Google Announces Google Chrome Operating System [Archive]

ipodtoucher

Jul 8, 2009, 12:53 AM

Who saw this coming? I know I did!

Articlehttp://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/08/technology/companies/08operate.html?_r=1&hp

SAN FRANCISCO — In a direct challenge to Microsoft, Google is expected to announce on Wednesday that it is developing an operating system for a personal computer based on its Chrome browser, according to two people briefed on Google’s plans.

The details of the technology could not be learned, but Google plans to make the announcement on a company blog on Wednesday afternoon, this person said.

Google did not immediately return calls and e-mail messages seeking comment.

QuarterSwede

Jul 8, 2009, 12:58 AM

Who saw this coming? I know I did!

Articlehttp://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/08/technology/companies/08operate.html?_r=1&hp
If it's as ugly as Google Apps are then you can count me out. I'm really starting to not like how Google handles certain things (labels, calendar is garbage compared to iCal/Outlook).

TK2K

Jul 8, 2009, 01:01 AM

Who saw this coming? I know I did!

Articlehttp://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/08/technology/companies/08operate.html?_r=1&hp

it's this REALY old news? I swear i saw an alpha screen shot floating around in 2006

Gelfin

Jul 8, 2009, 01:13 AM

A new operating system based on a browser? Isn't that a little like building a new car based on a bucket seat?

str1f3

Jul 8, 2009, 01:45 AM

Beat me to it. Google blog:http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/07/introducing-google-chrome-os.htmlhttp://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/07/introducing-google-chrome-os.html

This is huge. I'm not really a Google fan but all OSs are threatened by this just because it's Google. They are planning to open source the code so it could potentially kill off other Linux distros not to mention throwing down the gauntlet to Microsoft. If I were Apple I'd be a little scared.

You now have Google starting to create an ecosystem with Android, Chrome/OS, Search, Gmail, Gcal, etc. I wonder how long it is before they get hit with antitrust regulations by the gov't.

godslabrat

Jul 8, 2009, 01:59 AM

Abstract

Jul 8, 2009, 02:07 AM

Good. I'm glad. :)

There are a lot of people in the world who only do a few things with a computer, even in today's world:

- Watch porn.
- Check their email.
- browse the web.
- Video streaming via Youtube, Hulu
- listen to music and sync their iPods
- documents and spreadsheets
- organise and edit some photos.
- MSN, Skype, etc.

That covers most tasks for most people. You really don't even need a complex OS like OS X or Windows to do these basic tasks, which is what's funny about OSes getting more complex and feature-filled.

Then there are some programs that are more complex, but just because an OS is designed to be really simple does not mean that more complex software can't run on it. So even something like Photoshop would work, and since Adobe already plans to have an online version of Photoshop (they released a simple version well over a year ago), it's not unbelievable that Google could develop a really simple OS with an improved layout, that would make things simpler for most people.

ipodtoucher

Jul 8, 2009, 02:12 AM

str1f3

Jul 8, 2009, 02:14 AM

News? Really? Seriously?

I've been hearing rumblings of a GoogleOS for years... hasn't everyone? I'm sure MS and Apple have contingency plans for this, and it remains to be seen how much the general public will even notice.

Personally, I find Google products to be reasonable in quality and a fair substitute to Microsoft's offerings, but I typically use them because they're free and convenient, NOT because they're the best. I don't predict I'll be rushing to adopt the GoogleOS as my platform of choice.

Maybe you and I won't but most, if not all who buy Windows don't go looking for the best but what can get the job done at the cheapest price. This will kill off Linux distros which makes me queasy and I don't trust Google with privacy issues.

This almost the equivalent desktop version of the Pre. 90% of what most people do is through the web apps. It's the other 10% that Google may struggle with. Huh I wonder if they'll be an iTunes for Chrome, lol.

Abstract

Jul 8, 2009, 02:24 AM

Yeah I agree, although I do all of that on top of the extras, but that's mainly what I do... My mom just bought a Macbook, but I know that she would have been better with a nice laptop with the Google OS, cause all she does is surf and play games :P

And all my mum does is check her email for specials sent from travel companies (she has signed up for newsletters, thinking that it's email rather than spam :)). She may also check the internet, but usually she doesn't. She rarely takes photos, but when she does, they end up on the computer somewhere.

That's it. Two tasks, and occasionally three. A simple OS would be just fine. If they made different modes such as a "simple" mode, where the desktop an internet browser, even better.

thejadedmonkey

Jul 8, 2009, 02:27 AM

I seriously don't understand. A web OS needs a file system, which means that Google is going to have to provide (lets say) 4 gigs of cloud drive space. Then, lets say that your internet is fast enough to connect to the cloud at a reasonable speed without lag...

So Google gives me a HDD that has a bunch of symbolic links to the cloud, all programs are on the cloud... but I still need to have a file system so I can upload my photo into Photoshop Online's editor...

So basically instead of having a computer that I own, I'll have a computer that (basically) doesn't have a hard drive. Probably I'll need to pay (google) for hosting more then x gigs in the cloud.

This computer can work offline using Google Gears, however because it is based primarily for online usage, I won't be able to run any crazy 3D renderings.

So how I see it, I'll get a Netbook running a flavor of Linux... and it'll take a LOT to convince people that a flavor of linux is better then Windows 7 with Live Mesh installed.

/Rant

MacRumors

Jul 8, 2009, 02:42 AM

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/07/08/google-announces-google-chrome-operating-system/)

Google announced (http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/07/introducing-google-chrome-os.html) that they are getting into the Operating System business with Google Chrome Operating System. The new OS is described as their attempt to "re-think" what operating systems should be.

Google Chrome OS will be an open source, lightweight operating system that is initially targeted at netbooks.Speed, simplicity and security are the key aspects of Google Chrome OS. We're designing the OS to be fast and lightweight, to start up and get you onto the web in a few seconds. The user interface is minimal to stay out of your way, and most of the user experience takes place on the web. And as we did for the Google Chrome browser, we are going back to the basics and completely redesigning the underlying security architecture of the OS so that users don't have to deal with viruses, malware and security updates. It should just work.The new OS will run on both x86 and ARM chips. The first netbooks will begin shipping with the OS in the second half of 2010. In the long term. Google does expect that Chrome OS will work anywhere from small netbooks to full size desktop machines.

While Microsoft has the most to lose from such direct competition from Google, Apple will also be affected by Google's move into this space. In fact, Google's ultimate goal seems to be the same target market as Apple's. They are specifically shooting for ease of use and accessibility:Speed, simplicity and security are the key aspects of Google Chrome OS. We're designing the OS to be fast and lightweight, to start up and get you onto the web in a few seconds. The user interface is minimal to stay out of your way, and most of the user experience takes place on the web. And as we did for the Google Chrome browser, we are going back to the basics and completely redesigning the underlying security architecture of the OS so that users don't have to deal with viruses, malware and security updates. It should just work.The Web will be a central part of the new operating system, and demonstrates the importance of supplying a robust browser experience. Google's work on the Chrome browser will carry over into the new OS.

Article Link: Google Announces Google Chrome Operating System (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/07/08/google-announces-google-chrome-operating-system/)

the Helix

Jul 8, 2009, 02:44 AM

It's great for Google to give Apple competition. It will only mean better operating systems for us all.

sdsvtdriver

Jul 8, 2009, 02:45 AM

everything is always circular.

dumb terminal to pc back to dumb terminal 2009.

bug67

Jul 8, 2009, 02:46 AM

Sounds like a good idea to me. I'd love a no bloat, run on anything OS.

Phormic

Jul 8, 2009, 02:46 AM

Wow. Just wow.

What an incredibly brave move. The computer OS market is so entrenched and difficult to enter and Google is now going after Microsoft's bottom end.

The empire is slowly crumbling.

LloydBraun89

Jul 8, 2009, 02:47 AM

maybe this is a dumb question , but what type of foundation or architecture is it based on, or is it completely new?

darijoe

Jul 8, 2009, 02:48 AM

Oh my goodness! :eek: This could be the biggest tech announcement this year!! Go Google!

LethalWolfe

Jul 8, 2009, 02:49 AM

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

Lethal

Kamera RAWr

Jul 8, 2009, 02:49 AM

It'll be great to see what comes of it! Apple doesn't have to have (or appear to have) the monopoly on innovation when it comes to operating systems.

applefan69

Jul 8, 2009, 02:49 AM

dfnj123

Jul 8, 2009, 02:50 AM

Anyone hoping a new version of bootcamp support this OS in the future :rolleyes:

Cassie

Jul 8, 2009, 02:51 AM

I'm pretty sure everyone saw this coming...but I'm reluctant to place my data in the hands of such a rapidly expanding company...

applefan69

Jul 8, 2009, 02:51 AM

Anyone hoping a new version of bootcamp support this OS in the future :rolleyes:

I dont know if your kidding, but I would only think that would happen if it came to the point where this chrome OS was popular enough that apple needed to say macs could run it, for the sake of marketing macs.

ToM-RSC

Jul 8, 2009, 02:51 AM

MacAndy74

Jul 8, 2009, 02:53 AM

talkingfuture

Jul 8, 2009, 02:53 AM

This is potentially massive news. I would imagine that MS and Apple's feathers will be ruffled slightly by this and that the likes of Dell and HP will be quite excited.

chr1s60

Jul 8, 2009, 02:54 AM

This will be interesting to see. I really don't think it will be extremely popular though. I still think the ultimate goal of Google is to own all computer related technology.

inkswamp

Jul 8, 2009, 02:54 AM

Years ago when Gmail first came out and i was "wowed" by how great it was compared to both Hotmail, and Yahoo I remember saying to my friends:

"When google does something... they usually do it right and i wont be surprised to see a google OS one day and with that said ill bet money that the OS will be very good as well"

I've got nothing against Google, but let's not get carried away here. They've had their share of crappy ideas (http://www.pcworld.com/article/146101/top_10_google_flubs_flops_and_failures.html). They are quick to abandon these things however so it's probably why there is a perception that they can't fail.

This is potentially massive news. I would imagine that MS and Apple's feathers will be ruffled slightly by this and that the likes of Dell and HP will be quite excited.

Why would Dell or HP be excited about this? Because it's a cheap alternative? Linux is already a cheap alternative to Windows and getting either of them to sell PCs with it pre-installed is like pulling teeth.

PC makers, it seems to me, have been hurt enormously in the last few years because of their past willingness to fight for the low-end market to such an extent that they undercut the perceived value of their product. I don't think any of them are looking to continue that direction. I don't think this is going to be as easy for Google as some of you do.

Seems to me that the Google Chrome OS will firstly compete on Netbooks - where Apple doesn't have a product, but where Microsoft has it's Windows XP and Windows 7 systems pre-installed. So at least at the moment it's Google taking on Microsoft. :eek:

Apple doesn't have a netbook per se but they do have the iPhone which appears to fill many of the needs of those seeking netbooks. Personally, I doubt netbooks are selling as well as some would have us believe. I don't know anyone who owns one. I haven't seen any on the store shelves and I have heard no talk where I work of the benefits of using them. I don't see where they fit in or what purpose they serve in any compelling way.

Peace

Jul 8, 2009, 02:56 AM

Sounds like Mark Andreesens vision of a cloudOS is coming to fruition. And to think. Microsoft was afraid of this concept many years ago.

applefan69

Jul 8, 2009, 02:57 AM

Unless Google add windows program compatibility out of the box, their system will fail. If it's based on Linux, grats to them, but for ease of use for customers, I doubt that it will be wanted - their used to the Windows ways of things.

I agree that introduction and acceptance will be slow. BUT years ago before apple made a come back the general populations opinion was "there is no other OS" only thing people really knew of was windows.

BUT now its pretty common knowledge that linux is out there as an alterntive, and of course everyone knows about OS X.

Linux hasnt "caught on" mostly due to the hassle of getting everything working just right. No matter how simple people claim versions of linux, such as Ubuntu, have become, Linux is still a bit of a b**** to get it running with the convienence and overall "greatness" that users are used to in commercial OS's such as windows or OS X. Now even for those that can handle or dont mind that hassle, the sad truth is that linux just doesnt offer enough advantages to justify the trouble it can cause.

So what i mean is, assuming this google OS has been designed specifically to be quick and easy to install and have running smoothly, and hopefully google innovates enough for consumers to have a TRUE reason to use chrome OS instead of windows or OSX then this chrome could truly catch on.

Setien

Jul 8, 2009, 02:59 AM

dumb terminal to pc back to dumb terminal 2009.

To be fair, you're just assuming that it will be a dumb terminal - it's not like they've said "the OS will be a web-browser", is it? :)

Even if the apps are made with web-tech, the rich web applications of today are mostly running on the client, even if the code is being served from the server.

na1577

Jul 8, 2009, 02:59 AM

It should just work.

That sounds a bit familiar, doesn't it?

localoid

Jul 8, 2009, 03:00 AM

Forgive my lack of paranoia, but this sounds like a good thing.

countdrachma

Jul 8, 2009, 03:00 AM

I do like Google but aren't they getting too big already? The domination of Microsoft is the reason they are pretty much hated. Google is in the same sphere as Microsoft; M$ owns the OS, Google own the online world. Marry that up with an OS (granted I doubt it would ever be as big as M$) and they really would be Big Brother. Makes me nervous ....

vjl323

Jul 8, 2009, 03:05 AM

maybe this is a dumb question , but what type of foundation or architecture is it based on, or is it completely new?

Read the blog entry and find out. :)

[hint: it's something this guy Linus created in the early 90s].

:-)

/vjl/

talkingfuture

Jul 8, 2009, 03:10 AM

Why would Dell or HP be excited about this? Because it's a cheap alternative? Linux is already a cheap alternative to Windows and getting either of them to sell PCs with it pre-installed is like pulling teeth.

PC makers, it seems to me, have been hurt enormously in the last few years because of their past willingness to fight for the low-end market to such an extent that they undercut the perceived value of their product. I don't think any of them are looking to continue that direction. I don't think this is going to be as easy for Google as some of you do.

Most people are put off Linux because it all seems a bit too geeky and specialist, they are happy with what they know. They already know and use Google so that barrier is broken down already.

mdriftmeyer

Jul 8, 2009, 03:14 AM

It's great for Google to give Apple competition. It will only mean better operating systems for us all.

It's not competition for Apple. It's a custom Linux Distribution for Cloud Computing which will target the Enterprise.

macintoshtoffy

Jul 8, 2009, 03:15 AM

To be fair, you're just assuming that it will be a dumb terminal - it's not like they've said "the OS will be a web-browser", is it? :)

Even if the apps are made with web-tech, the rich web applications of today are mostly running on the client, even if the code is being served from the server.

