back to Google.
For those who want to avoid the Slashgear page.
Wasn't it already said that it's illegal to integrate your browser into your operating system? If IE had to be removed from Windows then why can Google build their OS with Chrome as the basis for the operating system? This was a giant monopoly suit...
Can we say double standard?
It's going to compete with Linux.
In other news: 2011. Year of the Chrome Desktop (tm).
My other sig is clever.
ChromeOS is not general competition "with Microsoft Windows". Windows has always been about delivering services on your desktop using the native CPU power and full set of UI capabilities, ensuring availability, low latency, full features and (relative) privacy.
Google Apps deliver a quite limited subset of general office suite features available only under certain environments. They are completely inadequate where privacy is of concern.
ChromeOS is another option for Netbooks - i.e. it might be suitable as another alternative in the already harmfully and unnecessarily flooded market of Netbook operating systems. But no firm should entertain using ChromeOS to prepare content.
> Google will launch Chrome OS to compete with Microsoft Windows.
Sorry, where does it say that they are aiming to compete with Windows, because it doesn't mention windows in TFA. They've never claimed to try and do that - they're targetting a completely different market. Chome OS is just a browser than boot up with no host operating system. Windows IS an entire operating system.
The act of integration with the sole purpose of killing Netscape was what they got sued for. They leveraged their monopoly on Windows to kill a competitor in the browser wars.
HTTP/1.1 400
MS was not sued simply for integrating IE with Windows. They were sued because they were using their near monopoly on OSes to gain marketshare in the browser space by distributing IE for free as a bundle with their OS. Netscape didn't have a near monopoly in the OS market, so there was no way they could compete.
However, Google is a minority player in both the browser and OS markets. If they choose to bundle them together, neither provides all that much more leverage to the other, and certainly provides little in terms of barriers to entry for competition.
I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
From a security point of view Chrome OS is very interesting. I also like the efforts spent on keeping the user out of managing and nursing the OS and make it tend its own business, letting the user work on the computer instead of playing it-expert.
If its going to be even remotely as good as Android i think we can have a winner here.
HTTP/1.1 400
if they want my windows, they're going to have to pry it out of my warm, living, delicately moisturized hands
how many pairs of boxer shorts should you own?
This will be great on low powered netbooks and other such devices. I know I'll be installing it on my
Acer Aspire ONE. (Assuming it doesn't completely suck, that is!)
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
What I want is the ability to save my browser session back to google somehow "in the cloud" or whatever so that I can close my browser on one computer, start up a generic copy of chrome somewhere else, login, and get my entire session restored. If that happened the whole system would just become much more useful, particularly if you are in a landscape littered with what are effectively thin terminals. Imagine that kind of functionality with a mobile device like the iPad or something (ignoring all of the limitations that exist today). Close out on my desktop, transfer to my portable device, go to meetings and w/e without missing a beat or having to take the time to open things on one device that I was already interacting with on another.
Per TFA, Chrome OS is being released on Netbooks.
I've played around with ChromeOS on a virtual machine and it sucks.
Two thoughts spring to mind:
1. you're not in the target demographic
2. unless you have invented time travel, you're not using the OS that will ship in the Fall
Will it run my games? Y/N
Will it run them reliably, effecivly and as table as Windows 7? Y/N
will it have support, patching, ease of use and compatibility with 3d party aspects? (printers for example) Y/N
if N to any... thanks, i'll stick to windows.
Will the iPad do those? Because that's what this thing is, essentially - an OS for making an iPad-alike.
First Google begins by tracking everything you search for. Then, with their browser, they want to track everywhere you go on the internet. Now, with their operating system, they want to track everything you do, period.
Proverbs 21:19
> Will it run my games?
N
> Will it run them reliably, effecivly and as table as Windows 7?
Only if you install it on a net-table. (Patent that concept!)
> will it have support, patching, ease of use and compatibility with 3d party aspects? (printers for example)
Probably not. It's an OS for dummies we are talking about, so patching it will probably require going into dos command line and burning several DVD each time a bug is found.
Microsoft was also refusing to allow OEMs to install any other browser on the desktop and even for awhile on the system at all. It wasn't just that Microsoft was giving away a browser. It was that Microsoft was preventing other browsers from even being installed by default by system makers. You could download it after you got your PC, but Microsoft didn't want another browser to show up on your desktop or system when you booted it up for the first time.
That was one of the many problems that Microsoft got busted for. Microsoft also got busted for saying that IE was part of the OS and not an add on that could be removed or replaced. They screwed that demo up right in front a of a judge and were yelled at in court for it.
