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."
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.
It's going to compete with Linux.
In other news: 2011. Year of the Chrome Desktop (tm).
My other sig is clever.
They'll probably response by not trying to use it to play games.
With the way the game industry it trying to ruin PC gaming with DRMs these days I don't think it's going to matter.
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.
Wasn't it already said that it's illegal to integrate your browser into your operating system?
No, integrating a web browser into an operating system is completely legal. It is illegal, however, to attempt to use an effective monopoly in the desktop operating systems market to gain an effective monopoly in the web browser market.
Google has approximately no market share in the desktop OS market, so this is not an issue. They may have an effective monopoly in the search engine market (debatable), but they are not requiring Chrome or ChromeOS for their search engine so this is also not an issue.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Probably by asking "But will it run Crysis?"
"Wasn't it already said that it's illegal to integrate your browser into your operating system?"
No it was "said" to be illegal to abuse a monopoly position in one market to take over another. In fact it wasn't just "said", it was and remains the law.
I'm sure farmville and mafiawars will get higher framerates on these systems and have a totally unfair advantage
Fixed that for you.
Thank you, slave.
Here be signatures
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?
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.
It's a hacked up version of linux. Even if you could get WINE working with it, You're only going to be able to get a few windows games working. However, that's not what the OS is intended for. It's a platform for a web browser. It's the most minimalistic OS since the 80s.
It'll probably run flash games just fine, but you can do that with any existing system so why go to ChromeOS just for that?
Actually, considering you can get Chrome on all 3 major OSes as it is, I don't understand why anybody would use ChromeOS on a real PC at all anyway. Maybe on a little netbook or something... but on a real pc/laptop? why?
Do you need to use Chrome to use Google - no
Do you need to use ChromeOS to use Chrome - no
Do you need to use Google if you use Chrome and ChromeOS ... probably not
Do Google have a large market share in browsers - No
Do Google have a large market share in OS's - No
No monopoly behaviour here ....
Puteulanus fenestra mortis
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.
Still, you have not debunked his main point. MS used its dominance (not monopoly) in the OS market to get users to use IE. They didn't force anyone to use IE, but by bundling it with Windows, they used their OS market share in order to increase their web browser market share. That is a monopolizing behavior.
If Google had used its search engine to get you to use Chrome or Chrome OS you would have had a point. AFAIK, anyone, with any web browser can use Google's search engine. If anything, they may be using Chrome to get people to use Google Search more - but since they have no dominance in the OS and web browser markets, this is a non-issue. I know, Sherman does not talk about Monopoly, but if a minor player in the web browser/OS market uses them to increase the number of people using their (already dominant) search engine, this is no violation of the Sherman act.
P.S.
What does "applefan" have to do with this?
Whenever in an argument, remember this.
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
It'll probably run flash games just fine, but you can do that with any existing system so why go to ChromeOS just for that?
Because if that is all you do, then it *will* do it better, as that is all it can do, making it faster. One example of a perfect place is my netbook, that I only use when I travel. I only check email, browse and hit facebook. Of course, this is after I spend a couple of hours updating Windows XP because I hadn't used the thing in two months. I'm also trying to get us to move our accounting software to something that is web based, on our intranet server. If I could do that, then this is all we would need in the office as well, as everything else we do in via the web. Even MS *.doc files can be read online, which is fine as we don't generate many of those.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
Piracy is the future, get over it.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
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".
They also must have low IQ's as well...
Depending on which test you believe, 127 to 132. Hi.
Not much to spend it on? are these people brain dead meat puppets? Motorcycles, Cars, Jetpacks, Overpriced stereos...
You can't have both? I've got a pair of Sennheiser HD 650s with a pretty impressive amp and source, had a modified LS1, have a 21" speed boat, and own a Ps3 and wii (360 redringed on me), and two computers.
I can list 90,000 things other than videogames to spend my high-earning money on that is not only more fun, but get's you way more chicks...
A sports car is more impressive to a lady than a 6 digit Xbox achievement point number.
depends entirely on the lady in question. I submit that you're going to want to spend more time long term with the lady who digs gaming than the one who's only interested in you because you can afford to drive her around in an M6 or 911.
Playing a single player video game is no different than reading a book or watching a movie except that the experience is interactive. Playing a multiplayer video game is a lot more interactive with your friends than sitting around watching the game.
>They also must have low IQ's as well... Not much to spend it on? are these people brain dead meat puppets? Motorcycles, Cars, Jetpacks, Overpriced stereos... I can list 90,000 things other than videogames to spend my high-earning money on that is not only
more fun, but get's you way more chicks...
All of which has this in common: they are LEISURE items - why does choosing one leisure item over another define your IQ ?
Also - most high-earning men that age are married, presumably this at least marginally reduces the number of additional chicks they actually NEED to get.
