i agree! people are very hesitant with new things, even from a company that they use daily.. it will take a very long time to catch on (if its good), or it will slump within weeks (if its bad).
when will a beta/alpha be released?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Google Announces Google Chrome Operating System
- Thread starter ipodtoucher
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
i agree! people are very hesitant with new things, even from a company that they use daily.. it will take a very long time to catch on (if its good), or it will slump within weeks (if its bad).
when will a beta/alpha be released?
The article is miss quoting the google blog which only says on top of the Linux kernel. They may not even use any of the GNU Layer or any of the window managers tied to that. Then again they may use some or all. They could be fully custom above the kernal. We won't know till they release for full version.
Really?
Name them, list their market impact, their share against competing products and their profitability.
Because until you do you sound really ignorant.
Denial. It's not just a river in Egypt. Seigler is merely a fanboy with a typewriter. I wouldn't take him seriously.
Interesting post on Daring Fireball: http://daringfireball.net/2009/07/chrome_os_context
Summing it up he seems to believe that Chrome OS may be too thin of an OS though he believes that the future is server-side client services. It's also intereting that he notes that while Chrome OS uses web apps similar to the Pre, Android uses native apps.
Summing it up he seems to believe that Chrome OS may be too thin of an OS though he believes that the future is server-side client services. It's also intereting that he notes that while Chrome OS uses web apps similar to the Pre, Android uses native apps.
this is not a realistic world,
ms themselves 8 years ago, that bozo, that bozo of bozos, gates, had to retract millions of copies of his **** book to recount his claims that there would be no web, just msn (his fascist vision of the world net....)
Is any of that realistic...nah
I am not saying that google will do this in a couple of years, but what with os x kicking ass and googles, grea, great brand name, in 5 years they ll have done more than enough.
Then they will lose money because people will have these netbooks with Chrome and won't be able to access their content.
I have never come across such things as you describe, so I will take your word that you have a better grasp and knowledge of the online porn industry then I do.
Yeah not really. Having different output ports is trivial. Showing videos also relatively trivial. All sorts of small mobile phones and their oses can already do this. Being able to do this on a netbook will not be taxing or complicated for a basic OS.
Again not so much. The OS has to be a conduit between the hardware and the software. Having standarized routines for managing usb stacks and the like take care of all this. It doesn't matter how many different bluetooth headsets exist or the rest. Not to mention someone looking for a basic and simple experience is not likely going to be using anything that is not stock and standard 95% of the time.
These are just a few random examples, off the top of my head, but it illustrates the reason the most popular operating systems of today are all so huge and resource-intensive. They *have* to be, to make a lot of the things "easy" that people come up with to try to do, while trying to use what seems like a pretty straightforward application. A small, "mini OS" works best when you have control over the hardware, and you're only providing a limited set of capabilities (as you do with, say, the iPhone).[/QUOTE]
Yeah but google has been the throw it at the wall company since their inception pretty much. That is how they have evolved to where they are. It is what they are. I suspect they have a score of projects most people in this thread have never even heard of.. they do and try a lot of different things. They likely always will. Google's philosophy has always been work on a good idea and worry about how to make money with it later. Most businesses need to know how they will make a profit before they spend 5 seconds working on anything.
Hate to break it to you, but the government could seize a few key network access points and for all intents and purposes take away connectivity for most everyone. Being able to have your files on your pc will be of little value and has little to do with what you are talking about if you can't connect to others.
Um, yeah...no.
The landscape of what is considered anti-trust is much different these days. Having the #2 player acquire the #6 player in any market for pretty much anything would not be contested at all these days, not to any level that would become anything.
I think what people are missing here is, "the computer is the network".
The network is a client and a server at it's most basic level and one level up from there the server then handles all the connections on behalf of the client.
Thin machines are just the clients, so as far as the cloud is concerned they are just buckets collecting rain.
The computer may have both server and client in one box so the computer is a network in it's own right, but can hook in other networks with the server handling it all for the user. It is a cloud in it's own right. It might drift into part of another cloud and become part of that cloud. Drift off again taking part of the other cloud with it and join another cloud.
All your data will still be on the server but the server will sync to other servers to clone the data, these clones maybe other devices like your desktop, or your TV, Fridge,Work computer, Company server, Online service. Or syncs maybe split over many and various store houses, gmail, flickr, youTude, googledocs,.....