Then there was the whole EU monopoly suit that was over the browser and all kinds of other stuff. Both the US and the EU eventually made Microsoft open up a lot of their protocols and file formats so that everyone could inter-operate and compete somewhat with them.
I am guessing that most people here either didn't follow the trial or forgot what the whole thing was about.
I've played around with ChromeOS on a virtual machine and it sucks. It's an OS for accessing Google apps and the web. Nothing else. Great if that's all You need, but I need a bit more.
There I was, the subject and mood were right. The girl agreed with me on ChomeOS -sort of anyway- and I was working my way over her shoulder towards her back and trying to undo her bra.
Then you come along telling ChomeOS sucks and all I get now is the cold shoulder and a disturbed, alarmed look.
Buddy, I'd almost made it.What a party pooper you are. Sheesh!
I hadn't the slightest objection to his spending his time planning massacres for the bourgeoisie... (P.G. Wodehouse)
I'm sorry, I'm not familiar with that distro...
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
I for one will welcome our shiny new overlords.
"We make our world significant by the courage of our questions and by the depth of our answers." Carl Sagan
Nothing says it has to replace your existing laptop or workstation.
I'm quite looking forward to ChromeOS. I work there so I'm hoping the big G will give me one for testing, but if not then I might buy one myself if they review well.
See ChromeOS as kind of like an "extreme" version of the Mac or iPad value proposition. The hardware and software are very closely integrated so you won't get much of the benefit if you're running it in a virtual machine. But if you're running it on hardware designed for it in mind, you get a number of benefits.
If I look at what I do today with my old MacBook, 90% of my time is spent in Chrome anyway. MacOS' shitty window management just gets in the way, frankly. The only other apps I use are iTunes (for internet radio and occasionally movies rented online), and the terminal emulator. Fortunately shellinabox provides easy access to remote terminals without needing a local ssh or terminal emulator. I have it set up on a colo box I rent from Linode and it works pretty well.
ChromeOS promises watertight security (as opposed to MacOS/Windows/Linux), an end to stupid update nags, extremely good and consistent performance, simple and efficient window management .... lots more. The downside is that I'll need to use a separate machine occasionally for more power user stuff like programming, at least until a web based IDE like Bespin starts getting good. Other things, like word processing/spreadsheets/PDF viewing/chat/etc can be done via web apps already.
Also, at some point the promise of NativeClient will arrive and then porting existing native apps (like maybe emacs) to be runnable in Chrome will become possible.
All that remains is a good multimedia experience really. I can listen to most net radio stations today using Flash, but it wouldn't be as nicely integrated as iTunes. And as for renting movies, well I keep hoping Microsoft will stop sitting on its ass and make Xbox Live movie store work here in Switzerland, but it's been years so I'm not holding my breath. International media licensing is such a disaster zone.
Basically, I think ChromeOS will deliver a lot of the benfits people see in an iPad but without the obnoxious tablet form factor. It's a clean break, a fresh new OS but with things that actually matter for getting things done, like "keyboards".
Comment removed based on user account deletion
SlashGear mentions Netbooks, but their source (Reuters) does not; there is one mention of Laptops and none of Netbooks.
Is this just an assumption on SlashGear's part, or are they quoting some other, unnamed source?
GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
There are some choice quotes in the article's source article over at Reuters.
Here's one of my favorites, from Sundar Pichai:
Wow, lots of revisionist history here. It turns out that Microsoft wasn't/isn't bundling web browsers with Windows since Windows 98. I mean, they must not have been, because they weren't one of the "few... operating systems for which there are already millions of applications that work" such as "Gmail" and "Facebook."
Seriously, did he think no one would notice that he was saying that Chrome OS is one of the few operating systems that can run web applications?
I don't need a B.S. in Lieology to detect the problem with that logic!
GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
Shouldn't it be ;)
"Google's Chrome OS to Launch In Fail"
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
Looks like I'll have to clear a partition for it. Hmm, my Windoze recovery partition should do. I use Linux (Ubuntu Lucid), with Windoze as a backup if something doesn't work in Wine or VirtualBox... which so far has been nothing.