It reminds me of the Netwinder/JavaStation/NetComputer from around a decade ago - nice ideas but never took off because the idea of being reliant on company to take care of your data is rather worrying, especially when it comes to security, portability and the fact that it is creepy that some organisation has control over your data rather than it being physically in your own hands.

The internet can compliment and used as a tool for collaboration but it is delusional to think that it could replace the desktop operating system with some sort of stripped down OS with a browser ontop.

weckart

Jul 8, 2009, 03:20 AM

Truffy

Jul 8, 2009, 03:24 AM

The quote from Google is so informative that it needs to be repeated? :D

illegallydead

Jul 8, 2009, 03:26 AM

Very interesting news. I am excited to see what direction this will go in as the OS develops. Props to them, but I too see this being hard to get adopted. These days, as people have mentioned, the OS would have to be pre-installed to get any sort of user base, and that will be hard to do when you have to fight PC vendors to do it, and fight consumers to pick a new OS they don't know over Windows, which is very very much so engrained...

bladehavoc

Jul 8, 2009, 03:28 AM

The first question I have is how will this make any money for Google? After all, development costs, particularly OS development does not come cheaply. Will it scan your emails/browsing history to bring you specially selected 'sponsor announcements'? Will it lock you out of certain sites in places like China or Iran?

No offence, but I cannot see OEMs rushing to put this on their netbooks if they have to pay for it, since they can get Windows for a pittance (as long as they lock out the opposition) and people will shy away from a freebie if it is tied to advertising, since there are already other free alternatives.

Google is a business, not an altruistic charity. What is its real motivation for this OS?

It's open source, so that'll lessen the development costs. Plus, having Chrome developed already would give them a huge head start on development. I don't imagine that an open source kernel (linux) combined with an open source browser (chromium/chrome) to create an open source OS would cost that much for Google.

If Google has any sense at all, they would give a user option to disable any tracking done for the benefit of Google. As for advertising, I don't see Google Chrome butting in every second with some Google supported ads, and seeing as this OS is supposed to be a complete web-based experience, if their standalone browser isn't obtrusive, I don't see why their OS would be.

I wouldn't know their motivation though, if it's truly FOSS. Probably the same motivation, if any, as the idea behind Chrome, seeing as they're practically identical projects.

ashishhcl

Jul 8, 2009, 03:29 AM

Apple OS is used by people for its heavyweight rich gui based apps. This lightweight simple os can be targetted for naive users, who use internet for email, general browsing etc

gonnabuyamac

Jul 8, 2009, 03:35 AM

it could be interesting, and i think it will initially have a lot of adopters because it's google. my guess is that it will struggle much like linux has to have wide adoption for a variety of reasons:

software - that's the big one. if it can't do MS Word, the Adobe suite, or other major software, it will never become more than a toy for people who really hate 'the establishment' :rolleyes: (i realize there are open source alternatives, but for the most part they're not entirely viable)

security - imagine if everything you owned/did on your computer & the web was tied to a Google account. that's a hacker's fantasy world.

familiarity - that's why microsoft is still huge.

business - it's a combination of the above, but if businesses have been slow to let go of XP, how fast do you think they'll be willing to jump ship to an entirely different OS? (Apple even has a hard time making significant headway with this - though they are making inroads)

There are other reasons for sure, but even with that said, I think a Chrome OS could have some serious potential for netbooks, and provide a great way to spread technology through third world countries... and hopefully they'll light a fire under Apple to continue innovating, and for MS to continue copying and tweaking :D

Full of Win

Jul 8, 2009, 03:35 AM

Given the data mining that Google does with GMail, one wonders what they will do when they control the whole freakin' OS.

johnnyjibbs

Jul 8, 2009, 03:52 AM

For how long will Google CEO Eric Schmidt be on Apple's board?

rheuter

Jul 8, 2009, 03:52 AM

Given the data mining that Google does with GMail, one wonders what they will do when they control the whole freakin' OS.

Then what they said in 1984 will becomes reality in 26 years, except it is not IBM...

http://www.audioholics.com/news/editorials/iphone-apple-sold-out/Ad_apple_1984_2.jpg

ziggyonice

Jul 8, 2009, 03:54 AM

I love both Google and Apple... what am I going to do?! :confused:

SeaFox

Jul 8, 2009, 03:54 AM

It should just work.That sounds a bit familiar, doesn't it?
Yeah, but it wont happen. It's obviously going to be built on some stripped down Linux, and we know how well Linux "just works" on stuff.

katewes

Jul 8, 2009, 03:59 AM

The tuaw.com article said the Chrome OS is based on Linux. Now, if that's the case, wouldn't it change the picture if Chrome OS can run all Linux software.

If so, then on one hand, it'll have an established base of applications, including Open Office.

But, on the other hand, if it's just another flavor of Linux -- what is it's reason for existence (raison d'etre - for non Frenchies).

Personally -- as an Apple fan - I welcome anything that gives Apple some competition because right now, Apple (or should I say, Steve Jobs and his followers) are acting like a bunch of IBM-reincarnated Big Brother henchmen -- forcing upon us their sole version of computing, and removing all reasonable options. The biggest one being the removal of matte screens. Then there's the removal of Firewire, which they relented.

Then there's the loss of replacement batteries -- which is not good for anyone who is far away from a power outlet for longer than say 6-8 hours. Everyone claims that only a minority of people buy spare batteries -- but I've been buying replacement batteries for all the notebook/laptop computers I've owned for over a decade.

And then there's Apple's disdain for its iPhone developers, particularly in the early days, where its own NDA was reported as almost Draconian.

I don't particularly care for Google's graphics skills, e.g. Android's klunky appearance, Gmail's cartoon interface etc. and it'd quite a lot to get me away from Mac OSX -- but the deal breaker could be the lack of matte screen. I just want someone to give Apple a good kick up the other side, and Google are just the people to do it nicely.

Be scared, Apple, so that you don't keep treating your customers with contempt.

intel

Jul 8, 2009, 04:00 AM

A new operating system based on a browser? Isn't that a little like building a new car based on a bucket seat?

not really, if it ends up having an audi engine with an porsche chasis

ncollingridge

Jul 8, 2009, 04:00 AM

if it can't do MS Word, the Adobe suite, or other major software, it will never become more than a toy for people who really hate 'the establishment'

I think you're totally missing the point of this product. It's designed as a portal to the web, not as a platform to run applications. However this does mean that it will be able to run all the online apps that are flooding into the market, including apps that have Office- and Adobe Suite-like functionality. It's a brave and essentially next (3rd if one counts DOS as 1st and GUI as 2nd) generation move - reducing the functionality of the OS to a minimum (with corresponding benefits in terms of security, stability and demand on the performance of the hardware), with all the sophistication coming from code that sits up on the web.

Apple absolutely does have a product in this space, even though their approach is somewhat different. The iPhone OS is intended to perform an entirely equivalent function, but it is more like a 2.5 generation product - reduced footprint compared to a full-blown OS, but still with a ton of functionality built in.

I guess that the main disadvantage of the Apple approach is that it still requires a lot of hardware (and hence power) overhead to run, although as modern hardware becomes ever more powerful, at the same time as becoming more efficient, this may not be a show-stopping problem. It does mean that Apple devices will probably be a bit bigger and heavier, but they are not that big and heavy as it is.

But I can imagine that a Chrome OS tablet could be much slimmer and have a much longer battery life than an Apple device, although there will be more data going backwards and forwards over a Chrome OS connection to the web than for an Apple device which may redress the balance.

This is a truly fascinating and potentially epoch-shifting announcement for the way in which computer devices are structured. Or it may be a damp squib. It will be fun to see which way it goes...

OllyW

Jul 8, 2009, 04:01 AM

Apple doesn't have a netbook per se but they do have the iPhone which appears to fill many of the needs of those seeking netbooks. Personally, I doubt netbooks are selling as well as some would have us believe. I don't know anyone who owns one. I haven't seen any on the store shelves and I have heard no talk where I work of the benefits of using them. I don't see where they fit in or what purpose they serve in any compelling way.

I don't know how well they are selling or know anyone who has bought them but I've seen plenty of them in the stores.

They are pushing them everywhere in the UK, obviously in computer and electrical stores but also in mobile phone shops and supermarkets. There are also lots of sign up to mobile broadband and get a netbook free deals on offer.

chewietobbacca

Jul 8, 2009, 04:06 AM

It's a big announcement for google...

Which also means that it can be a potentially big dud if it isn't ready to meet its objective

Personally, I thought Chrome wasn't anywhere close to the hype people were giving it, and I wouldn't be surprised if this was similar

I see this as a challenge to both MS and Apple in different ways - MS for the general purpose use of an OS, and Apple for the allure/hype factor (I hate to admit it, but Google gets as much hype and branding as Apple out there these days, which will surely hurt Apple's claim as being the only anti-MS game in town)

edit: Actually, given its first iteration I see, it's definitely meant more as a complimentary product until the technology becomes available where entire OS's can be on cloud computing

MattInOz

Jul 8, 2009, 04:06 AM

Apple OS is used by people for its heavyweight rich gui based apps. This lightweight simple os can be targetted for naive users, who use internet for email, general browsing etc

That was my first reaction to.
It is a competitor just not an aggressive one.

It will be a complimentary Competitor.
It will open up as much or more new market to Apple than it will take away. After all if enterprise adopts this and moves services to Web hosted or HTLM5 apps. Then Apple is a drop in when more power is needed. Where currently they might be ruled out due to custom Windows only management systems.

At the same time it will have the same effect for everyone but Windows.

nostaws

Jul 8, 2009, 04:08 AM

software - that's the big one. if it can't do MS Word, the Adobe suite, or other major software, it will never become more than a toy for people who really hate 'the establishment' :rolleyes: (i realize there are open source alternatives, but for the most part they're not entirely viable)

I think you miss the point of "Netbooks." Netbooks already can't use the adobe suite, or some other kinds of software, and even Office is a little slow on them. If you need to use these apps regularly, you definitely don't want to buy a netbook.

Netbooks are great. My sister carries hers in her purse, and takes it everywhere. They are dirt cheap $200+. But they don't replace a desktop, or more powerful laptop, and are priced as such.

Also, I know some pro photographers who take them on assignment to foreign countries because of their size. They use them to basically backup, store, and view photos (no major photo editing), until they can get back home.

Also, everything is "MS Word" compatible these days. Google offers an office suite equivalent online. It isn't too bad.

4D4M

Jul 8, 2009, 04:12 AM

I love both Google and Apple... what am I going to do?! :confused:

Given that Apple is in bed with Google, I'd guess they won't make it too difficult to run both OSs on your MacBook.

After all, they let people pollute their Macs with that other OS from the evil empire...

Chintan100

Jul 8, 2009, 04:21 AM

All this means is more work for developers.

A different breed of developers will evolve.

Like Apple did it with iPhone development, Google may just do it with cloud computing.

MH01

Jul 8, 2009, 04:22 AM

Apple OS is used by people for its heavyweight rich gui based apps. This lightweight simple os can be targetted for naive users, who use internet for email, general browsing etc

hmmm, where do you think all those current naive users end up now? Once these people get the £$!$!!%% with M$, they switch to apple and love the experience cause it is alot simpler. I actually believe that alot of apple users just have vanilla computer needs, most only user thier machines for light needs, heck most think ilife is all they need.....

I believe apple has alot to lose here. Currently "naive" users have little choice, but enter chrome, which will run on much cheaper hardware.... I think u can see where i am heading.

MH01

Jul 8, 2009, 04:24 AM

Chase R

Jul 8, 2009, 04:25 AM

I can't wait to see what it's like... Probably a lot like Linux. I see this as more of a threat to MS than Apple (since Apple's hardware is tied to OS X).

nubero

Jul 8, 2009, 04:36 AM

let's start a competition on what the working title of this project could be:

-NoPOS (No Privacy OS)

-GiMAYD OS (Give Me All Your Data OS)

-Gestapo OS

Hey, this is fun!

cerote

Jul 8, 2009, 04:37 AM

Given that Apple is in bed with Google, I'd guess they won't make it too difficult to run both OSs on your MacBook.

After all, they let people pollute their Macs with that other OS from the evil empire...

This is why you don't see Google targeting Apple. They have a relationship, also if they turned their back on them all the sudden then Apple could sue for trade secrets probably. Watch it end up being like ATT and many other companies. The big company lets the small guy move around then jump in and buyout. Get called monopoly then split and buy back later on.

almost30boohoo1

Jul 8, 2009, 04:39 AM

KingYaba

Jul 8, 2009, 04:44 AM

Consider me excited.

BongoBanger

Jul 8, 2009, 04:50 AM

Evangelion

Jul 8, 2009, 05:03 AM

maybe this is a dumb question , but what type of foundation or architecture is it based on, or is it completely new?

The announcement says this:

"Google Chrome OS will run on both x86 as well as ARM chips and we are working with multiple OEMs to bring a number of netbooks to market next year. The software architecture is simple — Google Chrome running within a new windowing system on top of a Linux kernel."

It wouldn't make much sense for Google to create a totally new system, when they already have a robust and widely-used system available in Linux. Especially since they already have lots and lots of in-house Linux-expertise. They employ Andrew Morton, the Number 2 of Linux-kernel hackers (After Linus Torvalds)

Unless Google add windows program compatibility out of the box, their system will fail. If it's based on Linux, grats to them, but for ease of use for customers, I doubt that it will be wanted - their used to the Windows ways of things.

If it needs to be Windows-compatible and be similar to Windows, then how exactly do you explain the growing popularity of OS X? you can't run Windows-apps in OS X, and the way OS X works is quite different to Windows, yet that doesn't seem to stop OS X from gaining popularity. Hell, even Linux has been gaining popularity recently.

Fact is that Windows is not the only way of doing things, and people will use different OS'es if it helps them do the things they want to do.

tabasco70

Jul 8, 2009, 05:06 AM

sounds great.
im pretty sure google will be able to cook up a great OS,
and giving apple competition will mean that the Mac will hopefully become better than ever before.

chewietobbacca

Jul 8, 2009, 05:13 AM

I see this as more of a threat to MS than Apple (since Apple's hardware is tied to OS X).

I don't see how that matters in the realm of computers. Apple's hardware is the same as everyone else's out there right now - if anything, this should be a big point of concern to Apple - Google's OS priced on cheaper hardware might start pulling those customers who just want a simple OS experience, but dont want to pay extra for Apple, and since the hardware is the same but Google OS is now available on a wide variety of OEMs we could see some serious undercutting going on here

BongoBanger

Jul 8, 2009, 05:14 AM

If it needs to be Windows-compatible and be similar to Windows, then how exactly do you explain the growing popularity of OS X? you can't run Windows-apps in OS X, and the way OS X works is quite different to Windows, yet that doesn't seem to stop OS X from gaining popularity. Hell, even Linux has been gaining popularity recently.

