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."
We can only guess what information it will suck up and report back to Google.
They'll probably response by not trying to use it to play games.
> 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?"
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?
And why is it impossible to solve the privacy issues in the long run? The way I look at it, if the economic benefits of the "cloud" model are good enough, it's only a matter of time until the other issues are solved over time. Consider checks as an example of this idea. Initially, they seem retarded (I'm going to give you this little piece of paper which is a promise from me to you that my bank will give you this amount of gold if you go there to call on it). Stupid. However, when you consider that the same innovation (banks and checks) allowed you to draw on your account from anywhere that bank had a branch, and enabled you to perform large transactions without having to carry all of your gold with you all of the time, it is obvious that the transactions enabled by the innovation are valuable enough on average to outweigh the risks inherent in the system. Even today there is a tremendous amount of check fraud, but by god, we use them like there is no tomorrow. Why? because without them (and their equivalent financial instruments) our modern society could not exist.
The new "store everything somewhere else and access it from anywhere" model has very similar risks, but also very similar benefits. Sure, it's not perfect, but it's a lot better than the old model in many ways and will, over time, enable valuable use cases that we have not even imagined yet.
so, returning to my original question, why can't we solve these concerns in the long run? Because if it's not impossible, it is simply inevitable.
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.
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
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... 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 *
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
Piracy leaves no future for outdated, dinosaur business models. Accept it.
Fixed that for you. And I've long accepted and praised it.
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