So what is this OS targeted at? Just tablet PC's, netbooks, and embedded systems? Do they really intend to compete in the desktop market with Windows? The joke, "will it run Crysis?" really isnt a joke at all, because nobody will use it if it doesn't. Unless they have full binary compatibility with windows itself they will go nowhere. It really doesnt make any business sense to persue something like this, at least, Im not seeing it. Unless of course they are targeting it at very specific niche platforms, which is the only way I can see them being successful with this. I would love to see this on an HTPC or something. Sure, in true geek fashion I will most certainly try it out. But I cant see this being any more than a novelty.
so is Android, and Debian and other Linux and WinCE setups. Netbooks have enough local processing to do a lot of things. They're not powerful compared to modern desktops, but they're amazingly powerful boxes. A 400 MHz ARM7 is twice as fast as a Sun Ultra 1 and faster than a DEC Alpha 600 5/266, and yet we think "these are pitiful little computers we can only run a web browser on"?
I get the idea that Google likes products and ideas and doesn't have any leadership at all. That they figure that the ideas can slug it out, and let the best one win.
That works fine within an organization, but on a product level, it seems NUTS.
So it does exactly what it's supposed to then?
Brain surgery - it's not rocket science!
Because Chrome OS is useless without Internet access.
I know some are putting Android on Tablets, but it doesn't look like it is supported by Google.
I was looking forward to more Tablet optimized Android from Google (certification, higher official resolutions, etc).
Now with Chrome, they may choose to promote Chrome for tablets instead and not bother with tablet optimizations.
android already runs androids apps.
Sorry Snaller... I should have refreshed the page earlier...
--Stak
Holy happy hippy crap!
IOW, Google Chrome OS is great for the market it is designed for, but you aren't part of that market.
I doubt a lot of people are going to move right over to this OS but it will be nice to have an alternative to windows for the everyday user I hope the experience is as good as they are promoting.
http://www.thetechnologygeek.org
Google's OS lineup isn't any less "cohesive" than that of any other vendor that has an OS targetting handheld devices and one targetting more traditional computers (netbooks/laptops/desktops.)
About the only difference is that Google has at different times suggested both Android and Chrome OS for tablets, and Google doesn't exert control of what people do with its OS's and, despite the fact that Google has never pushed Android for netbooks, some hardware vendors have chosen to ship it as a (usually, AFAIK, dual-boot with Windows) netbook OS.
And Google has publicly stated that they expect, in the long-term, Android and Chrome OS to merge.
It certainly isn't the conventional approach in traditional firms, but -- especially where the products aren't direct alternatives but merely have some overlap -- it makes some sense.
I think it's ideal for an ISP provided Netbook (OS + connection + hardware + service) and mass-deployments in a corporate environment like a call center or shop floor. I haven't seen *any* partners announced which seems really strange.
tomorrow who's gonna fuss
I admire Google's pioneering spirit, and I also welcome any move towards relegating Microsoft to the trashcan of history, but I find it hard to believe that any OS intended for a PC environment that fundamentally requires an always-on internet connection could successfully compete for market share against those that also provide the option of running apps locally.
I don't think the world is wired enough yet for the Chrome/Software-as-a-service concept. I also don't think people will just silently accept making regular payments for a service that replaces what they used to be able to do for free locally. With Chrome the whole privacy issue is a serious one, and I can also imagine that just the associated network latency of running an app on a remote server instead of locally on a reasonably specced PC is always bound to make the experience feel clunkier.
If Chrome manages to fulfill Google's dream of entirely killing the notion that PCs can run apps locally, then it will be a triumph of marketing over substance.
Pardon the self-reply, but I found some Hardware partners. No ISP's or service providers though:
http://techcrunch.com/2009/07/08/chrome-partners-acer-adobe-asus-freescale-hewlett-packard-lenovo-qualcomm-texas-instruments/
tomorrow who's gonna fuss
'They aren't completely separate "OS systems". They are separate brands...'
Exactly. That's what makes it so odd. Proctor and Gamble are experts at managing competing brands, but you don't look at Tide (if you're Bob consumer, anyhow) and think "Proctor and Gamble". But I have heard Droid phone ads saying that Droid runs "Google". I think this will be an unpleasant experience for Google. We'll see.
Thanks for the comments on how they might/will converge -- it's interesting and encouraging.
But on a brand level, I think "Android Chrome" or "Chrome on Android" would be a much better idea than "Chrome" and "Android".
AFAIK, Google has stated that Chrome OS will support offline use of web apps that use the appropriate HTML5 features (and will feature Google's Native Client to allow "web" apps that run native-compiled code in a secure sandbox), and that it will only need internet access to use web sites that aren't made to support use as an offline app or to use those that can be offline apps in their online mode, and for the first login for a user (which needs to access the user's Google Account.)
I'd rather have a paper trail than a vapor trail for both my votes and financial transactions, thank you.