Your Machine is as much part of the whole network as it is a standalone machine. I think this is what they are referring to when they say it's has been design for the net, unlike the OS's we have now which see themselves as having other functions plus being conduits to the net.
As part of the net the machine will seem no different online or offline. It could go as far pooling pushed content so it there for you regardless of network connection. It could be able to build on the fly networks with other devices. The internet stops being somewhere else.
Or it could be a thin device that is just another bucket under a cloud then they are right it is too thin.
I'm not surprised at this. Google needed to get technical expertise on how the Intel Atom CPU works so it could highly optimize the Google OS to work within the limitations of the Atom CPU.
it took apple 9 yeas to reach 5%, from 2%.
OS is not a simple piece of software people willing to try every day, or every month, or even every year.
I guess it all depends on how it is marketed and sold. People with existing computers will not likely download a new OS just for the fun of it. However, if it is sold as an already-installed OS on a hot, new cheap netbook, then people will adopt it. It all depends on the hardware it is attached to. Too bad they didn't team up with ASUS a couple of years ago. The eee could have come preinstalled with Chrome OS instead of a linux distro (which probably hindered initial eee sales).
I would say this is google's biggest shortcoming as a company. They want to automate everything, and that includes customer service and management of their services.
The problem with that is it means no actual person is available for most of their products to actually discuss or deal with problems. You can get banned or suspended from a google product or service and literally have no recourse but to submit a form/email that has a 99.99% chance of never being responded to... It can be frustrating. I think this would be considered a massive negative for something like an OS. They get by with it now for some of their stuff because they can, but entering a marketplace already dominated by other players, and not having any available support. Well I don't think it will work. Especially given the segment they are going after.
However part of Google's design is not to have large support staffs and customer service, and thus why they do what they do. Perhaps they will only distribute OEM and force the manufacturers to handle all support.
You are wrong though. Everything, including this, Google does in order to increase their search reach and advertising reach. Google is not a search engine company, they are an advertising company. They create tools to put advertising in front of people.
It is the same way television networks create programs so they can put advertising in front of people. Their business is selling advertising, not making tv shows.
Google's business is selling advertising, not making internet content. These things are all just a means to sell more advertising and create more exposure.
Again we lust over nothing
We sit here and wait for a real working version of Chrome for the Mac and we really care about an alternate OS. Apple has shown that they can scale OS X. OSX on a NetBook is the future and Apple will crush Google like it has done with the iPhone.
We sit here and wait for a real working version of Chrome for the Mac and we really care about an alternate OS. Apple has shown that they can scale OS X. OSX on a NetBook is the future and Apple will crush Google like it has done with the iPhone.
Apple hasn't crushed anyone with the iPhone. It's carved out a slice of the market with a great device but still remains well behind Nokia and RIM in sales. Android continues to grow and although the first few models have been rough and ready we're seeing good ones now - Stuff magazine reviewed the Hero and their opinion was that it's the first genuine iPhone competitor and they will continue to improve.
Which is awesome because if there were no competition there would be no incentive to get better.
I have my doubts--I think Google designed the Google OS primarily for netbooks, not a real notebooks or desktop computers. I can see Google designing Google OS so it substantially out-performs Windows XP on the same netbook machine.
IDK, OS is a very important part of a computer, maybe most important part. Linux failed on netbook, there is no guarantee google OS will do any better. Especially if its a web cloud OS, which would be worse than a linux.
My plain statement: apple is not kicking a$$ now, in term of market share of OS, and 5 years will not see google go up to 5% neither.
While this is true, it is important to remember that Apple has done this with one phone model. If I am RIM, I am looking at Apple with a market size 1/3 as large as mine, in just 2 yeas, with one model, and an amazing app store, and I am feeling worried. To me, "crushing" can be appropriately applied to apple's rate of progress. From this article: "According to new IDC data, RIM has 55.3 percent of the U.S. smartphone market. Apple is in second with 19.5 percent."
When I read this, and this thread, I thought of my Tivo, which I believe runs on a customized version of Lunix, is a self-contained piece of hardware and works incredibly well. If Google could do that for a netbook, that might be amazing. I don't they could, though. Seems more up Apple's alley, Frankly.
If you are thinking about this strictly in the old computer that can do everything paradigm, sure. But in just the past few years, we have used new OS's in our house on a PC, Mac, Tivo, Wii, iPod, iPhone, other phones, car stereo, etc. You get the point. A new paradigm changing netbook-specifically-design OS could get people to try it without even thinking about it.
