The Fixes That Google Chrome OS Still Needs To Make

CowboyRobot writes "Thomas Claburn at Information Week opines that Google's Chrome OS is actually morphing into the Windows-style os that it intended to make obsolete. There's still room to grow, and here are his suggestions for how to make it better: Get better hardware, Include a Web-based IDE, Support local storage, Allow offline apps. 'When Chrome OS was launched in 2010, Google SVP of Chrome and apps Sundar Pichai declared, "Chrome OS is nothing but the Web." Now, if you peer behind the browser pane, it's clear that Chrome OS is looking beyond the Web. It's not a complete repudiation of Google's bet on the appeal of a thin-client system that keeps user data in the cloud. But it is a concession to the realities of a market that's more comfortable with the familiar desktop metaphor.'"

Comments

No big surprises in the article.

[DuckDodgers]

I think his laundry list of recommended changes is obvious to anyone that's been paying attention.

1. Better hardware. No kidding - right now Chrome OS is aimed at schools and businesses, which if they need a locked down browser environment should be okay with what they have now. But if they want consumer adaptation, offer at least the option of better hardware. I'll buy a Chomebook when I can get Sandy Bridge or a Tegra 4 (yes, I meant 4) processor and a graphics chip that supports at least one external monitor and really good WebGL.

2. Web-based IDE. Again, I think this would spur power user adoption of Chrome OS, though I consider this the least essential of the features.

3. Support local storage. No kidding. It will be a while before HTML5 storage is available at all the websites people routinely use.

4. Offline apps. No kidding yet again. I don't want my device to be useless for my family every time our internet connection has a hiccup.

Re:No big surprises in the article.

[mcgrew]

I don't like the "thin client" at all. "Thin clients" used to be called "terminals". We moved away from terminals to PCs for very good reasons, such as if the network or server goes down you can still get work done. You're not beholden to the server's rules.

Lots of IT people like thin clients because it means job security and control of users.

I'll stick with Linux and my own network. The internet and networks in general are for sharing data, nothing more.

Re:No big surprises in the article.

[Robert Zenz]

I'm all for Thin Clients if they make sense. F.e. if the workstations need to access a database on the server anyway to get work done, you make them Thin Clients in the first place. On the other hand, thin clients are abused on places where they do not belong...and vice versa. I've seen many abuses of workstations, too.

Re:No big surprises in the article.

[Barbara, not Barbie]

right now Chrome OS is aimed at schools and businesses

Judging from the ultra-lame marketing, it's not aimed at any particular market - it was just another Google "let's throw some more web sh*t at the wall and see if it sticks" experiment. And it's failed.

Schools won't buy them - they weigh almost 3x as much as an iPad, and battery life sucks. And they're more expensive than either the iPad2 or a full-blown laptop, so forget schools.

Businesses? Same deal and then some - add in that not every business wants to trust Google with their internal documents - financial forecasts, marketing plans, internal emails, client price lists, legal consultations, hiring and firing decisions, training manuals, product specs and proprietary formulas. Now throw in that in some fields it's not even legal to share information with any 3rd party because of the types of data involved. Heck, many businesses don't want employees on the web at all during business hours.

So no, take this stupid chromebook, throw a red shirt on it, and have Dr. McCoy come out and say it's dead, already.

Re:No big surprises in the article.

[Altanar]

The internet and networks in general are for sharing data, nothing more.

Funny. Sharing data is 99% of my computer use. Without the Internet, I might as well not own a computer.

Re:No big surprises in the article.

[theurge14]

I'd really like to know how many offices in the year 2012 can "still get work done" without a network connection.

And what's wrong with IT people liking it? Considering the monumental amount of work done putting out fires every day due to user error it affects the company bottom line eventually.

ipad killed the chromebook

[alen]

i was a CR-48 beta tester and never figured out the point of it. they look like laptops but the OS is gimped. yet cost the same as a netbook. what is the point of buying one?

the ipad does more which is why apple is selling every one they make

Re:ipad killed the chromebook

[alen]

so? why would i spend the exact same amount of $$$ on a laptop that does less than a similar spec'd laptop with a different OS

my ipad makes it comfortable for me to use a computer on my sofa, train to work and has a wide variety of applications that no one had dreamed was possible 5 years ago.

the chromebook seems to only be a web browser, something that is going the way of the dodo little by little

Re:Bummer

[ArcherB]

my ipad has taken over that task with the pluses being real local applications being installed and i can carry around 64GB of data on it as well

How much did the GP spend on his Chromebook, which has a bigger screen, full keyboard and mouse vs your iPad? Also, Chromebooks can connect to external drives, including those NTFS partitions, making your 64GB seem rather pathetic. Yes, your iPad is a bit easier to carry around, but it costs twice as much. For the extra money I can get a nice bag to carry a Chromebook, real mouse and the external hard drive.

Sure, the iPad is really nice and has its advantages, but don't assume that it's more capable or a better value. Personally, I'd prefer to have two Chromebooks sitting around my house than a single iPad.