Now I'm on a serious guilt trip. I deprived You of sex with my comment on ChromeOS. I ruined what could have been a once-in-a-lifetime experience. How can I ever make up for that ? ;-)
TCAP-Abort
I'm not so sure. I think that there is a reason that Native Client is a key component: Google realizes that, in addition to web apps that can be used offline that HTML5 is sufficient to support, apps that rely on native code run locally are important, and so Google wants to incorporate them fully into its model of platform-agnostic applications delivered and updated over the web and accessed through the browser.
Existing, Windows-specific games? No
Existing, web-games? Yes
New, native games? Probably. Google's Native Client system, which downloads, compiles, and runs code natively in a secure sandbox, abstracting the underlying OS and hardware -- and which is planned as a launch component of Chrome OS and for (presumably concurrent) inclusion in the Chrome browser more generally -- may well be an attractive target for developers.
The ones it runs at all (see above), there is no particular reason to believe it won't run at least as reliably, effectively, and stably as Windows 7.
Ease of use for printers may well exceed traditional OS's with Google's Cloud Print technology, though that remains to be seen. More generally, hardware support will probably be less complete than Windows for some time, but lots of existing hardware has decent support under Linux (on which Chrome OS is based), and Google putting resources behind Chrome OS will no doubt improve that further over time, particularly for the categories of hardware most used.
When all you have is HTML/CSS/JS/AJAX, everything looks like a webpage.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
"I think that there is a reason that Native Client is a key component:"
That just means they can do higher performance apps in the browser (or browser playing an OS).
It doesn't mean I can use it to run the plethora of native apps I already have.
Sure, if you are dependent on existing apps that are intrinsically tied to an existing platform, a new platform that doesn't include an implementation of your existing platform won't work as a complete replacement for you, no matter what features and advantages it has for new users that aren't as tied to legacy apps.
Which is probably one reason Google is targetting netbooks first: they are frequently mobile second computers for people who also have desktop computers (or even less-portable laptops) -- and for people who really need legacy apps, those will likely be on the less portable devices, and the many of the uses people have for netbooks won't be as bound to the legacy apps.
Give Native Client time to establish a userbase (not only on Chrome OS, but with Chrome browser on other platforms), and apps that are currently available only as (e.g.) Windows-native apps may become availabe targetting Native Client, which will give people an upgrade path for the legacy apps and reduce reliance on OS-specific apps, increasing the potential reach of Chrome OS.
And the Lord did grin, and people did feast upon the lambs, and sloths, and carp, and anchovies, and orangutans, and breakfast cereals, and fruit bats, and large --" ... and Google didst savest the peoples of the internets and track their every movement.
It seems that the OS will be based on ubuntu:
http://blogs.computerworld.com/15127/ubuntus_canonical_and_google_partner_to_create_chrome
Math is beautiful... e^(pi*i)+1=0
if this is ANYthing that is parallel to google design philosophy up to date, it will be a success due to its simplicity and ease of use.
Read radical news here
Anyone else read that headline as "Google's Chrome OS to Launch and Fail" ?
Now I'm on a serious guilt trip. I deprived You of sex with my comment on ChromeOS. I ruined what could have been a once-in-a-lifetime experience. How can I ever make up for that ? ;-)
Well, I could go for second best to loosing one's virginity. Would you be my buddy and comfort me when I sulk over stuff that really matters, like window manager decorations or transparency for instance? Boy today seems to turn into the best day of my life!
I hadn't the slightest objection to his spending his time planning massacres for the bourgeoisie... (P.G. Wodehouse)
I liked using chromium for development, it was basically a pretty ordinary debian-flavor (with a bit of gentoo mixed in) Linux box set up in a nice way. It's very browser oriented but that is no surprise. After trying to wedge Android into a netbook I find that Chrome OS is much more appropriate, and I expect it to do fairly well in the netbook arena compared to Android. If it can hold its own in the web tablet arena as well I think that one day Chrome OS and Android could merge together into a single solution that works for smartphones, tablets and portables. I also think ChromeOS would do very well in a settop box, but I think settop boxes are probably dead as a growth industry.
Now that the praise is out of the way, ChromeOS has a long ways to go. It is still difficult to add new packages to a distribution, having the barriers of Debian's package system combined with the work required to get gentoo ebuilds to cross compile correctly. And the system just isn't appropriate out of the box for an embedded consumer device, because of how platofrms, software updates, configuration and security are handled. I'm not a fan of Android, but frankly Android is much further along in those areas. Android has most of what you need to make a device based on it. ChromeOS is almost a generic Linux box, fine for a desktop or laptop, but I don't really see desktops as a growth industry.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire