Google Announces Google Chrome Operating System [Archive] - Page 3

DoFoT9

Jul 9, 2009, 11:31 PM

MattInOz

Jul 10, 2009, 12:44 AM

I understand what your saying but thats not what the article said.
"The software will work on TOP of the linux operating system"

These words came directly from the article.

The article is miss quoting the google blog which only says on top of the Linux kernel. They may not even use any of the GNU Layer or any of the window managers tied to that. Then again they may use some or all. They could be fully custom above the kernal. We won't know till they release for full version.

BongoBanger

Jul 10, 2009, 01:48 AM

Actually google does a ton more things than that and many of them really well.

Learn more about Google because your comments make you sound significantly ignorant.

Really?

Name them, list their market impact, their share against competing products and their profitability.

Because until you do you sound really ignorant.

Interesting article from the Washington Post on how the new Google OS may not affect Apple much:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/08/AR2009070803070.html

Denial. It's not just a river in Egypt. Seigler is merely a fanboy with a typewriter. I wouldn't take him seriously.

str1f3

Jul 10, 2009, 03:34 AM

applecultvictim

Jul 10, 2009, 09:52 AM

it would be a wide sucess if google manage to gain 2% of market by the summer of 2012. (a reasonable calculation: (http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/asa/archives/2009/07/define_success_pleas.html) )

If you are dreaming of google OS beating windows in any realistic world, just goto bed.

this is not a realistic world,

ms themselves 8 years ago, that bozo, that bozo of bozos, gates, had to retract millions of copies of his **** book to recount his claims that there would be no web, just msn (his fascist vision of the world net....)

Is any of that realistic...nah

I am not saying that google will do this in a couple of years, but what with os x kicking ass and googles, grea, great brand name, in 5 years they ll have done more than enough.

marksman

Jul 10, 2009, 11:48 AM

1. Many porn sites are really big on downloading custom-made plug-ins to use with them. The porn industry on the net has been one of the most aggressive in adopting and experimenting with new technologies. (They stand to make, or lose, a lot of money based on how user-friendly they can make their site while still locking down their content tightly enough so people can't just share paid user accounts, download and re-distribute their photos or video for free, etc. etc.)

Then they will lose money because people will have these netbooks with Chrome and won't be able to access their content.

I have never come across such things as you describe, so I will take your word that you have a better grasp and knowledge of the online porn industry then I do.

2. Even something seemingly as "basic" as video streaming from popular sites like Hulu or YouTube may require a full-blown OS to accomplish it in the manner the user wishes to do it. EG. User may have a dual display configuration and wants all video to show on only the 2nd. display (or LCD/DLP projector that's attached to a second video port).

Yeah not really. Having different output ports is trivial. Showing videos also relatively trivial. All sorts of small mobile phones and their oses can already do this. Being able to do this on a netbook will not be taxing or complicated for a basic OS.

3. Voice chat sometimes gets more complicated than you'd think, too, because people want to use devices like bluetooth headsets. Even OS X has had numerous issues with people hearing pops/clicks or with pairing of specific makes and models of headsets in the past. A stripped down, basic, browser-centric OS aimed at netbooks isn't likely to support all of this very well.

Again not so much. The OS has to be a conduit between the hardware and the software. Having standarized routines for managing usb stacks and the like take care of all this. It doesn't matter how many different bluetooth headsets exist or the rest. Not to mention someone looking for a basic and simple experience is not likely going to be using anything that is not stock and standard 95% of the time.

These are just a few random examples, off the top of my head, but it illustrates the reason the most popular operating systems of today are all so huge and resource-intensive. They *have* to be, to make a lot of the things "easy" that people come up with to try to do, while trying to use what seems like a pretty straightforward application. A small, "mini OS" works best when you have control over the hardware, and you're only providing a limited set of capabilities (as you do with, say, the iPhone).[/QUOTE]

marksman

Jul 10, 2009, 12:20 PM

When you look at a company, it is not what the company does, more importantly, it is what the company choose not to do.