Fact is that Windows is not the only way of doing things, and people will use different OS'es if it helps them do the things they want to do.

Yup, that global market share increase of about 1-2% over the last two years really has MS worried. As for Linux as a desktop solution: no-one really cares.

I like OS X but it'll never compete against Windows in the mass market.

sushi

Jul 8, 2009, 05:16 AM

Concept is interesting.

Seems like to use the OS, you will need Internet connectivity. This will limit use in some cases.

Not sure if I want my data on line controlled by Google.

sharkinfested

Jul 8, 2009, 05:18 AM

Great. Another minority OS that will completely fail to capture the market.

Google: you do search, photo management, maps and mail. You're good at these things. Everything else you do sucks and this will be no exception.

Agreed. There are already so many small operating systems out there and they don’t go anywhere. The problem really isn’t with these platforms either. Many of them are fast and stable, the problem is with the lack of decent applications. What good is an OS that doesn’t have any programs?
Lets be honest, Windows is the top OS simply due to the sheer volume of programs that are written for it Apple is number two because they have the next largest library of software titles.
This is the same reason all the “iPhone killer” cell phones fail. The iPhone has 56,000 apps. It doesn’t matter how cool any new phone is, if they don’t come with 56,000 apps then they will NOT kill the iPhone.

xUKHCx

Jul 8, 2009, 05:22 AM

Seems to me that the Google Chrome OS will firstly compete on Netbooks - where Apple doesn't have a product, but where Microsoft has it's Windows XP and Windows 7 systems pre-installed. So at least at the moment it's Google taking on Microsoft. :eek:

By 2010 apple could well have a product in that market. In fact I would be surprised if they didn't.

Concept is interesting.

Seems like to use the OS, you will need Internet connectivity. This will limit use in some cases.

Not sure if I want my data on line controlled by Google.

I doubt it will be solely reliant on the internet, look at gmail you can now use it in off line mode. And the upcoming html5 spec has scope for client side storage

The client-side database storage API allows web applications to store structured data locally using a medium many web developers are already familiar with - SQL.Source (http://webkit.org/blog/126/webkit-does-html5-client-side-database-storage/)

Google Chrome OS running Google Wave seems like it will be very interesting for portable netbook needs. That said for me if I were to get a netbook ideally it would sync seemlessly with my main computer.

Evangelion

Jul 8, 2009, 05:24 AM

Great. Another minority OS that will completely fail to capture the market.

What do you expect? That "alternative OS'es" need to instantly get double-digit market-shares, or they are failures? Hell, OS X has been beating Windows in stability, features and functionality for years, and it too is still limited to under 10% market-share!

Google: you do search, photo management, maps and mail. You're good at these things. Everything else you do sucks and this will be no exception.

Few years ago it was "Google, stick to searching, everything else you do sucks!", then it was "Stick to search and photo management!". Then it was "search, photomanagement and maps", then it was "search, photomanagement, maps and email". Then we got "search, photomanagement, maps, email and browser". Now its "search, photomanagement, maps, email and phone-OS". It seems to me that Google has been pretty successful at bringing new stuff to market. Have ALL their stuff been successful? Of course not. But to say that all their new stuff sucks is quite dumb thing to say.

Had Google followed your advice right from the start, we would not have all those great things today (maps, gmail etc.), since when they were launched, we could have said "stick o searching, you are good at that".

Besides, Microsoft is now directly competing with Google, and they are doing that with the money they get from Windows. Eroding the dominance of Windows benefits Google's search-business as well.

CountBrass

Jul 8, 2009, 05:25 AM

"When google does something... they usually do it right and i wont be surprised to see a google OS one day and with that said ill bet money that the OS will be very good as well"

That's interesting because my reaction was almost exactly the opposite. I think Google's Chrome is a remarkably ugly and clunky web browser: very much state of the art 10 years ago.

Specifically regarding Google mail and the Chrome OS: wild horses couldn't drag me into trusting my data to Google. For two reasons: firstly under US law the company owns *your* data and can do whatever the hell they like with it (in marked contrast with EU law which is almost the exact opposite) and because Google have demonstrated they are quite prepared to (ab)use their customer's data.

Edward

mac jones

Jul 8, 2009, 05:28 AM

They will advertise simplicity and ease of use and people will by it and later discover that they can't run some program and they will not be happy with Google

Just as people are finding out with the Linux netbooks, but with Linux there's no one to blame except themselves (or the place they bought it)

Evangelion

Jul 8, 2009, 05:30 AM

Yup, that global market share increase of about 1-2% over the last two years really has MS worried. As for Linux as a desktop solution: no-one really cares.

People who use Linux on the desktop do care ;).

I like OS X but it'll never compete against Windows in the mass market.

It will, it has been gaining popularity. But the point is that desktop-OS is an EXTREMELY entrenched market where it's very hard to gain market-share even if you have superior product. Just look at OS X. It's superior in just about every way, and even it has had difficulties at eroding Windows'es dominance. And it had the benefit of having existing userbase with all those OS9-users, Linux had to start from nothing. Since OS X was released, it has gained.... what, 4-5 percentage-points in market-share? That just shows how hard it is to go anywhere in this market.

CountBrass

Jul 8, 2009, 05:31 AM

not really, if it ends up having an audi engine with an porsche chasis

You mean like this abomination Porsche 924 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porsche_924)?

Personally I'd rather have a Porsche engine and a Porsche chassis.... oh wait, I do ;).

CountBrass

Jul 8, 2009, 05:35 AM

Texas: illegally acquired; universally admired.

Just curious, are you using "universally" here in the same that you Americans use "World" to describe your sports competitions, i.e. to mean "me and a couple of mates"?

BongoBanger

Jul 8, 2009, 05:36 AM

Hell, OS X has been beating Windows in stability, features and functionality for years, and it too is still limited to under 10% market-share!

Thanks. That gave me the biggest laugh of the day. I use them both and like the qualities they bring but please don't make ridiculous blanket statements like that if you want to be taken seriously.

But to say that all their new stuff sucks is quite dumb thing to say.

Except it actually does. Google Docs is, frankly, hopeless as a data management solution for example. You seem to assuem that the word 'Google' carries a badge of quality. It doesn't.

Besides, Microsoft is now directly competing with Google, and they are doing that with the money they get from Windows. Eroding the dominance of Windows benefits Google's search-business as well.

Uh, Google are competing - or trying to compete - with Microsoft and Apple here. Ask yourself this - if Google do bring out a safe, stable consumer orientated OS that works on multiple hardware configurations then what do you think that'll do to Apple's market given that Apple primarily cater to consumers not enterprise?

People who use Linux on the desktop do care ;).

And their numbers are so small as to be inconsequential. I know. I'm one of them.

It will, it has been gaining popularity.

1-2% over 2 years against the poorest received MS OS for a decade? No, it won't.

Just look at OS X. It's superior in just about every way, and even it has had difficulties at eroding Windows'es dominance.

Probably because it actually isn't superior in every way unless you count locked in, non 64 bit solutions to be superior. Windows is 'superior' because it's flexible accross multiple platform configurations in multiple software environments. When OS X can do that you might have a case.

Better on purpose designed hardware in a restricted operating environment isn't 'superior' unless we're talking a consumer based environment where it actually might be at least for quite a number of people.

And it had the benefit of having existing userbase with all those OS9-users, Linux had to start from nothing. Since OS X was released, it has gained.... what, 4-5 percentage-points in market-share? That just shows how hard it is to go anywhere in this market.

Globally it's less than two percentage points.

Evangelion

Jul 8, 2009, 05:46 AM

They will advertise simplicity and ease of use and people will by it and later discover that they can't run some program and they will not be happy with Google

You mean like all those people who get a Mac, only to discover that their Windows-apps don't work anymore?

Just as people are finding out with the Linux netbooks, but with Linux there's no one to blame except themselves (or the place they bought it)

The thing with Linux on the netbooks is quite interesting. It's a textbook example of OEM-incompetence, MS-bullying and FUD. To be exact:

OEM incompetence: OEM's had the option of using existing Linux-distributions (Ubuntu, Fedora etc.) with existing infrastructure (application-repositories, automatic updates etc.) and UI's that had had a lot of man-years poured in to them. But instead of using those, they created their own systems that barely worked at all. They snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.

Microsoft bullying: When Netbooks took off, they all basically ran Linux. MS panicked and dumbed XP on the market (after spending a lot of time and energy trying to replace it with Vista), and bullied OEM in to using it, instead of using Linux. OEMs made a 180 degree turn so fast that it's incredible. You can be pretty damn sure that it was a combination of dumbing and threats. Hell, I actually wanted to buy a Linux-netbook, but supply of those was very limited. Is it really surprising that people don't buy Linux-netbooks, if they are not available?

FUD: Some netbook-manufacturer (was it Asus?) made a press-release where they whined that no-one wanted Linux, and users who bought the Linux-version were returning it in droves. And people drew the conclusion that it's basically Linux'es fault. But when they asked Dell about it, they said that their Linux-netbooks had similar return-rates as their Windows-models had. The thing is that Dell used a standard Linux-distro, whereas the OEM who made the original complaint used their own half-baked system. People returned their Linux-netbooks because they sucked, but people who bought Dell-netbooks did no return them, since they did not suck. Basically OEM screwed up, but instead of blaming themselves, they blamed Linux.

ajbrehm

Jul 8, 2009, 05:46 AM

"Google" is a good name for a search engine, but does it strike you as a good name for an operating system maker?

But then again, "Micro-Soft" and "Apple" were also cute and stupid names when they were new. Would people who bought from "International Business Machines" or "Digital Equipment Corporation" have thought that one day they'd buy all their computing needs from companies with "micro" in their name or, worse, named after a fruit?

Weirdness...

Jayomat

Jul 8, 2009, 05:54 AM

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

android is well adopted... plenty new android based smartphones are going to be released by major manufacturers in the upcoming month.

besides, there ARE MANY things which can be easily accomplished with Android which is not possible with Iphone OS. it is "totally" open, all apps can "talk" to each other without any restriction. every core function is avaible for your app....(be sure to understand that im talking about the non-jalbreak version, which is what "most" of iphone-owner's use. correct me if im wrong here...) Android is easy to develop for, it uses JAVA, which is much easier to handle for "beginners" than Obj-C....

frabber

Jul 8, 2009, 05:55 AM

Yes we have been there before , and yes it failed, but we are now witnessing more apis shift towards web technology (think RIA) which will replace desktop apis. With smart caching it will be as fast as we are used to but with the added benefits of Web (always up to date, on demand apps).
The timing is right to start replacing things by RIA apps and lightweight OS-s.
BUT, you have to just like apple does get things right in order for it become BIG. The whole experience should be butter sweet. Leave out what's not needed, do bring in what's needed. That's an art that is independent of technology and I am not sure if Google is good at doing just that...

Full of Win

Jul 8, 2009, 05:55 AM

Imagine this scenario...

You have a digital SLR, say a Canon 50D, the Google OS will read the data from your photographs and determine you take a lot of pictures at full zoom using the kit lens. Given this data, the web browser will target ads from Amazon for Canon Zoom lenses in the 100+ mm range.

Wow, what a future we might be living in. :(

edesignuk

Jul 8, 2009, 05:55 AM

Don't know quite what to make of this, but it will be interesting to see what happens.

Bonte

Jul 8, 2009, 06:01 AM

Then there are some programs that are more complex, but just because an OS is designed to be really simple does not mean that more complex software can't run on it. So even something like Photoshop would work, and since Adobe already plans to have an online version of Photoshop (they released a simple version well over a year ago), it's not unbelievable that Google could develop a really simple OS with an improved layout, that would make things simpler for most people.

A complex OS also has complex API's, core graphics and other helpful services so the developer doesn't need to program everything. the Chrome OS is basically the old networked computer, finally.

Evangelion

Jul 8, 2009, 06:01 AM

Thanks. That gave me the biggest laugh of the day. I use them both and like the qualities they bring but please don't make ridiculous blanket statements like that if you want to be taken seriously.

Comparing Vista to OS X is a non-starter. Hell, most people think that XP is better than Vista!

Except it actually does.

please don't make ridiculous blanket statements like that if you want to be taken seriously.

Google Docs is, frankly, hopeless as a data management solution for example. You seem to assuem that the word 'Google' carries a badge of quality. It doesn't.

Did I claim that everything they do is gold? No I did not. And even Google Docs have it's uses, but it might not be a replacement for dedicated word-processor.

Uh, Google are competing - or trying to compete - with Microsoft and Apple here.

Apple is primarily a hardware-company. OS X is a selling-point for their hardware.

And their numbers are so small as to be inconsequential. I know. I'm one of them.

Every product has a tiny market-share at some point.

1-2% over 2 years against the poorest received MS OS for a decade? No, it won't.

Like I said, it has been gaining popularity. The thing is that this market is extremely entrenched. You can't really be 100% compatible with the other OS'es out there, and if one of those OS'es has 90+% market-share, it's very very hard to gain any market-share against them. The fact that both OS X and Linux has been able to pull it off, is quite telling.

Probably because it actually isn't superior in every way unless you count locked in, non 64 bit solutions to be superior.

OS X is 64bits in ways that matter, and it's doing that in all versions, as opposed to some special 64bit version of the OS. And 64bitness is a means to an end, not the end of means.

Windows is 'superior' because it's flexible accross multiple platform configurations in multiple software environments.

Then by that logic, Linux is even better. It works in just about every configuration out there, across several architectures, and you instantly have thousands of apps available to you after you install your OS....

Better on purpose designed hardware in a restricted operating environment isn't 'superior' unless we're talking a consumer based environment where it actually might be at least for quite a number of people.

How is OS X operating environment "restricted"? And are you one of those who think that only enterprise-market matters?

Globally it's less than two percentage points.

Actually, I think it's about 4-5% globally, while having about 8-9% in the US.

sushi

Jul 8, 2009, 06:03 AM

I doubt it will be solely reliant on the internet, look at gmail you can now use it in off line mode.
I agree with you in that I doubt it will be solely reliant on the Internet. What I am wondering is if you will need an Internet connection to get the full feature functionality with applications. My guess would be yes.

Hopefully I am wrong in that assumption.

Don't know quite what to make of this, but it will be interesting to see what happens.
That much is certain.

As we become more web and cloud centric, while I like the Mac OS, having other options is nice.

djellison

Jul 8, 2009, 06:08 AM

Why would anyone say this is a negative story?

Great news - it'll be fascinating to see what they come up with.

mabaker

Jul 8, 2009, 06:12 AM

And I'm more than sure Apple has already an answer to that up their sleeve.

No worries, at least Google OS might well have been a good wake up call for Apple to deliver something truly innovative.

miniConvert

Jul 8, 2009, 06:15 AM

A truly web based computer OS will be awesome. It will liberate cheap computers, for sure, where M$'s bloated operating systems are a hindrance rather than a help.

Will Google succeed? Well, that's a different question altogether.

OllyW

Jul 8, 2009, 06:20 AM

Actually, I think it's about 4-5% globally, while having about 8-9% in the US.

The last published figures I saw were 3.4% (http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2009/02/mac-market-share.ars) for the global share.

It had gone down as low as 2% so Apple has nearly doubled it's global share in the last few years.

4D4M

Jul 8, 2009, 06:24 AM

Don't worry, they will just offer crap bootcamp drivers making their "other" os experience subpar....... ;)

That other OS makes a good enough job of creating a subpar user experience on its own without any help from crap boot drivers.

DoFoT9

Jul 8, 2009, 06:24 AM

this could be very interesting!! i will be following closely, not sure of my view yet... it seems to have both positive and negatives

Hattig

Jul 8, 2009, 06:26 AM

There are a lot of people in the world who only do a few things with a computer, even in today's world:

- Watch porn.
- Check their email.
- Watch porn and buy viagra.
- browse the web.
- Watch porn.
- Video streaming via Youtube, Hulu
- Watch streaming porn.
- listen to music and sync their iPods
- Watch porn and put it on their iPod.
- documents and spreadsheets
- Watch porn with impressive statistics.
- organise and edit some photos.
- Watch porn.
- MSN, Skype, etc.
- Watch porn.

Fixed.

Veri

Jul 8, 2009, 06:28 AM

ln -s /usr/bin/chrome /sbin/init

Oh, right, NIH and user privacy/choice.

4D4M

Jul 8, 2009, 06:32 AM

The last published figures I saw were 3.4% (http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2009/02/mac-market-share.ars) for the global share.

It had gone down as low as 2% so Apple has nearly doubled it's global share in the last few years.

And at the end of the day, who cares? Let's keep it at 3%, I say! One of the reasons the Mac is so great is that the masses don't use it.

Dagless

Jul 8, 2009, 06:35 AM

I'll be skipping this. I like OSX and XP because they're well established operating systems. On XP I can run DirectX games and on OSX I get all that brilliant memory management for big apps like Photoshop, Logic and Final Cut.

I won't be bothering with this Google OS.

Hattig

Jul 8, 2009, 06:37 AM

Linux hasnt "caught on" mostly due to the hassle of getting everything working just right. No matter how simple people claim versions of linux, such as Ubuntu, have become, Linux is still a bit of a b**** to get it running with the convienence and overall "greatness" that users are used to in commercial OS's such as windows or OS X.

Agreed, so far in netbooks the Linux installs have been half-hearted at best, although the initial Asus desktop on the EeePC 700 series had some thought put into it. Ubuntu and Intel are working hard on Ubuntu Netbook Remix and Moblin, but there are still too many bits of proprietary hardware out there that the manufacturer doesn't want to give out specifications for. Not things like graphics even, but standard run of the mill things like microphones and wifi chips.

Google can hopefully get it's Linux+Chrome OS onto hardware that is fully supportive of their OS. In addition they probably won't cry about using binary drivers as well. I personally think they should use FreeBSD, but its ARM port is probably less mature.

I can definitely see my current netbook (HP2133 - Linux doesn't support the microphone, nor video decode acceleration, because of the proprietary VIA hardware, and VIA supposedly support Linux, like hell they actually care) with a nice ARM based ChromeBook with 10 hours battery life next year. 1.5GHz dual-core SnapDragon please!

hazmatzak

Jul 8, 2009, 06:37 AM

What Chrome would need though is a good media player, windows media and mov files aren't really that common anymore, neither are real media files. Google has got youtube (awful site) but at least they have experience with media such as flash and mp4.

It will just be enough of a Linux kernel and drivers (and windowing system) to run the Chrome browser in its tab-per-process model. The media player will be Chrome, no different than if you run Chrome on Windows.

You won't install any apps. There just needs to be a way to type an URL, and probably a new way to arrange tabs/windows, since that will be the only desktop content.

It's not a matter of trusting your data with Google as the sole provider; it's trusting your data with whichever online service you're using, just as you would running any browser anywhere.

With HTML5 and local storage, you won't have to have a constant internet connection, although you will probably get reduced functionality if you don't.

Open question: will it support external devices like USB drives and cameras? Can you copy files/photos/videos onto the local hard drive? If so, how will they manage them?

iphones4evry1

Jul 8, 2009, 06:39 AM

Santa Rosa

Jul 8, 2009, 06:44 AM

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/07/08/google-announces-google-chrome-operating-system/)

Google announced (http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/07/introducing-google-chrome-os.html) that they are getting into the Operating System business with Google Chrome Operating System. The new OS is described as their attempt to "re-think" what operating systems should be.

Google Chrome OS will be an open source, lightweight operating system that is initially targeted at netbooks.The new OS will run on both x86 and ARM chips. The first netbooks will begin shipping with the OS in the second half of 2010. In the long term. Google does expect that Chrome OS will work anywhere from small netbooks to full size desktop machines.

While Microsoft has the most to lose from such direct competition from Google, Apple will also be affected by Google's move into this space. In fact, Google's ultimate goal seems to be the same target market as Apple's. They are specifically shooting for ease of use and accessibility:The Web will be a central part of the new operating system, and demonstrates the importance of supplying a robust browser experience. Google's work on the Chrome browser will carry over into the new OS.

Article Link: Google Announces Google Chrome Operating System (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/07/08/google-announces-google-chrome-operating-system/)

Speed, simplicity and security are the key aspects of Google Chrome OS. We're designing the OS to be fast and lightweight, to start up and get you onto the web in a few seconds. The user interface is minimal to stay out of your way, and most of the user experience takes place on the web. And as we did for the Google Chrome browser, we are going back to the basics and completely redesigning the underlying security architecture of the OS so that users don't have to deal with viruses, malware and security updates. It should just work.

Speed, simplicity and security are the key aspects of Google Chrome OS. We're designing the OS to be fast and lightweight, to start up and get you onto the web in a few seconds. The user interface is minimal to stay out of your way, and most of the user experience takes place on the web. And as we did for the Google Chrome browser, we are going back to the basics and completely redesigning the underlying security architecture of the OS so that users don't have to deal with viruses, malware and security updates. It should just work.

Why is the exact same quote in there twice :confused: Am I missing something?

I see Bongo has come into this thread and irritated people again in a way only he can.

Drinahn

Jul 8, 2009, 06:49 AM

Did anybody read the google blog post?

They're using a Linux kernel, implementing a windowing system and a browser. Yay.

- okay - I'll admit to not reading beyond page 1 of comments either - I see some people did read the article.

sushi

Jul 8, 2009, 06:52 AM

Did anybody read the google blog post?

They're using a Linux kernel, implementing a windowing system and a browser. Yay.
Yes.

The issue will be execution. Ideas are one thing. Actual implementation is another.

With the Netbook popularity rising right now, it seems like a good time for Google to bring this new OS out.

Anuba

Jul 8, 2009, 06:58 AM

Goodbye Microsoft. :p
The end of an era ..... and the beginning of a new era.

Wait. What? Not so fast, you say? This is only for netbooks and Microsoft is coming out with Windows7 ?

Well ... A LOT will be riding on this Windows7. We shall see.
Windows isn't threatened by this any more than the iPod is threatened by Zune, but I always welcome any initiative to put pressure on M$. The Win7 pricing that was recently announced demonstrates that M$ are still way too complacent and living in a 1990's bubble. They need to slash Win7 prices by 50% (and Vista users victims should get Win7 for a nominal fee á la Snow Leopard).

rockosmodurnlif

Jul 8, 2009, 07:10 AM

So Android and Chrome OS are going to be very different?

djgamble

Jul 8, 2009, 07:12 AM

I don't believe in Google.
They've made ONE thing that's good, and that's a search engine. It wasn't even an original/innovative idea, they just made the best algorithms, so gave the best results and cut out all the picture ads... so didn't annoy people as much as Lycos, Excite, Dogpile, Yahoo...etc.

Now they're just the search engine I use... if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

I seriously doubt they're making billions out of adsense. yeah... a bit of money... but adsense isn't enough to make them the rich company that they are in my opinion. They simply don't need global headquarters in huuuuuuge luxurious buildings around the globe (one in Australia? I'm an Aussie and all I can think is... WHY? How does this help their search engine.)

They're basically a BIG server farm that has spiders crawling the web 24/7 who make a bit of cash out of adsense. They then get multi-billion dollar donations from shareholders who want them to become the next AMAZING new thing. But all they are is a server farm!

YES they have a great search engine... but right now with things like the Android I think they're just trying to make themselves look like a serious company. They're like a MASSIVE startup that has a steady flow of cash in my view...

Hattig

Jul 8, 2009, 07:13 AM

Also, everything is "MS Word" compatible these days. Google offers an office suite equivalent online. It isn't too bad.

It's appalling, it's quite possibly the worse bit of office software I have ever seen, and that includes Mini Office II on the Amstrad CPC.

DoFoT9

Jul 8, 2009, 07:14 AM

It's appalling, it's quite possibly the worse bit of office software I have ever seen, and that includes Mini Office II on the Amstrad CPC.

that is your opinion. ;)

MattInOz

Jul 8, 2009, 07:17 AM

It will just be enough of a Linux kernel and drivers (and windowing system) to run the Chrome browser in its tab-per-process model. The media player will be Chrome, no different than if you run Chrome on Windows.

You won't install any apps. There just needs to be a way to type an URL, and probably a new way to arrange tabs/windows, since that will be the only desktop content.

It's not a matter of trusting your data with Google as the sole provider; it's trusting your data with whichever online service you're using, just as you would running any browser anywhere.

With HTML5 and local storage, you won't have to have a constant internet connection, although you will probably get reduced functionality if you don't.

Open question: will it support external devices like USB drives and cameras? Can you copy files/photos/videos onto the local hard drive? If so, how will they manage them?

Add googles other project Wave which is meant to have a peer to peer server version. It seems like Wave will be the web app platform they push hardest for this OS. So a couple of options you have like google host the data for you (sponsered by ads) you have your own wave server to hold your information. This Google OS may even have a server built in to the underling OS as the file storage.

I guess we need to wait to see how it's set up what options in has and how we fit in our tool chain.

ortuno2k

Jul 8, 2009, 07:24 AM

I thought Google was a search engine... :confused:

SactoGuy18

Jul 8, 2009, 07:26 AM

If it's something sitting on top of the Linux kernel, I'm not sure if it will be a success.

Given the numerous issues with FULL hardware support in Linux, a Google OS designed around Chrome won't go very far. We're all forgetting that:

1) MacOS X takes full advantage of the hardware built into everything from the Mac Mini all the way up to the Mac Pro.

2) Windows also takes full advantage of the hardware out there. I mean, will Linux support the full functionality of the Creative Sound Blaster X-Fi Titanium sound card that uses the PCI Express port? The sound card I mentioned has full driver support in Windows XP (SP2 or SP3) and Windows Vista (SP1 or SP2).

3) The potential fears by the FTC and Justice Department that this OS will tie you down to everything related to Google.

dfs

Jul 8, 2009, 07:27 AM

Okay, let's suppose that this Google OS does work, let's even suppose it works very well indeed. I still have a problem. I'm being invited to store all my data on the Cloud. But exactly whose Cloud? After all, this requires a certain degree of trust that the proprietor of the Cloud in question is going to respect the privacy of my data. But I seem to recall that Google's track record for respecting the individual privacy of users of their search engine has been a little less than top-notch. As far as I'm concerned, Google is going to have to convince me that it is 100% trustworthy before I'd consider buying into this scheme. So, from their corporate point of view, a massive overhaul of their public image is necessary if they're going to have any hope of floating this deal.

DELLsFan

Jul 8, 2009, 07:31 AM

"While Microsoft has the most to lose from such direct competition from Google, Apple will also be affected by Google's move into this space. In fact, Google's ultimate goal seems to be the same target market as Apple's. They are specifically shooting for ease of use and accessibility..."

Oh come on, arn. Have you even tried the Win 7 RC yet? Micro$oft may not have released the most lightweight OS' in the past, but their latest revision is very encouraging; and will be released well before Google's prototype plans to. Despite its shortcomings over the years, Windows has always been relatively "easy to use" and "accessible" to most people. I don't believe Redmond stands to lose as much as you think - especially where Netbook integration is concerned. Win 7 runs beautifully on these machines.

Apple's target market is primarily the one that doesn't mind paying a premium for hardware. Ease of use and accessibility are also the aspirations from Cupertino, but only insofar as it doesn't compromise shareholder return, it seems to me. :cool:

talkingfuture

Jul 8, 2009, 07:34 AM

It's appalling, it's quite possibly the worse bit of office software I have ever seen, and that includes Mini Office II on the Amstrad CPC.

I wouldn't go as far as appalling but, as with most free stuff it certainly isn't as good or as polished as the paid for stuff. Hopefully the OS will be better.

Packersfan27

Jul 8, 2009, 07:34 AM

Windows isn't threatened by this any more than the iPod is threatened by Zune, but I always welcome any initiative to put pressure on M$. The Win7 pricing that was recently announced demonstrates that M$ are still way too complacent and living in a 1990's bubble. They need to slash Win7 prices by 50% (and Vista users victims should get Win7 for a nominal fee á la Snow Leopard).

I don't see why everyone thinks Vista is so bad! My main operating system is Vista (Don't have the money for a Mac :p ), and it is a good OS. I haven't had any problems with crashing, but maybe I am a minority? It was a lot better then my experience with XP on my old computer.

Anyway, Google OS, huh, yea. Don't really use anything google except Youtube and search. If this is good I may have to set up a GMail account :D

dicklacara

Jul 8, 2009, 07:38 AM

In my opinion, one of the greatest strengths of an OS is that it recedes into the background to allow the user to focus on the task at hand. To do this most successfully, the OS uses the hardware to exploit the [G]UI, and the [G]UI to exploit the hardware.

The end-result is the user experience: of a simple, intuitive appliance (multi-appliance, if you will).

Why should the user know (or care) whether the applications and content reside in the cloud or on the multi-appliance?

Why should the multi-appliance be cluttered with cruft that the user doesn't need or want?

Because Apple controls the hardware, the [G]UI/OS (and many appliance applications), it is poised to deliver a better multi-appliance (user experience) than those that provide an OS that runs on any flavor of hardware.

The question becomes: Can Apple deliver the multi-appliance?

If it can, then the OS wars will be over for the majority (non-techie/non-professional multi-appliance users).

Here's an interesting flash (cough) from the past:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHzM4avGrKI

If this ad were revised for today's world, it would use an iPhone or iPod Touch, and the "3 easy steps to the Internet" would evolve to: "How to stay in Touch".

Dick

clevin

Jul 8, 2009, 07:40 AM

it would be a nonstarter if it offers no liveCD/USB.

I hope it does, every piece of linux distroes out there has liveCDs. Google can't expect users to install an fresh new OS before they got a chance to try it.

I know I will be trying it with a liveCD/USB.

Linux compete with windos on netbook from the start, and largely fallen since then, lets see what google can do!

thomasfxlt

Jul 8, 2009, 07:40 AM

There was a time when Eric Schmidt's participation on Apple's board appeared to make sense but with the continued convergence into common markets (Mobile OS and now standard OS) one has to wonder how this is helpful to Apple and whether the relationship is going to crash and burn or if it's nearing some communion. Apple's decision to build the server farm in NC is an interesting move towards Google's space although they have not publicly stated the specific use of the facility.

It would appear to me that either Apple and Google are going to merge or Eric will be exiting the Apple board soon.

hazmatzak

Jul 8, 2009, 07:47 AM

With the Netbook popularity rising right now, it seems like a good time for Google to bring this new OS out.And webapps are close to being there too, with HTML5, faster JavaScript engines, etc. They're targeting a year from now. This definitely would not have worked just a few years ago, never mind the earlier attempts at "thin clients". They've been waiting....

So Android and Chrome OS are going to be very different?If Android is "just enough Linux" to run Java/Dalvik apps, then Chrome OS is just enough Linux to run Chrome. (Of course, Android also contains a slimmed-down version of Chrome, so these analogies get confusing.)

mysterytramp

Jul 8, 2009, 07:58 AM

Assuming Google can complete the project rapidly, the recession could play into promoting Chrome OS. Corporations, governments and universities, looking to slash expenses, could use a robust open source netbook OS to justify a shift away from higher-powered (and more expensive) laptops.

And despite the concerns about Google's access to user data, IT managers will know there's a far greater threat to security from morons who leave hardware where it can be stolen. Many IT shops will calculate that it's a smaller security risk to have all data on a central server than stored in some staffer's laptop.

But if the economy bounces back by the time Chrome OS is available, we'll be fat and happy again, overpurchasing hardware.

mt

some12b

Jul 8, 2009, 08:00 AM

I'm pretty sure everyone saw this coming...but I'm reluctant to place my data in the hands of such a rapidly expanding company...

Agreed. Leaving google with my email and calendar is more than enough. Any personal files will stay with me thank you very much. Still be interesting to see the Chrome OS though.

DoFoT9

Jul 8, 2009, 08:01 AM

Agreed. Leaving google with my email and calendar is more than enough. Any personal files will stay with me thank you very much. Still be interesting to see the Chrome OS though.

am i missing something here??? why will the OS be uploading everything to their servers for them to see??

edesignuk

Jul 8, 2009, 08:03 AM

am i missing something here??? why will the OS be uploading everything to their servers for them to see??If this new OS is basically a very light shell for the Chrome browser, with all your apps being HTML5 web apps, everything will be in "the cloud" be default. Just like with Gmail, Google Docs etc.

DoFoT9

Jul 8, 2009, 08:04 AM

If this new OS is basically a very light shell for the Chrome browser, with all your apps being HTML5 web apps, everything will be in "the cloud" be default. Just like with Gmail, Google Docs etc.

ok i see. in that case - then this is ludicrous!!! what if you are away from internet usage or something?? i might vote negative now :p

clevin

Jul 8, 2009, 08:05 AM

am i missing something here??? why will the OS be uploading everything to their servers for them to see??

it might be a bit too much of suspicion of course, but you never know until you see it.
If this new OS is basically a very light shell for the Chrome browser, with all your apps being HTML5 web apps, everything will be in "the cloud" be default. Just like with Gmail, Google Docs etc.
not necessarily. js and html itself don't have to be a connected technology at all, they works just as normal without an internet. think Palm Pre, its a small test case of such environment.

Tech itself aside, its all depends on how google want to proceed with the OS, and we will have to wait and see if google is asking too much of information from users.

DoFoT9

Jul 8, 2009, 08:07 AM

it might be a bit too much of suspicion of course, but you never know until you see it.

tbh i dont think google will do it. they wouldnt be that stupid

edesignuk

Jul 8, 2009, 08:10 AM

ok i see. in that case - then this is ludicrous!!! what if you are away from internet usage or something?? i might vote negative now :pThis is where HTML5 and/or Google Gears comes in. It will allow you to work offline with a local cached copy of what is in the cloud.

BongoBanger

Jul 8, 2009, 08:12 AM

Comparing Vista to OS X is a non-starter. Hell, most people think that XP is better than Vista!

I don't 'think' I know from personal usage. OS X is better at some things than Vista, Vista - particularly x64 - is better at others. Personally I find Vista to be far better than XP which really needs to die as soon as possible.

OS X is 64bits in ways that matter

And these are?

Then by that logic, Linux is even better. It works in just about every configuration out there, across several architectures, and you instantly have thousands of apps available to you after you install your OS....

Actually it is to a degree apart from the small matter of those applications having no enterprise level support. And the multiple distros (and before anyone pipes up, no, that's not the same as multiple versions of the same product).

How is OS X operating environment "restricted"? And are you one of those who think that only enterprise-market matters?

No, I'm one of those who believes an OS shouldn't be locked to a particular manufacturer's hardware set.

Actually, I think it's about 4-5% globally, while having about 8-9% in the US.

I know - an increase of about 1-2%.

I don't want to get into a 'mine's bigger than yours' contest about operating systems because I think they all have their virtues and problems and generalised comparisons are pretty useless. The selling point of OS X is its utter reliability on restricted hardware. The selling point of Window is its flexibility. I like them both.

As for Google's OS; we'll see. I just think it's going to fail for the same reason netbook Linux has - too much entrenchment from MS and Apple.

clevin

Jul 8, 2009, 08:12 AM

also I want to say the availability of 3rd party apps of native codes will be necessary for chrome os to succeed. I honestly think linux lost to windows on this part during past 2 years of netbook rise.

Netbook is not a mobile phone, its nearly a notebook, if google think a crippled system, that might be excellent on a mobile phone, is good enough for a netbook, then it is in for a disaster.

Do surprise me, please,, google.

DoFoT9

Jul 8, 2009, 08:13 AM

This is where HTML5 and/or Google Gears comes in. It will allow you to work offline with a local cached copy of what is in the cloud.

interesting. i wonder what sort of storage space the cloud will have, surely they would cap it then make you pay for extra..... does that make any sense?

Half Glass

Jul 8, 2009, 08:15 AM

At what point does it become uncomfortable or legally shady to have Google's CEO on Apple's Board of Directors?

--HG

edesignuk

Jul 8, 2009, 08:16 AM

interesting. i wonder what sort of storage space the cloud will have, surely they would cap it then make you pay for extra..... does that make any sense?That's almost certainly what they would do. You'd get X amount for free and pay for anything more you wanted/needed.

clevin

Jul 8, 2009, 08:19 AM

interesting. i wonder what sort of storage space the cloud will have, surely they would cap it then make you pay for extra..... does that make any sense?

no, cloud is not internet HDD, there is no size to constrain and they only store your information and should not take any significant large size at all.

However, if google os is going to cloud, I think it will fail. There is no reason to expect a computer user to surrender his/her ID at computer login screen, its ludicrous.

DoFoT9

Jul 8, 2009, 08:27 AM

That's almost certainly what they would do. You'd get X amount for free and pay for anything more you wanted/needed.

damn, that will be their downfall if thats the case.

no, cloud is not internet HDD, there is no size to constrain and they only store your information and should not take any significant large size at all.

for you maybe not, there would be tons of people who have tens/hundreds of GBs of data. hardly useful for them.

However, if google os is going to cloud, I think it will fail. There is no reason to expect a computer user to surrender his/her ID at computer login screen, its ludicrous.

i concur.

clevin

Jul 8, 2009, 08:29 AM

for you maybe not, there would be tons of people who have tens/hundreds of GBs of data. hardly useful for them.

i think we have a different definition of what Cloud is. Other than that, I think I understand and agree with what you are saying.

sellitman

Jul 8, 2009, 08:31 AM

I'd try it on my Acer Netbook but I'd never put it anywheres near my iMac.

DoFoT9

Jul 8, 2009, 08:31 AM

i think we have a different definition of what Cloud is. Other than that, I think I understand and agree with what you are saying.

haha really?? it was my understanding that Cloud is a collaboration of your data on the internet, somewhat like Mac thing. you log on and get access to it etcetc..

Popeye206

Jul 8, 2009, 08:33 AM

What a waste of time! Google needs to focus on what they do best... they have little experience here and lets face it... people have several choices already.... Windows, MacOS and Linux. Why do we need another? How do they plan to stay competitive against the alternatives... lets face it... MS and Apple have been at this for years. Of course, Google an hire the talent, but will they be able to excel from what's out there already out of the box?

Wake me up when it's over... oh time to get up? :D

MattInOz

Jul 8, 2009, 08:33 AM

At what point does it become uncomfortable or legally shady to have Google's CEO on Apple's Board of Directors?

--HG

Well he already leaves the room for iPhone discussion
so add OS discussion now and he really isn't at the meeting at all.

Porco

Jul 8, 2009, 08:43 AM

I don't want more of my personal data in the cloud, I want less of my personal data in the cloud.

Also I think Google has too much power already. Why do they want to do this? Think about it, what was their benefit when they gave everyone oodles of space for e-mails? Advertising. I really don't want Google scanning all my files to serve me yet more ads.

Sadly I do think they have a decent chance of success long-term, I think this is something they've been planning forever, and certainly is very different to the little side projects that sometimes fall flat. But just like with the arguments for / against Blu-ray movie support Vs Downloads, there seems to be a lot of people who don't actually understand that the whole world does not have ubiquitous super-fast internet connections yet, and that is the biggest obstacle to 'progress' such as it is regarded in theses instances.

Melrose

Jul 8, 2009, 08:44 AM

I don't get this move at all.

Making a browser was almost logical for the Google; Why the world needed yet another browser I have no idea (just what developers need is one more browser to worry about), but an operating system is a waste of money I think.

We've got Mac, we've got Windows. We've also got a million and one distros of Linux. Why do we need another hairball to clog the drain?

Google should really put more effort into charitable work rather than make useless products where there really isn't any need.

clevin

Jul 8, 2009, 08:46 AM

haha really?? it was my understanding that Cloud is a collaboration of your data on the internet, somewhat like Mac thing. you log on and get access to it etcetc..

for some reason, I think cloud is a virtual metapher that only contains unique IDs of a computer, or user, and act as a link between device and other internet storages, may they be gmail, box.net, photobucket, facebook, or something else.

I dont think cloud is a physical storage somewhere on the earth....

JayMan8081

Jul 8, 2009, 08:46 AM

I'm of the opinion that more choice is NEVER a bad thing. If Google wants to try their hand at an OS go right ahead, no one HAS to use it it will just be another choice available to users. I think it'll be interesting to see what they come up with and how well it is supported.

DoFoT9

Jul 8, 2009, 08:46 AM

for some reason, I think cloud is a virtual metapher that only contains unique IDs of a computer, or user, and act as a link between device and other internet storages, may they be gmail, box.net, photobucket, or something else.

I dont think cloud is a physical storage somewhere on the earth....

right, well in that case then yea our views are different. i have a feeling you might be correct.

jonnysods

Jul 8, 2009, 08:47 AM

Gosh, good luck to them if they want to sink money into this. Apple do well for themselves by making the hardware they put their OS on - but making OS's to be compatible with all the 3rd party hardware out there?

Good luck keeping people happy on that one.

Plus, even Windows have a more polished look to their interface now - Google work hard, but their stuff reminds me of a bygone era somehow.

Str8edgepunker

Jul 8, 2009, 08:47 AM

It's a conspiracy! Fulcrum operatives are using this as a trojan horse to launch their virus! :D :D :D

Sorry, I think that might be a bit obscure unless you watch Chuck. :D

dasikes

Jul 8, 2009, 08:52 AM

As a netbook user, this is very exciting: Chrome is amazing for netbooks. But I do hope Intel Atom support will be something they seek out... please, Google!

Although... this may give me an excuse to get another netbook... hmmm :D

*LTD*

Jul 8, 2009, 08:58 AM

Seems alright for netbooks and the bottom-end market.

I'm trying to picture this OS five years from now. I'm getting some interesting visions.

The foundation is already there - Google Calendar, Google Docs, Picasa, Gmail, the Chrome browser, and Lord knows how many other apps and services. Google simply wants to package them into a single, accessible entity. revenues might very well come from subscriptions fees for online "Cloud" storage and perhaps some paid services.

The whole operation is entirely feasible, and if realized, will enable some very interesting networking/collaborating possibilities.

You can bet dollars-to-donuts that Apple has known about this for a while and endorses it. It's a clever way of taking chunks out of MS' bottom-end market while not necessarily competing directly with OS X. At some point SJ and Eric Schmidt decided it would be good for Apple's business and Google's to use a Google cloud-OS to rearrange the bottom-end while Apple goes after the high margins of the Premium-end of the market. The only little niggle here is the investigation of the relationship between Schmidt and Apple. I'm not sure what contingency plan, if any, SJ and Schmidt have for that.

convergent

Jul 8, 2009, 09:02 AM

Bottom line is competition is good. The dominant player for the desktop OS space is Microsoft, and everyone else is a minor player... Apple included. Apple has been making some good inroads over the last couple of years, but still lags far behind. Linux is doing great with servers, but still is an also ran on the desktop. If the collective competition for Microsoft can manage to gain a significant share of the market, then Microsoft will start behaving differently and that is good for everyone.

That said, I don't think that Apple is vulnerable here vs. the other OS players. Apple's model is unique and has worked well. It is the only player that controls the whole product... hw and sw. Google will be dependent on all the different hardware makers to get their product to work, and that will in the end overwhelm them just like its done with Microsoft over the years. Its web oriented approach is also somewhat limited. Do we think that there is going to be a rewrite of Adobe Photoshop or Microsoft Office to run on this platform? I doubt it. For a netbook, this could be a great thing because Windows is pretty weak there and Apple seems to not be interested in that market.

QCassidy352

Jul 8, 2009, 09:03 AM

but I'm reluctant to place my data in the hands of such a rapidly expanding company...

Same. I'm trying to extricate myself from google's all-encompassing grasp even now.

To paraphrase a post on this from macworld, though, this is really competition for apple and linux, not MS. Only a small segment of the population is willing to break from the norm, ie Windows. Chrome will further divide that market, not induce (many) more people to abandon MS.

EmperorDarius

Jul 8, 2009, 09:05 AM

Finally an OS that brings an end to privacy.

Jelite

Jul 8, 2009, 09:10 AM

Why are people worrying about storage space, computers will still come with hdd/ssd.

DoFoT9

Jul 8, 2009, 09:13 AM

Why are people worrying about storage space, computers will still come with hdd/ssd.

just trying to narrow down what the "features" will be.

Anuba

Jul 8, 2009, 09:13 AM

I don't see why everyone thinks Vista is so bad! My main operating system is Vista (Don't have the money for a Mac :p ), and it is a good OS. I haven't had any problems with crashing, but maybe I am a minority? It was a lot better then my experience with XP on my old computer.
It's not that it's crashing. It's actually more stable than the majority will ever know. Vista's undeserved rep for instability comes from the fact that it introduced a new driver model which is technically far superior to the old one, but many of the rewritten drivers were shaky for a few months after Vista's release. A couple of years and two Service Packs down the line it's every bit as stable as Leopard -- I'd go as far as saying it's more stable. It just runs, while Leopard is still a spinning beachball-infested crash and freeze, random runaway CPU usage fest, in spite of the marketing trying to convince you it's the other way around.

No, the problem with Vista is, it's ludicrously slow. Installing is slow. Booting is slow. Everything lags. It's like watching paint dry. You may not notice it on a desktop computer but on a laptop it really gets on your nerves. I installed it on my brand new MBP 17" 2.8 GHz and it was as slow as it ever was on my old Yonah 2.0 GHz Dell laptop. I gave up and installed the (unsupported) Win7 64-bit release candidate instead, and suddenly everything was blazing fast. The only issue I have with Win7 is that it's still very power hungry. When I'm in Leopard the MBP stays lukewarm. When I'm in Win7 it gets really hot, just doing lightweight stuff like casual surfing, and when I work in Photoshop or scrub the Flash timeline, I can fry eggs on the MBP and the fans go WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE. I don't see why the Aero desktop engine has to be so poorly optimized even in Win7. CoreGraphics proves that you can utilize the GPU and CPU for flashy UI effects without turning the computer into a furnace.

clevin

Jul 8, 2009, 09:14 AM

Seems alright for netbooks and the bottom-end market.

I dont think you have correct impression of a netbook. other than lacking of a CD/DVD drive, its capable of everything a notebook can, albeit with slower performance in CPU intensive works such as office 2007, illustrator, or photoshop, or any modern games.

It's wrong to assume a netbook can only do limited things, It actually can do most of the things a notebook can. That already means numerous.

some games
web
office
torrent
movie
hulu
IM
DVD ripping (with external DVD drive)
video transcoding
skyp video chatting
image manipulating such as gimp, photoshop, illustrator
heck, even programming is doable on a netbook. Its an 1.6Ghz CPU with a windows anyway, people do programming when they were using a 266MHz CPU.

Finally an OS that brings an end to privacy.
HAHA, exactly, altho I hope not.

djellison

Jul 8, 2009, 09:16 AM

You may not notice it on a desktop computer but on a laptop it really gets on your nerves

I've tried it on a £400 Dell laptop. It was great.

As for fans kicking off with casual surfing....watch your MB/MBP temps after watching a bit of youtube. It's pathetic.

clevin

Jul 8, 2009, 09:19 AM

I've tried it on a £400 Dell laptop. It was great.

As for fans kicking off with casual surfing....watch your MB/MBP temps after watching a bit of youtube. It's pathetic.

its a sad fact that netbook's flash video performance is actually better than a modern MB. Hulu, CBS video, etc.

Its really pathetic. Adobe and apple needs to figure this out, one way or another.

SPUY767

Jul 8, 2009, 09:19 AM

A new operating system based on a browser? Isn't that a little like building a new car based on a bucket seat?

It worked for microsoft.

bretm

Jul 8, 2009, 09:20 AM

Any one else see Apples server farm as a related move by Apple? I mean we're all wondering what Apple is planning in the netbook/tablet market AND now we wonder what the server farm is for. With the IPhone they've already got the start on a lightweight unix operating system for devices. Makes you wonder what Apple has up it's sleeve.

*LTD*

Jul 8, 2009, 09:20 AM

Finally an OS that brings an end to privacy.

If you're a consumer in the present day, you don't really have any to begin with beyond what is protected by agreements you have with vendors/creditors. And that's more or less out of your full control after a point.

Apple has my credit card #, including a number of other organizations. A lot of my info is arleady on the "Cloud" - but the convenience there is all the sync-based services.

When you live in a society that functions and depends so heavily on credit, and not even that, on centralizing information, this is what you get.

My creditors have nearly all my personal info - it's all on your credit bureau, anyway, which gets updated regularly, containing info about previous addresses, driver's license info and everything attached to that, all your employers - current and previous and their addresses, nearly every detail of your finances, all major purchases, and it may include other little tidbits of info about you (and WILL) in the event you default on your creditors, or are even a bit late with payments. Creditors often attach information to credit bureaus when submitted to third parties for collections/verification purposes. I.e., "has son named Joe in Pleasantville - try family in Shady Springs, former business partner is "Henry Jones", company name is ABC Whatever."

As an accounts recovery officer (was in the industry for 10 years), I can immediately gather information about you, both public and personal using not only industry-specific tools, but common internet toold and services, and cross-reference them. I can find you, your family, see who your friends are, who your neighbours are, etc. And if you have a slightly less-common last name and don't live in a major city, it is perfectly legal for me to call every listing with your last name in order to track you down, for example.

I can set up a fake Facebook account and track you down, get you to respond to me with some general info, which I can then use to either confirm who you are and/or get closer to tracking you down. And what I'm doing is perfectly legal. We did it all the time and it worked like a charm. Our clients loved us.

As long as your personal info is not used for illegal purposes (you have safeguards and mechanisms in place to prevent and remedy that), you might as well rest easy and worry about more important things like your health and your diet.

Anuba

Jul 8, 2009, 09:21 AM

I've tried it on a £400 Dell laptop. It was great.

As for fans kicking off with casual surfing....watch your MB/MBP temps after watching a bit of youtube. It's pathetic.
Well yeah, but that's the Flash plugin for you (YouTube is Flash based). Flash is the #1 source for crashes on both MacOS and Windows and the optimization blows. Leave it to Adobe to make a brand new quad-core computer sweat just from animating some crude vector graphics. If you though Microsoft was the mother of all bloated, overpriced, slow and poorly written software, you haven't seen Adobe CS4.

I only know of two things that can set off the fans in Leopard... 1) long encoding passes in iTunes, 2) Flash (YouTube certainly does it, but even a couple of tiny Flash banners can do the trick).

kdarling

Jul 8, 2009, 09:24 AM

Interesting, since Microsoft was just talking about their Gazelle project, which sounds very similar...

I haven't read too deeply, but Gazelle is also a browser-based OS (http://www.osnews.com/story/21793/Gazelle_Applying_Operating_System_Concepts_to_the_Browser), that sits on top of your original OS.

*LTD*

Jul 8, 2009, 09:26 AM

SPUY767

Jul 8, 2009, 09:28 AM

PC makers, it seems to me, have been hurt enormously in the last few years because of their past willingness to fight for the low-end market to such an extent that they undercut the perceived value of their product. I don't think any of them are looking to continue that direction. I don't think this is going to be as easy for Google as some of you do.

Apple appears to be one of the only companies who understand this principle of business. I see it everywhere. Everyone trying to be the cheapest of something instead of building value in their product. Microsoft appears to have some half-hearted mentally-challenged attempt at this by simple pricing their OS astronomically if it isn't bought Pre-Installed, but as yet Apple is the only company to have mastered the concept of a high value product. Fight for the scraps long enough, and eventually that's exactly what you'll get.

Kinjjibo

Jul 8, 2009, 09:29 AM

Ibjr

Jul 8, 2009, 09:29 AM

Great. Another minority OS that will completely fail to capture the market.

Google: you do search, photo management, maps and mail. You're good at these things. Everything else you do sucks and this will be no exception.

I'm glad you've cleared that up. Now replace "google" with Mac, "maps" with "drawing" and "mail" with "design" and you have what people said about Apple 5 years ago.

Anuba

Jul 8, 2009, 09:29 AM

Looks like all the big names are moving in this direction:

Apple's server farm

Microsoft's Gazelle

Google's OS

This news about google doesn't seem like much of a shocker in light of the wider context.
Sigh... I don't WANT a web-based OS, I don't WANT all my files in the cloud. If they blow all their development resources on this crap, it'll be the biggest display of misguided investment since the dot-com bubble.

Ibjr

Jul 8, 2009, 09:30 AM

It worked for microsoft.

Explain/ No MS OS was ever based on a browser. That is why you will be able to buy IE less windows 7.

SPUY767

Jul 8, 2009, 09:30 AM

Apple OS is used by people for its heavyweight rich gui based apps. This lightweight simple os can be targetted for naive users, who use internet for email, general browsing etc

Your comment made me think: Google Chrome OS = WebTV.

milani

Jul 8, 2009, 09:30 AM

Google does a lot of things right. Tasteful GUIs are not one of them. I can't even begin to imagine how ugly a Chrome-style operating system would look. :eek:

Side note, I don't understand the appeal of these browser-based applications... at all.

*LTD*

Jul 8, 2009, 09:32 AM

It worked for microsoft.

And ended up killing Windows.

Ibjr

Jul 8, 2009, 09:32 AM

Ugh. I heard about this a while ago. A Google OS would be horrible. That'd mean most definently only Google software and no Microsoft/Mac applications could be used. Which would leave limited software. I'm only saying this because it's a challenge to Microsoft. I may be wrong about only Google apps(probably wrong).

You're wrong about Google Apps of course... It will run anything web based (ajax) program. And no, you didn't "hear" about this awhile ago. You have have heard speculation, but no confirmation. The only announced google os where their clustering server.

And Google OS isn't designed to replace OSX and Windows for complicated tasks, just for basic tasks that most everyone uses their computer for.

clevin

Jul 8, 2009, 09:33 AM

Looks like all the big names are moving in this direction:

Apple's server farm

Microsoft's Gazelle

Google's OS

This news about google doesn't seem like much of a shocker in light of the wider context.
i sincerely hope, and I kinda think will be true, that google os is not like those two

those webbrowser as platform ideas only good for restricted area and limited number of users. It would fail on any capable computers, which netbook is actually one of them.
You're wrong about Google Apps of course... It will run anything web based (ajax) program.
And Google OS isn't designed to replace OSX and Windows for complicated tasks, just for basic tasks that most everyone uses their computer for.
thats the original thought of linux on netbook, look at it now.

its one thing to meet the basic need of most people, its another to totally remove other taskes they might need.

*LTD*

Jul 8, 2009, 09:33 AM

Explain/ No MS OS was ever based on a browser. That is why you will be able to buy IE less windows 7.

IE + ActiveX.

SPUY767

Jul 8, 2009, 09:35 AM

That is great news... I hope it is stylish too. I would really like a streamlined OS; in truth the Mac OS is kinda bloated with lots of stuff I don't want during install but don't have the option to remove them.

What Chrome would need though is a good media player, windows media and mov files aren't really that common anymore, neither are real media files. Google has got youtube (awful site) but at least they have experience with media such as flash and mp4.

There's a difference between Mac OS bloat and Windows bloat. I can delete what I want on Mac OS with reasonable certainty that because I delete, say, Activity Monitor, something else isn't going to **** the bed. With windows, you can't even uninstall an application with Windows' own uninstall program with certainty that it won't wreck another application's day.

MacRumorUser

Jul 8, 2009, 09:37 AM

I'm surprised this is news.... Google have been messing around with their own linux variant for a while.

I already played around with gOS, which I assume Google Chrome OS will be some derivative.

If so.... it wasn't very good.....

http://www.thinkgos.com/gos/index.html

Ibjr

Jul 8, 2009, 09:37 AM

At what point does it become uncomfortable or legally shady to have Google's CEO on Apple's Board of Directors?

--HG

When it becomes a conflict of interest; when Apple releases a netbook or Chrome OS is targeted at full desktops.

*LTD*

Jul 8, 2009, 09:38 AM

i sincerely hope, and I kinda think will be true, that google os is not like those two

those webbrowser as platform ideas only good for restricted area and limited number of users. It would fail on any capable computers, which netbook is actually one of them.

It might not get as much traction NOW.

But think a few years down the road. Hell, the whole game can change in only two years! MobileMe, Twitter, Cloud computing, iPhones, everything synced everywhere, online services, you name it.

Now if this Google OS is just another flavour of Linux that tries to integrate a few more online services, then, well . . . . it sounds less exciting.

clevin

Jul 8, 2009, 09:40 AM

With windows, you can't even uninstall an application with Windows' own uninstall program with certainty that it won't wreck another application's day.

what a nonsense. I install, uninstalled programs on windows for 13 years. long enough to tell you your statement is FUD.

But think a few years down the road. Hell, the whole game can change in only two years! MobileMe, Twitter, Cloud computing, iPhones, everything synced everywhere, online services, you name it.

the problem as I see it, is that there is only limited things you can do with it, i can easily name a game, torrent, or video transcoding, or sky video chatting, or c++ programming, or professional editing (office, or image) etc, that an web-based OS is incapable of. and the fact that there are probably numerous others.

Its probably okay for some users, my point is, those "some users" is not a big enough number among computer users. I doubt it will be more than a million.

Ibjr

Jul 8, 2009, 09:42 AM

IE + ActiveX.

You do not know what you are talking about.

Ibjr

Jul 8, 2009, 09:44 AM

thats the original thought of linux on netbook, look at it now.

its one thing to meet the basic need of most people, its another to totally remove other taskes they might need.

Linux on a netbook failed because they used unconventional UI with inadequate standardization and people bought it with the expectation it will do more than it did. Everyone knows the google programs and everyone knows what google can do. This will not be a repeat.

clevin

Jul 8, 2009, 09:48 AM

Linux on a netbook failed because they used unconventional UI with inadequate standardization and people bought it with the expectation it will do more than it did. Everyone knows the google programs and everyone knows what google can do. This will not be a repeat.

no, linux on netbook fail because people can not install and use many programs and hardwares as they like to. EEE's UI is simple enough (its big buttons!) and its window decoration mimics windows. The inconvenience of that aspect can't be possibly blamed for the failure.

techfreak85

Jul 8, 2009, 09:48 AM

i will have to check this out.
i now see how all of googles online apps have fallen into place for this.

i wonder how long google people are going to still be on Apples board.:rolleyes:

SPUY767

Jul 8, 2009, 09:48 AM

Explain/ No MS OS was ever based on a browser. That is why you will be able to buy IE less windows 7.

It was a joke about Windows Explorer and Internet Explorer being the same thing. The Web Browser being an integral part of the OS that you could never get rid of.

SPUY767

Jul 8, 2009, 09:49 AM

And ended up killing Windows.

I used the term 'worked' pretty loosely.

*LTD*

Jul 8, 2009, 09:53 AM

I used the term 'worked' pretty loosely.

I used "killed" loosely too. ;)

Kinjjibo

Jul 8, 2009, 09:53 AM

You're wrong about Google Apps of course... It will run anything web based (ajax) program. And no, you didn't "hear" about this awhile ago. You have have heard speculation, but no confirmation. The only announced google os where their clustering server.

And Google OS isn't designed to replace OSX and Windows for complicated tasks, just for basic tasks that most everyone uses their computer for.

I have heard "rumors" about a Google OS for months, which means I've heard about a Google OS. I wasn't saying I heard any confirmations of it, just rumors. I was just stating guesses that it might just use Google Desktop and other Google softwares. It's a guess, not final.

SPUY767

Jul 8, 2009, 09:55 AM

what a nonsense. I install, uninstalled programs on windows for 13 years. long enough to tell you your statement is FUD.

I'm willing to bet that I've been using windows a far sight longer than you, since pre 3.11, and there are so many dependencies that applications share. Couple that with Microsofts lazy Add/Remove Programs utility that will just run the applications own Uninstaller if its available, and it's relatively easy for one uninstaller to delete a DLL file that two applications use and have a second application that won't run properly until you can dig up a copy of the missing DLL. It's not something that heppens frequently for me or likely any other power user, but casual users do this kind of crap pretty often.

Electrolytic

Jul 8, 2009, 09:56 AM

Maybe you and I won't but most, if not all who buy Windows don't go looking for the best but what can get the job done at the cheapest price. This will kill off Linux distros which makes me queasy and I don't trust Google with privacy issues.

This almost the equivalent desktop version of the Pre. 90% of what most people do is through the web apps. It's the other 10% that Google may struggle with. Huh I wonder if they'll be an iTunes for Chrome, lol.

If this will kill off most or all Linux Distros then thank god or google... There are too many distros of Linux no one wants to spend time making a app for 50 different distros that's why Linux has never taken off...

As for the new chrome os great, Microsoft needs at least one good competitor...

*LTD*

Jul 8, 2009, 09:58 AM

I'm willing to bet that I've been using windows a far sight longer than you, since pre 3.11, and there are so many dependencies that applications share. Couple that with Microsofts lazy Add/Remove Programs utility that will just run the applications own Uninstaller if its available, and it's relatively easy for one uninstaller to delete a DLL file that two applications use and have a second application that won't run properly until you can dig up a copy of the missing DLL. It's not something that heppens frequently for me or likely any other power user, but casual users do this kind of crap pretty often.

This.

If this will kill off most or all Linux Distros then thank god or google... There are too many distros of Linux no one wants to spend time making a app for 50 different distros that's why Linux has never taken off...

As for the new chrome os great, Microsoft needs at least one good competitor...

?

Most common distros can run the same applications. Linux apps are often cross-compatible.

thepylongenius

Jul 8, 2009, 10:11 AM

News? Really? Seriously?

I've been hearing rumblings of a GoogleOS for years... hasn't everyone? I'm sure MS and Apple have contingency plans for this, and it remains to be seen how much the general public will even notice.

How are you questioning whether this is news or not? Google just made an official statement about their upcoming OS, that is news. Yes, there have been rumors going around, but this is news because it's an official statement. Please think before you type.

QCassidy352

Jul 8, 2009, 10:13 AM

It just runs, while Leopard is still a spinning beachball-infested crash and freeze, random runaway CPU usage fest, in spite of the marketing trying to convince you it's the other way around.

Um, I don't know what you're running leopard on, but you need to get it checked out. Leopard is rock solid - no crashes, freezes, beachballs, etc. - on the three macs in my house (core2duo imac, mini, and macbook). In fact, I don't know a single leopard user who has anything close to the experience you describe - and I know a lot of leopard users.

Bubba Satori

Jul 8, 2009, 10:15 AM

Great news. Competition is good.

kingtj

Jul 8, 2009, 10:15 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.)

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).

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.

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).

There are a lot of people in the world who only do a few things with a computer, even in today's world:

- Watch porn.
- Check their email.
- browse the web.
- Video streaming via Youtube, Hulu
- listen to music and sync their iPods
- documents and spreadsheets
- organise and edit some photos.
- MSN, Skype, etc.

That covers most tasks for most people. You really don't even need a complex OS like OS X or Windows to do these basic tasks, which is what's funny about OSes getting more complex and feature-filled.

JoelMarcey

Jul 8, 2009, 10:24 AM

I wonder if Google Chrome OS will be in beta as long as Gmail -- which was, if my math is right, about 5 years. :)

Seriously, they are going to make or break on their decision to open source this thing. Will they make money like Red Hat does (support and services) or somehow incorporating ads into the OS?

atari1356

Jul 8, 2009, 10:32 AM

I find it interesting that so many people are excited about an OS where the apps will be web-based.

Not so long ago, many people on here were very upset with Apple that the iPhone could only run web-apps from third parties (before Apple released the iPhone OS SDK / app store).

They complained that web apps were slow, and crippled... that you couldn't do anything useful with them.

How will web apps on a Google OS be any different?

How long will it be until we see a Google Chrome OS App Store? where developers sell their native Chrome OS apps?

windywoo

Jul 8, 2009, 10:38 AM

Just look at OS X. It's superior in just about every way, and even it has had difficulties at eroding Windows'es dominance.

Even if OSX was as superior as you believe it to be, its quite obvious why Apple has barely dented MS marketshare. Apple refuse to sell their OS except on their own overpriced hardware. Queue all the Apple fans saying its not overpriced. Well sorry, but you really are the minority who think that.

Google's browser has been a success in so far as it got more share of the market than Opera in 1/10th the time. I would say its possible for Google to repeat that success with their OS if they do the same things that made Chrome great. Keep it fast but with a featureset that makes it simple to use and uncluttered.

NinjaHERO

Jul 8, 2009, 10:39 AM

Go google. They are basing the idea on the three most important things about an OS. Hopefully it comes out and kicks butt. Then Apple makes theirs better to compete. Competition is awesome for everyone. Make all the OSs good and we all win.

trip1ex

Jul 8, 2009, 10:44 AM

trip1ex

Jul 8, 2009, 10:46 AM

Google OS does sound like a good companion to cheap netbooks though.

*LTD*

Jul 8, 2009, 10:46 AM

Even if OSX was as superior as you believe it to be, its quite obvious why Apple has barely dented MS marketshare. Apple refuse to sell their OS except on their own overpriced hardware. Queue all the Apple fans saying its not overpriced. Well sorry, but you really are the minority who think that.

Google's browser has been a success in so far as it got more share of the market than Opera in 1/10th the time. I would say its possible for Google to repeat that success with their OS if they do the same things that made Chrome great. Keep it fast but with a featureset that makes it simple to use and uncluttered.

Apple sells on margin (not volume) at the Premium end of the market. Apple's products are priced like any other premium product.

Market share overall will naturally be less. But Apple's market share at the Premium end of the market is quite high. The average consumer in a higher-income bracket and/or more money to spend on tech will be looking at an Apple product.

I was in an Apple Store two days ago looking for a new iPhone case and trying out the new Macbooks. The place was absolutely packed to the rafters. These people have money to spend. And a lot of them were families trying out the iMacs. Mom goes to the iMacs with the kids while Dad tries out the Macbooks.

People tend to think of the "market" as one, single entity. It isn't. There are levels to it - a hierarchy. Picture it like a pyramid.

On a diifferent note:

(LOL, if I hear "competition is good" one more time I'll fkn leap out the window. We KNOW competition is good. Is it really necessary to mention it every time something new comes along???)

Jayomat

Jul 8, 2009, 10:49 AM

I wish Google maps was stored locally on your iPhone and not streamed everytime you want to get a map. It would be much faster and more responsive that way. They could combine that with some updates and ads from the cloud.

so what you want is a map which can basically show you EVERY spot on earth, every street, (tbc) stored on you iphone? that won't work the way google-maps works...sorry

milani

Jul 8, 2009, 10:49 AM

libertyforall

Jul 8, 2009, 10:49 AM

skellener

Jul 8, 2009, 10:50 AM

If it's as ugly as Google Apps are then you can count me out.I'll second that. Google is not exactly king of fit and finish. Even MS has had to step up their game in the slickness department to compete with Apple.

chris200x9

Jul 8, 2009, 10:52 AM

This will kill off Linux distros which makes me queasy and I don't trust Google with privacy issues.

not to pick on you, many people have talked about this killing off linux distros I just quoted you because you just backup my point so well. This will kill NOTHING I'd venture to say a majority of linux users are paranoid. Further more (I admitadly know nothing about their plans) with all their recent concern about open source and android platform I can guess this will be no more than a linux derrivative.

JohnnyQuest

Jul 8, 2009, 10:53 AM

I've always been interested in netbooks and this sounds like it could be great! I never bought one because they all run Windows or Linux, so maybe this OS could be great. However, I'm going to wait and see what Apple develops as far as netbooks go before buying anything.

Anuba

Jul 8, 2009, 10:53 AM

Um, I don't know what you're running leopard on, but you need to get it checked out. Leopard is rock solid - no crashes, freezes, beachballs, etc. - on the three macs in my house (core2duo imac, mini, and macbook).
I also have three Macs in my house (iMac 24", Mini, MBP 17") and they all display similar issues, and my retired Mini G4 did as well. Every time some of this crap occurs I go on the web to look for a solution and find plenty of users reporting the same problems, so obviously I'm not alone.

The runaway CPU usage, for example, is a known issue. If you auto-mount SMB shares on startup by adding them to the Startup Items pane, every time you boot up the fans start spinning like crazy and Activity Monitor reports 90-100% CPU usage for coreservicesd for 10-15 minutes. There are threads about it on Apple's forums (just google for "runaway coreservicesd").

Another fun issue is when the machine refuses to shut down because application X (usually Safari) is running, but when you go to the Force Quit pane it's not there, and not in Activity Monitor either. A few minutes ago I left Leopard and booted into Win7, and all the apps I quit were still shown as active in the Dock (the "glowing balls" were still there under the icons), but again, nothing in the Force Quit pane, nothing in Activity Monitor. I relaunched Finder but the dock still showed Photoshop, Messenger and Safari running even though they weren't. As for the spinning beachball, it seems to happen whenever I'm running Safari and QuickTime simultaneously. The ball will appear and nothing will work for about a minute (no force quit, no nothing except the ability to move the beachball around with the mouse). It happens every 5 minutes or so until I reboot.

I'll try to isolate the problem when I find the time, but it's probably some third party thing... Logitech Control Center, DivX, my external audio device driver... this useless princess-and-the-pea system is easy to wreck with any innocent 3rd party extension -- it was the cause of all those perpetual bluescreens reported back when Leopard was released. I suppose you need all-Apple peripherals and all-Apple software or you're on your own.

Luckily I have Boot Camp so I can use Win7 for stable computing. It's ugly to look at and the computer runs pretty hot, but I'll rather put up with that than random weirdness.

diamond.g

Jul 8, 2009, 10:53 AM

cms2

Jul 8, 2009, 10:54 AM

Nice, but I think Job's vision of a combination of local and cloud computing is the right one.

Google is too much about the cloud.

I wish Google maps was stored locally on your iPhone and not streamed everytime you want to get a map. It would be much faster and more responsive that way. They could combine that with some updates and ads from the cloud.

I think you're right about too much emphasis on the cloud, though every year that probably becomes less true as web access at high speeds becomes more and more available to more users...

My biggest concern with a Google OS, and uploading data to a cloud maintained by Google, is that I don't trust Google when it comes to privacy. In the past few years it has seemed (to me) that google has consistently caved on user privacy in the face of government (US, China, etc) pressure.

*LTD*

Jul 8, 2009, 10:56 AM

Well, Google should support PowerPC Macs -- why? Because Apple is abandoning them with 10.6, and Google could breathe new life into them... Ah well, missed opportunity -- what ever happened to FAT Universal Binaries anyhow?!

Why would Google want to support technology that was phased out over three years ago?

PowerPC is a dead-end in terms of Apple's business. It's been superseded, discontinued. There aren't enough PowerPC users out there to make it worthwhile for Google (especially in light of the crazy demand for current Macbooks.) If Apple dumped PowerPC, which is not only a small and ever-shrinking niche of Apple's business, why would Google choose go to the extra work and trouble to support them in light of the much wider PC market?

Goona

Jul 8, 2009, 10:59 AM

Mister Snitch

Jul 8, 2009, 11:03 AM

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

Lethal

Yeah, and Chrome will take away as much share from the Mac OS as Android did from the iPhone. Essentially: Zero.

moracity

Jul 8, 2009, 11:05 AM

The problem for google is that by the time googleOS is consumer-ready, Apple will have already released a $500-$600 netbook/tablet/ebook reader with Mobile OSX. Not to mention that the overall netbook market will be saturated by then. It seems that every week one or two new netbooks are coming out.

Anuba

Jul 8, 2009, 11:06 AM

Great. Another minority OS that will completely fail to capture the market.

Google: you do search, photo management, maps and mail. You're good at these things. Everything else you do sucks and this will be no exception.
But from the beginning they only did search, yet you're saying they're also good at photo management, maps and mail, so how can you tell if this will be one of their hits or one of their misses? Every company has a bit of both. The Newton and Apple TV aren't exactly smash hits either, but it didn't deter Apple from trying other things.

SandynJosh

Jul 8, 2009, 11:06 AM

Oh my goodness! :eek: This could be the biggest tech announcement this year!! Go Google!

Actually, Apple had a road map for doing something very similar to this about 10 years ago and it was abandoned. Probably because there wasn't any money in it.

It makes more sense at this time as the Netbook market has proven, there is a growing segment of users that only need a limited computer with a limited OS. Also, the cost of an MS OEM OS shouldn't be a significant portion of the price of a netbook.

Long gone are the days when a person would buy a PC and then go take some courses on how to operate it, update drivers, dll files, and copy data to floppy disks.

YoGramMamma

Jul 8, 2009, 11:25 AM

Isn't it peripheral interoperability and plug-and-play-ness tha makes OSs really take off??!

I can't imagine anyones mom, no matter how simple her computing needs, jumping at the opportunity to a) learn a new OS b) hope that her iPod or zine for that matter will work with it. Will HP/Canon etc be quick with making drivers for it? Will apple make iTunes for it (I have a hard time seeing why they would... Hello, linux iTunes anyone??!?).

I like google just as much as the next guy, but I don't see this really truly competing for quite some time in the future, if ever. Most people will not want to learn something new. Those who don't mind trying will (and should) be hesitant to the idea that support will be limited for a while and they might not ever get to use their shiny iPod/iPhone/etc with it.

Color me skeptical.

kamiboy

Jul 8, 2009, 11:25 AM

Goody, Linux is aimed at a very special breed of people, (usually have long beards), who know next to nothing about aestethics or the needs or grievances of ordinary computer users. Therefore that community have systematically failed to put money where its mouth is in following up on its boistrous challenges to the established wintel norm.

Unlike them this could, and I cautiously say could, actually be the first legitimate step in ending Uncle Billy's curropting dominance of the worlds computers. The timing certainly seems to be right, people who just want something for the web are certainly open to using other OS's as long as they do what they want, like all the different handsets around. The netbook is a half breed between the two. Google could trojan horse their way into the OS field via that route until web apps are actually mature enough to challenge desktop ones, which they currently are years away from.

The suite of web apps google offers, docs, spreadsheat, gtalk, gmail all start to make more sense now, they are aiming to provide users with a full suite of things at the ready. Unfortunatly gtalk has not taken off, and docs and spreadsheat are a far cry from full fledged desktop versions. They need to lear from the losses of the Linux guys and pay attention to aestetics, looking and functioning like they do they are not going to win anyone over.

nuckinfutz

Jul 8, 2009, 11:29 AM

Funny how, given the dearth of actual information about what this OS can or can't do, you get people saying "Apple needs competition"

You guys don't even know what Chome OS can do ..how are you going to compare it with OS X?

For Chrome OS to be a success it has to do about 5 major things that simply cannot be done with a full OS and web browser and I've got my doubts that ANY web technology from Google cannot be easily replicated by everyone else.

johnqh

Jul 8, 2009, 11:34 AM

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.

Wikinerd

Jul 8, 2009, 11:35 AM

Another fun issue is when the machine refuses to shut down because application X (usually Safari) is running, but when you go to the Force Quit pane it's not there, and not in Activity Monitor either. A few minutes ago I left Leopard and booted into Win7, and all the apps I quit were still shown as active in the Dock (the "glowing balls" were still there under the icons), but again, nothing in the Force Quit pane, nothing in Activity Monitor. I relaunched Finder but the dock still showed Photoshop, Messenger and Safari running even though they weren't. As for the spinning beachball, it seems to happen whenever I'm running Safari and QuickTime simultaneously. The ball will appear and nothing will work for about a minute (no force quit, no nothing except the ability to move the beachball around with the mouse). It happens every 5 minutes or so until I reboot.

What version of Leopard are you running? I've had these issues a few times with a Macbook but haven't since 10.5.6/10.5.7...

(I also own Hackint0sh and iMac... Hackint0sh dual-booting with XP because Vista sucked/Explorer.exe crashes and XP's just for gaming/not for surfing because of viruses... )

*LTD*

Jul 8, 2009, 11:35 AM

LOL, I wonder what's going through Ballmer's mind right about now.

First Apple grabs the top end of the market and makes Windows look like a bargain-bin clearout item, and now Google's making a run for the lower end (and maybe more.) Also, this Chrome OS seems to be aimed at entperprise/IT, too.

I don't think there are any chairs left in Seattle.

ChrisA

Jul 8, 2009, 11:38 AM

I wish Google maps was stored locally on your iPhone and not streamed everytime you want to get a map. It would be much faster and more responsive that way. They could combine that with some updates and ads from the cloud.

How much memory is on your iPhopne and how big is the map collection? I think the iPhone would need more than a thousand times as much memory to hold all those maps.

The way to do it is to casch the maps on the phone. Keep only the most recentlt accessed data on the phone. And guess what? That how it works now.

Electrolytic

Jul 8, 2009, 11:38 AM

Eric S.

Jul 8, 2009, 11:38 AM

Google is the new Evil Empire. I can't believe I'd be rooting for Microsoft to beat some competitor, but this is it.

windywoo

Jul 8, 2009, 11:39 AM

Isn't it peripheral interoperability and plug-and-play-ness tha makes OSs really take off??!

I can't imagine anyones mom, no matter how simple her computing needs, jumping at the opportunity to a) learn a new OS b) hope that her iPod or zine for that matter will work with it. Will HP/Canon etc be quick with making drivers for it? Will apple make iTunes for it (I have a hard time seeing why they would... Hello, linux iTunes anyone??!?).

The Linux kernel takes care of compatibility for a wide range of hardware, albeit with gaps for newer hardware and manufacturers who don't release details. There is already a Linux alternative to iTunes, with the ability to sync iPods but without a store. However iTunes is not the only online music store.

thejadedmonkey

Jul 8, 2009, 11:41 AM

I'm willing to bet that I've been using windows a far sight longer than you, since pre 3.11, and there are so many dependencies that applications share. Couple that with Microsofts lazy Add/Remove Programs utility that will just run the applications own Uninstaller if its available, and it's relatively easy for one uninstaller to delete a DLL file that two applications use and have a second application that won't run properly until you can dig up a copy of the missing DLL. It's not something that heppens frequently for me or likely any other power user, but casual users do this kind of crap pretty often.

I too have been using Windows since pre 3.11, and I have ONCE seen the sort of issues you talk about. Ironically, I've had more issues with botched uninstalls from google products on OS X (Picasa) then I ever have had on Windows...

Wikinerd

Jul 8, 2009, 11:42 AM

msheredy

Jul 8, 2009, 11:42 AM

Apple doesn't even make a netbook. :confused:

Anuba

Jul 8, 2009, 11:42 AM

What version of Leopard are you running? I've had these issues a few times with a Macbook but haven't since 10.5.6/10.5.7...

(I also own Hackint0sh and iMac... Hackint0sh dual-booting with XP because Vista sucked/Explorer.exe crashes and XP's just for gaming/not for surfing because of viruses... )
10.5.7... I think my 3 week old MBP came with that version actually. The runaway CPU usage for coreservicesd was supposedly introduced with 10.5.7, at least that's what some say but there are posts about this issue that predate 10.5.7 as well.

droz

Jul 8, 2009, 11:44 AM

And Eric Schmidt continues to sit on Apple's BoD. hmmmm, how does that work?

I've been questioning his presence on Apple's Board for over a year now, but this should be the icing on the cake. There are too many conflicts of interest at this point.

Wikinerd

Jul 8, 2009, 11:49 AM

I too have been using Windows since pre 3.11, and I have ONCE seen the sort of issues you talk about. Ironically, I've had more issues with botched uninstalls from google products on OS X (Picasa) then I ever have had on Windows...

Really?

If you can botch an uninstall that consists of mostly "dragging files to trash" it's usually your fault.

Source: http://picasa.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=21666

beez1717

Jul 8, 2009, 11:50 AM

anyone remember Be OS? how it was designed with graphics in mind, and how it was made for the beginning of the web? no? well it failed.... so history isn't looking good for chrome OS. I would say however, that this could be an awesome OS to use on your computer, as your second Operating system, for when you want a light experience, and don't need a lot of computing power. I just wonder one thing: how the heck would you do anything on an airplane??

CountBrass

Jul 8, 2009, 11:53 AM

At what point does it become uncomfortable or legally shady to have Google's CEO on Apple's Board of Directors?

When he starts making passes at the other directors' wives and tries to sell them pot.

Wikinerd

Jul 8, 2009, 11:53 AM

10.5.7... I think my 3 week old MBP came with that version actually. The runaway CPU usage for coreservicesd was supposedly introduced with 10.5.7, at least that's what some say but there are posts about this issue that predate 10.5.7 as well.

Very interesting indeed... Have you tried this?:
http://www.macosxhints.com/article.php?story=2003101415481414

Anyhow running a search "coreservicesd" only turns out some 4000-5000 results... nothing compared to "ODBC32.DLL missing"—63000 results... (yes, i picked a random dll i found in a google search— because "vista dll missing"'s number would sound inflated— 49,400,000...)

swagi

Jul 8, 2009, 11:57 AM

Google is the new Evil Empire. I can't believe I'd be rooting for Microsoft to beat some competitor, but this is it.

I'll refuse using any Google stuff lately. And I sure wouldn't use my primary computer with Google OS as I don't like people sniffing my privacy.

windywoo

Jul 8, 2009, 11:57 AM

When he starts making passes at the other directors and tries to sell them PCs.

Fixed :P

Anuba

Jul 8, 2009, 12:00 PM

I too have been using Windows since pre 3.11, and I have ONCE seen the sort of issues you talk about. Ironically, I've had more issues with botched uninstalls from google products on OS X (Picasa) then I ever have had on Windows...
Count me in... I started with Win 3.0. Wrecked DLL dependencies sounds like a Win95 era type problem, never encountered it in the last 10 years or more. If there are codependencies the uninstaller will always warn.

I also don't see what's "lazy" about the Add/Remove program panel. At least it exists. At least there's one centralized location for handling these things. OS X just rides on the old "oh, it's so easy on Mac, you just drag the app to the trash" which stopped being the case many years ago. These days installers scatter files all over the place, and there's no unified process for uninstallation. Some installers put an uninstaller in the Tools and Utilities folder. With others you have to download the app again just to dig out the uninstaller, and some simply don't have an uninstaller at all, but either way you can always be sure that there's tons of leftover garbage in various /Library and /Username/Library folders -- some of it may even be harmful. I remember uninstalling the driver for a Yamaha 01X audio device, there was a script but it was missing a couple of entries, one of them being the MIDI driver for the 01X. Upon restart I'd get a blue screen for 20 minutes while this orphan MIDI thingy was keeping the iMac in limbo before I finally arrived at Leopard's login prompt. Took me a day to track down the culprit, some silly little <500 kB file.

Very interesting indeed... Have you tried this?:
http://www.macosxhints.com/article.p...03101415481414
Nope, but I'll give it a shot. Thanks. Like I said, coreservicesd gobbles up all CPU juice for several minutes on bootup. If I remove the SMB share from the Startup Items panel it immediately stops, and if I put it back there it immediately starts again. This does not happen on my Mac Mini (with 10.5.7) which mounts the exact same SMB share on startup.

This (http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=2055469&tstart=30) thread suggests it started with 10.5.7 but the same problem was reported on other threads with 10.5.6 as well as 10.5.3. OS X really seems to hate network drives, there are so many issues with it. I used to have my iTunes library on a NAS drive, used it for years in iTunes on Windows without issues. But when I tried the same on Mac, it would randomly lose sight of the files (even though the NAS drive was mounted and I was able to browse it in Finder) and exclamation points would show up in front of the tracks. Once those pesky "!" icons would show up you had to show iTunes where every single song was, not merely once but for every track with a "!" in front of it, or rebuild the whole library.

iPhoneNYC

Jul 8, 2009, 12:02 PM

Now MS can run negative ads against Google!!!

Bonte

Jul 8, 2009, 12:06 PM

The apps need to be web-based, will Google offer a online service to host these apps?

Wikinerd

Jul 8, 2009, 12:08 PM

I also don't see what's "lazy" about the Add/Remove program panel. At least it exists. At least there's one centralized location for handling these things. OS X just rides on the old "oh, it's so easy on Mac, you just drag the app to the trash" which stopped being the case many years ago. These days installers scatter files all over the place, and there's no unified process for uninstallation. Some installers put an uninstaller in the Tools and Utilities folder. With others you have to download the app again just to dig out the uninstaller, and some simply don't have an uninstaller at all, but either way you can always be sure that there's tons of leftover garbage in various /Library and /Username/Library folders -- some of it may even be harmful. I remember uninstalling the driver for a Yamaha 01X audio device, there was a script but it was missing a couple of entries, one of them being the MIDI driver for the 01X. Upon restart I'd get a blue screen for 20 minutes while this orphan MIDI thingy was keeping the iMac in limbo before I finally arrived at Leopard's login prompt. Took me a day to track down the culprit, some silly little <500 kB file.

Well, those files left in /Library and ~/Library usually amount to very, very little space when compared to the App itself... thus if you're in a hurry of clearing up space you can just drag to trash instead of opening up the uninstaller and waiting for it to finish.

Some big apps, however, don't follow suit and often have large libraries and background processes that require an installer, etc.

As for that driver, if the uninstallation utility caused that problem, it's the coder's fault, not Apple's...

PS. this way also simplifies the troubleshooting process.. The application stays untouched by changes while all of the user's preferences of that App gets stored in .plist files. Thus nuking the .plist file effectively makes the app "new" again... instead of digging in Program Files, Registry, and uninstalling the whole thing together

Minimoose 360

Jul 8, 2009, 12:10 PM

I'll stick to OS X thanks.

Good search engine and email, but OS? What programs will it run? .goog files? hahahaha without Windows support or (although 99% doubted) Mac app support it's gonna tank. Can't expect developers to start building everything over for GoogOS! And do we remember G Web Apps? THEY ARE HORRIBLE.

If it's going to be based on the internets, they better make the internets 2.0 really soon.

sbarton

Jul 8, 2009, 12:17 PM

I used to poo poo the notion that Cloud Computing was going to be anything more than the buzzword of the year, but It is becoming clear that these are some very viable technologies and I think Google has a real shot here.

A web based OS, Cloud Storage, Browser, and Office Suite are a large part of what we use PC's for. Now we're starting to see technologies like Gaikai that can deliver some significant 3D gaming capability from the cloud.

I can see a future where some might toss the traditional computer, OS, maintenance and hassle for something approaching more of an appliance. Giving people 90% of what they need for maybe a tenth of the current cost might be a viable idea.

To be fair, we've seen many similar technologies before. X-Terms, Thin Clients, Remote Displays, etc... They all failed for various reasons. But there was a day that Dumb Terminals reigned supreme for many uses so who knows, maybe we're headed back into something like that.