>A sports car is more impressive to a lady than a 6 digit Xbox achievement point number.
To some ladies. Perhaps even a significant majority - but most certainly not for ALL ladies.
>A motorcycle is far more fun than ANY driving game on any gaming platform.
To you. To me. Not to everyone.
Besides, much as I prefer my bike over driving games, I prefer WoW over golf - tastes differ. Why the aggro dude ?
>Racing with your local racing club on a real track is far more fun than any game. $10,000 can get you a nice Miata and all the racing upgrades to really tear it up at the track. a 1.8 with a turbo in a miata makes for real fun on a real track (not a redneck oval)
To you. To some other people. Not to everybody. A helluva lot of people will think THAT is the sign of a low IQ. Choosing to risk your life at high-speed in the real world (where you do NOT respawn).
>Hang gliding is an absolute rush.
Again... to you. I think RAIDING is an actual rush.
I don't fit the profile, I've just turned 30, but I am a high-earning single male without much other financial responsibility. I pay my bond and since I don't have other debt - I got plenty of cash to burn even after making investments. Why the hell should you get to decide that burning it on hanggliding is smarter than burning it on the Cataclysm expansion ?
Talk about having your head so far up your own ass you can't see the crud for the dingleberries...
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
I'm also guessing (perhaps naively) that it will boot much faster.
Brain surgery - it's not rocket science!
>Of course, this is after I spend a couple of hours updating Windows XP because I hadn't used the thing in two months.
Is the Chrome OS wont need updates? I have an old ubuntu install I boot up every so often and the updates are just as bad, if not worse. Modern OSs require updates. Theyre all moving targets.
I'm also very skeptical of the claims of "I just need a browser!" Every user who told me that or something similar adds "Oh and yahoo chat, and my toolbars, and it must work with this shitty printer/scanner combo, and run this old crap software I've been using since 1998, and quickbooks, etc etc."
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
That is supposed to be one of the main benefits, and additionally, it will sleep/wake up in one second. More importantly, with it running so little software, sleep mode should be more reliable, although that isn't the problem it used to be even with Windows. For kiosk systems, basic access systems, "mom's first computer" (and I don't want to have to maintain it weekly), and plenty of other limited use applications, this could be a good thing.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
Piracy leaves no future for outdated, dinosaur business models. Accept it.
Fixed that for you. And I've long accepted and praised it.
don't understand why anybody would use ChromeOS on a real PC at all anyway. Maybe on a little netbook or something... but on a real pc/laptop? why?
My netbook has as fast a processor, three times the drive space and twice the memory as the desktop I built five years ago. It streams fullscreen videos flawlessly. Hell, the PC I use at work is ten years old and running XP. My netbook is running Windows 7 (starter). If it won't run any version of Linux out there (which I fully intend to install once I get a thumb drive) I'll be greatly surprised.
It's far more powerful than the IBM thinkpad I paid $20 for (bad battery and hard drive is shot, I'm going to fix it and give it to my oldest daugher).
But anyway, a netbook IS a "real computer", far more capable than anything made just ten years or even less ago.
Free Martian Whores!
I am very impressed with your 21 inch speed boat. Do you have a tow bar set up for some hard core wakeboarding? Sorry for being pedantic, couldn't resist. Side note, I'd prefer the lady who would want to work on said hot car rather than ride in it or play video games.
Intel transfer the difficult from Hadware to software, for get more power, programmer need more technology. -- chinaitn
TA-DA!
I wonder what the movie industry could come up with if they spent more than the 30 seconds it took me to pull that out of my ass?
(1.21 gigawatts) / (88 miles per hour) = 30 757 874 newtons
Google owns YouTube, they likely are pretty set when it comes to codecs. And with HTML 5 coming on strong, they would be positioned pretty well.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
Chrome OS isn't designed to require an "always on" internet connection, which is why features for offline use of apps are key to it; it requires internet access for online tasks, and for the first logon of a given user.
It is designed to run offline HTML5 web apps locally.
Nothing required to use Chrome requires making regular payments other than the payments already required for having some kind of (at least intermittent) network access.
Google's put a lot of effort (both in the HTML5 standards processes and in the Chrome browser, a key Chrome OS component) to allow "web" apps to do more work locally (including working completely offline.) No doubt, the latency experienced with tradition web apps that do almost all of their work on the server side is precisely the reason for this. This work continues in the runup to Chrome OS (improvements in this area in the Chrome browser are part of what needs to happen before Chrome OS is ready to deploy.)
If Chrome OS was intended to do that, it probably wouldn't include as a key component Native Client, whose whole purpose is to enable running native applications locally in a secure sandbox.
She sounds awesome.
I don't blame him either. Hell, If I could get such an amount, I'd be asking it as well.
That was not my point.
You don't *need* a $20M Daniel Radcliffe to make a good movie.
The Blair Witch Project had a total budget of $22K.