A well-run company is focused and refuse to be distracted. It stick to its course. Apple under Steve Jobs is a prime example.

A well-run company often turns to a bloated company, when it takes on every project in sight. It is like throwing mud onto the wall to see what sticks. Microsoft under Steve Ballmer is the example.

A lot of successful companies go through the stages from well-run to bloated, and eventually go out of business (or close to it). Borland is the example.

Unfortunately, I think Google is following the path of Microsoft and Borland. It has way too many projects after search engine, and to make it worse, other than the search engine, the only thing it does extremely well is YouTube. All other Google offerings are me-to services with no clear advantage for the users.

Google should FOCUS on some key areas (like Android, Google Apps, Picasso) instead of shooting everywhere.

Yeah but google has been the throw it at the wall company since their inception pretty much. That is how they have evolved to where they are. It is what they are. I suspect they have a score of projects most people in this thread have never even heard of.. they do and try a lot of different things. They likely always will. Google's philosophy has always been work on a good idea and worry about how to make money with it later. Most businesses need to know how they will make a profit before they spend 5 seconds working on anything.

marksman

Jul 10, 2009, 01:27 PM

A web based OS with Google having all your files?

Over my dead body.

Imagine, if one company had control of every computer and could shut them off or on, turn the internet on your computer on or off, confiscate your files, and limit your usage of the computer?

Imagine if instead of normal computers in Iran right now, there were Google computers, and the government pushed google to simply limit usage of the computers, and take people's files away. The protests would be gone, and there would be no hope for democracy there.

I for one will never, ever, ever, join in on this. It's a possible threat to privacy, freedom of speech, and democracy.

Hate to break it to you, but the government could seize a few key network access points and for all intents and purposes take away connectivity for most everyone. Being able to have your files on your pc will be of little value and has little to do with what you are talking about if you can't connect to others.

Sehnsucht

Jul 10, 2009, 01:54 PM

:eek: Um, yeah...no.

marksman

Jul 10, 2009, 02:02 PM

Not necessarily true in the US.

In the 1960s Von's Supermarket acquired Shopping Bag food stores.

They were ordered by the Supreme Court to divest because they (paraphrased) "tended towards a monoply".

As I recall, the acquisition gave Von's 2-3 % of the market.

Size doesn't (always) matter... often it's what you (are attempting to) do that counts!

The landscape of what is considered anti-trust is much different these days. Having the #2 player acquire the #6 player in any market for pretty much anything would not be contested at all these days, not to any level that would become anything.

MattInOz

Jul 10, 2009, 07:48 PM

Interesting post on Daring Fireball: http://daringfireball.net/2009/07/chrome_os_context

Summing it up he seems to believe that Chrome OS may be too thin of an OS though he believes that the future is server-side client services. It's also intereting that he notes that while Chrome OS uses web apps similar to the Pre, Android uses native apps.

I think what people are missing here is, "the computer is the network".

The network is a client and a server at it's most basic level and one level up from there the server then handles all the connections on behalf of the client.

Thin machines are just the clients, so as far as the cloud is concerned they are just buckets collecting rain.

The computer may have both server and client in one box so the computer is a network in it's own right, but can hook in other networks with the server handling it all for the user. It is a cloud in it's own right. It might drift into part of another cloud and become part of that cloud. Drift off again taking part of the other cloud with it and join another cloud.

All your data will still be on the server but the server will sync to other servers to clone the data, these clones maybe other devices like your desktop, or your TV, Fridge,Work computer, Company server, Online service. Or syncs maybe split over many and various store houses, gmail, flickr, youTude, googledocs,.....

Your Machine is as much part of the whole network as it is a standalone machine. I think this is what they are referring to when they say it's has been design for the net, unlike the OS's we have now which see themselves as having other functions plus being conduits to the net.

As part of the net the machine will seem no different online or offline. It could go as far pooling pushed content so it there for you regardless of network connection. It could be able to build on the fly networks with other devices. The internet stops being somewhere else.

Or it could be a thin device that is just another bucket under a cloud then they are right it is too thin.

Axemantitan

Jul 11, 2009, 12:29 AM

Intel collaborated with Google on Chrome OS (http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/43176/140/)

Chip giant Intel told TG Daily today that it was in cahoots with Google on the Chrome OS project.

A representative confirmed this to us this morning.

He said: "We have been privy to the project for some time and we have worked with Google on a variety of projects, including this one. We welcome Google's move here."

SactoGuy18

Jul 11, 2009, 07:00 AM

Intel collaborated with Google on Chrome OS (http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/43176/140/)

I'm not surprised at this. Google needed to get technical expertise on how the Intel Atom CPU works so it could highly optimize the Google OS to work within the limitations of the Atom CPU.

BongoBanger

Jul 11, 2009, 08:37 AM

I'm not surprised at this. Google needed to get technical expertise on how the Intel Atom CPU works so it could highly optimize the Google OS to work within the limitations of the Atom CPU.

Or, indeed, build relationships to work on any Intel CPU.

clevin

Jul 11, 2009, 08:43 AM

I am not saying that google will do this in a couple of years, but what with os x kicking ass and googles, grea, great brand name, in 5 years they ll have done more than enough.

it took apple 9 yeas to reach 5%, from 2%.

OS is not a simple piece of software people willing to try every day, or every month, or even every year.

kas23

Jul 11, 2009, 09:23 AM

it took apple 9 yeas to reach 5%, from 2%.

OS is not a simple piece of software people willing to try every day, or every month, or even every year.

I guess it all depends on how it is marketed and sold. People with existing computers will not likely download a new OS just for the fun of it. However, if it is sold as an already-installed OS on a hot, new cheap netbook, then people will adopt it. It all depends on the hardware it is attached to. Too bad they didn't team up with ASUS a couple of years ago. The eee could have come preinstalled with Chrome OS instead of a linux distro (which probably hindered initial eee sales).

marksman

Jul 11, 2009, 10:18 AM

I signed up for a gmail account last year. Used it all the time. It was great. One day, they cancel my account. I'm not spammer. There was no reason for it. I tried submitting their forms/whatever to get my account reinstated. I even tried calling them, but there is no way to talk to a human being there.

Never got a response. Never got my account reinstated. Never got all my email back.

google can go f#%$ itself.

I would say this is google's biggest shortcoming as a company. They want to automate everything, and that includes customer service and management of their services.

The problem with that is it means no actual person is available for most of their products to actually discuss or deal with problems. You can get banned or suspended from a google product or service and literally have no recourse but to submit a form/email that has a 99.99% chance of never being responded to... It can be frustrating. I think this would be considered a massive negative for something like an OS. They get by with it now for some of their stuff because they can, but entering a marketplace already dominated by other players, and not having any available support. Well I don't think it will work. Especially given the segment they are going after.

However part of Google's design is not to have large support staffs and customer service, and thus why they do what they do. Perhaps they will only distribute OEM and force the manufacturers to handle all support.

marksman

Jul 11, 2009, 10:21 AM

Some people are touting Google having the Midas Touch.

Increasingly, I see them as a very successful search innovator & provider which is struggling to define their future beyond search. X craft to the moon, solar energy on the roof, Android, whatever. In some ways it is the problem Yahoo has - where to next...

I don't see this as either a threat to Apple nor a stimulus for Apple to go some new way.

You are wrong though. Everything, including this, Google does in order to increase their search reach and advertising reach. Google is not a search engine company, they are an advertising company. They create tools to put advertising in front of people.

It is the same way television networks create programs so they can put advertising in front of people. Their business is selling advertising, not making tv shows.

Google's business is selling advertising, not making internet content. These things are all just a means to sell more advertising and create more exposure.

slackpacker

Jul 11, 2009, 12:04 PM

BongoBanger

Jul 11, 2009, 12:56 PM

Again we lust over nothing

We sit here and wait for a real working version of Chrome for the Mac and we really care about an alternate OS. Apple has shown that they can scale OS X. OSX on a NetBook is the future and Apple will crush Google like it has done with the iPhone.

Apple hasn't crushed anyone with the iPhone. It's carved out a slice of the market with a great device but still remains well behind Nokia and RIM in sales. Android continues to grow and although the first few models have been rough and ready we're seeing good ones now - Stuff magazine reviewed the Hero and their opinion was that it's the first genuine iPhone competitor and they will continue to improve.

Which is awesome because if there were no competition there would be no incentive to get better.

applecultvictim

Jul 11, 2009, 02:46 PM

it took apple 9 yeas to reach 5%, from 2%.

OS is not a simple piece of software people willing to try every day, or every month, or even every year.

where did I say anything different than that?

SactoGuy18

Jul 11, 2009, 03:08 PM

Or, indeed, build relationships to work on any Intel CPU.

I have my doubts--I think Google designed the Google OS primarily for netbooks, not a real notebooks or desktop computers. I can see Google designing Google OS so it substantially out-performs Windows XP on the same netbook machine.

clevin

Jul 11, 2009, 04:00 PM

I guess it all depends on how it is marketed and sold. People with existing computers will not likely download a new OS just for the fun of it. However, if it is sold as an already-installed OS on a hot, new cheap netbook, then people will adopt it. It all depends on the hardware it is attached to. Too bad they didn't team up with ASUS a couple of years ago. The eee could have come preinstalled with Chrome OS instead of a linux distro (which probably hindered initial eee sales).
IDK, OS is a very important part of a computer, maybe most important part. Linux failed on netbook, there is no guarantee google OS will do any better. Especially if its a web cloud OS, which would be worse than a linux.
where did I say anything different than that?

My plain statement: apple is not kicking a$$ now, in term of market share of OS, and 5 years will not see google go up to 5% neither.

czachorski

Jul 11, 2009, 04:31 PM

Apple hasn't crushed anyone with the iPhone. It's carved out a slice of the market with a great device but still remains well behind Nokia and RIM in sales.

While this is true, it is important to remember that Apple has done this with one phone model. If I am RIM, I am looking at Apple with a market size 1/3 as large as mine, in just 2 yeas, with one model, and an amazing app store, and I am feeling worried. To me, "crushing" can be appropriately applied to apple's rate of progress. From this (http://www.gearlog.com/2009/06/rim_still_dominating_apple_pal.php) article: "According to new IDC data, RIM has 55.3 percent of the U.S. smartphone market. Apple is in second with 19.5 percent."

A small, "mini OS" works best when you have control over the hardware, and you're only providing a limited set of capabilities (as you do with, say, the iPhone).

When I read this, and this thread, I thought of my Tivo, which I believe runs on a customized version of Lunix, is a self-contained piece of hardware and works incredibly well. If Google could do that for a netbook, that might be amazing. I don't they could, though. Seems more up Apple's alley, Frankly.

it took apple 9 yeas to reach 5%, from 2%.

OS is not a simple piece of software people willing to try every day, or every month, or even every year.

If you are thinking about this strictly in the old computer that can do everything paradigm, sure. But in just the past few years, we have used new OS's in our house on a PC, Mac, Tivo, Wii, iPod, iPhone, other phones, car stereo, etc. You get the point. A new paradigm changing netbook-specifically-design OS could get people to try it without even thinking about it.

diamond.g

Jul 12, 2009, 08:05 AM

While this is true, it is important to remember that Apple has done this with one phone model.

Odd. I thought there are 6 models of the iPhone. With 3 currently being sold.

clevin

Jul 12, 2009, 08:12 AM

If you are thinking about this strictly in the old computer that can do everything paradigm, sure. But in just the past few years, we have used new OS's in our house on a PC, Mac, Tivo, Wii, iPod, iPhone, other phones, car stereo, etc. You get the point. A new paradigm changing netbook-specifically-design OS could get people to try it without even thinking about it.

I got your points.

BUT, you missed the most important point.

Netbook IS a traditional computer, there is nothing make it different than a normal computer, other than light weight and smaller size. it still has 1024x600+ res, it has 1G+ memory, it has 100GB+ HDD, it has powerful enough graphic card to run aero on windows 7.

When users can use a full featured OS like winXP or win7. tell me why they would want to settle on an OS than can only do limited things, and slower (I sure hope google can surprise me on these two fronts)?

dam0dred

Jul 12, 2009, 11:18 AM

This is going to be fascinating to watch unfold - particularly the reaction from Microsoft and the OEMs they have been jackbooting for decades.

I'm hoping Chrome OS will be more than just Ubuntu with a Google-sized marketing budget. I still have a deep mistrust of all things Google but I can't wait to see what they come up with.

czachorski

Jul 12, 2009, 12:39 PM

Odd. I thought there are 6 models of the iPhone. With 3 currently being sold.

Depends on how you count. A trip to the blackberry page yields models that go like this: storm, bold, curve 8900, curve 8300, pearl flip, pearl, 8800 series, 8700 series - each blackberry model has a different form and design. A trip to the Apple store yields models that go like this: 8 GB, 16GB, 32 GB - each iPhone "model" has the same form and design.

The point being, if Apple can capture 20% of the market and get 1/3 of the size of Rim with one "model" in just 2 years, what could they do with an "iPhone mini" or an "iPhone nano"? Recall that when the iPod Mini came out, it instantly became the most popular model, and really vaulted them to dominance in the portable music device space.

I got your points.

BUT, you missed the most important point.

Netbook IS a traditional computer, there is nothing make it different than a normal computer, other than light weight and smaller size. it still has 1024x600+ res, it has 1G+ memory, it has 100GB+ HDD, it has powerful enough graphic card to run aero on windows 7.

When users can use a full featured OS like winXP or win7. tell me why they would want to settle on an OS than can only do limited things, and slower (I sure hope google can surprise me on these two fronts)?

A Netbook IS a traditional computer today. I believe that Google or Apple could pull a game-changing design out of their sleeve and change that.

Wikinerd

Jul 13, 2009, 06:20 AM

Oh. I was hoping to avoid having to mess around deep within the system... why doesn't it just support back/forward buttons? They've been around for, what, 10 years? I know they're eager to sell you the Mighty Mouse instead, but damn...

Nope. Not the system. It's within Safari.app (All application .nib files are within the application itself.)

Bad news is that every update you'll have to do it again.
(You can make a script if you think you are capable of one.)

PS. Safari doesn't use the cmd-option-arrow shortcut because that may cause conflicts with some media plugins of the browser.
...but back/forward buttons are every bit as standardized as left/right buttons and scroll wheels.
Not as standardized as you think. Nearly every next manufacturer maps the buttons #4-8 differently. (note button 3 is the scroll— and I've used a lot of mice on Windows in which anything beyond button 1-3 is not functional without drivers)

diamond.g

Jul 13, 2009, 08:04 AM

Depends on how you count. A trip to the blackberry page yields models that go like this: storm, bold, curve 8900, curve 8300, pearl flip, pearl, 8800 series, 8700 series - each blackberry model has a different form and design. A trip to the Apple store yields models that go like this: 8 GB, 16GB, 32 GB - each iPhone "model" has the same form and design.

The point being, if Apple can capture 20% of the market and get 1/3 of the size of Rim with one "model" in just 2 years, what could they do with an "iPhone mini" or an "iPhone nano"? Recall that when the iPod Mini came out, it instantly became the most popular model, and really vaulted them to dominance in the portable music device space.

A Netbook IS a traditional computer today. I believe that Google or Apple could pull a game-changing design out of their sleeve and change that.

I guess that just goes to show that there are more consumers than there are business folk. The iPod Mini sold well due to it being cheaper and smaller. The only place I think Apple can go for a phone (price wise) is free. Which seems to be against the Apple mantra of price premiums for a premium product. Smaller size isn't as important as making the device too small would force a change in the input (IMHO).

MorphingDragon

Jul 13, 2009, 08:00 PM

Android is such a raging success that Google decided to expand their OS dominance. :D

Lethal

I can't tell if that's sarcasm or not!!!:confused:

clevin

Jul 13, 2009, 09:23 PM

A Netbook IS a traditional computer today. I believe that Google or Apple could pull a game-changing design out of their sleeve and change that.

IDK, game changing design doesn't matter, if users buy a computer that can only do 5 or 10 fixed tasks, google or apple can decorated it like a banana, it still gonna fail.

I don't underestimate users' intelligence, they might enjoy a nice looking UI, but 1) win7 looks nice enough, 2) nice UI need nice function behind it, nobody gonna buy a laptop just for looking rather than using it.

Bubba Satori

Jul 14, 2009, 12:11 AM

nobody gonna buy a laptop just for looking rather than using it.

You'd be surprized how many customers I get who want a pretty laptop, the rest of the stuff they could care less about.

czachorski

Jul 14, 2009, 11:28 AM

IDK, game changing design doesn't matter, if users buy a computer that can only do 5 or 10 fixed tasks, google or apple can decorated it like a banana, it still gonna fail.

I don't underestimate users' intelligence, they might enjoy a nice looking UI, but 1) win7 looks nice enough, 2) nice UI need nice function behind it, nobody gonna buy a laptop just for looking rather than using it.

We shall see (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=744976). I have a feeling such a device will be able to do more than 10 things. Just a hunch.

clevin

Jul 14, 2009, 01:59 PM

You'd be surprized how many customers I get who want a pretty laptop, the rest of the stuff they could care less about.
how many is indeed what the question is. more than 10 million?
We shall see (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=744976). I have a feeling such a device will be able to do more than 10 things. Just a hunch.

yes, I do mention several possibilities, and the prediction of failure is derived from one of the scenarios where googlr OS turn out to be a cloud based web app device.

If what apple were to come up with that thing with a crippled OSX@ $800, it would fail just as much.

mark.mathew8877

Jul 19, 2009, 04:20 PM

If google is really going to introduce something like that i appriciate it.Because microsoft is playing a monopoly game in market.If google can challenge microsoft with their new product than there would be a varity of use in operating system.We can taste something new.Waiting for it.

funkdoctor

Jul 24, 2009, 11:10 AM

Really?

Name them, list their market impact, their share against competing products and their profitability.

Because until you do you sound really ignorant.

Denial. It's not just a river in Egypt. Seigler is merely a fanboy with a typewriter. I wouldn't take him seriously.

No, he was right. They do a lot more than what you listed, and you sounded ignorant. How about Youtube?

Bjohnson33

Jul 27, 2009, 05:20 AM

It will be interesting to see what Google does with this. Some of their services I love (Gmail), and some I just haven't been able to find useful (Google Docs). I find their minimalist design works great for some things, but not so well for others. Guess we'll just have to wait and see.

albusseverus

Aug 4, 2009, 08:01 AM

I for one wouldn't want a Google OS. I already refuse to use Google Apps and Gmail and even Google itself because their data collecting habits are suspicious to me. An entire OS, with my files on their servers to sniff around in as they please... Thank you, but no thank you.

And besides that... Linux... meh... out of all the UNIX/UNIXlike platforms they had to use the sh*ttiest... I'll stick with Apple and PC-BSD thank you very much.
Cheers,

Ahmed

Excellent points. I try to stay away from Google as much as possible. Don't use Gears or cloud services, don't have a Google account - for precisely this reason. The price is too high. We all need to place a proper (much higher) value on our personal data. In the Web 2.0 world, it's all we have to bargain with, and frankly, too many of us give it up too cheaply. And frankly, this devalues everyone's personal data. Google makes billions out of your personal information. Are you sure what they provide is worth that much to you?

iPhone = unix phone. Android = unix phone. No contest.

You can play the same game with computers. It's not the OS that matters, it's the company that tweaks it. Apple just does the best job, at the best price. No really - you waste years of your life, just trying to get other vendor's machines to work. Again, people undervalue themselves for what amounts to only the deposit, not the actual cost of a machine/service.