uh his point was that this may be a solution for some
your post implies its of no use to anyone....
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 Previews Chrome OS, Scheduled for Release in Late 2010
- Thread starter clevin
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
your post implies its of no use to anyone....
There are obviously a lot of limitations, but that's why google is getting started now and not several years from now. As the web becomes more ubiquitous and the technology matures, the lines between installed software and software-as-a-service will blur further.
Having an OS that strips out the un-needed stuff on the client side will make more sense.
Not that I see myself using such a machine as my sole computer anytime in the near future. But I'm not gonna hate on Google for trying something different.
There is going to be a big fight between the "digital hub" (Apple) model and the "cloud" (Google) model. So far I'm still mainly on the Apple side, but even so I'm already using a lot of cloud services, like Gmail and Mint.
Having an OS that strips out the un-needed stuff on the client side will make more sense.
Not that I see myself using such a machine as my sole computer anytime in the near future. But I'm not gonna hate on Google for trying something different.
There is going to be a big fight between the "digital hub" (Apple) model and the "cloud" (Google) model. So far I'm still mainly on the Apple side, but even so I'm already using a lot of cloud services, like Gmail and Mint.
You're saying you use gmail instead of Apple Mail? I would have trouble adapting to using a browser for email all the time. I can see it when I am using someone else's computer, but not all day. What do you do keep logging in and out or open mail in another browser application?
Actually, I have been using the new Thunderbird 3 beta which is better in many ways than Apple Mail, although I still use Apple Mail sometimes. Web mail seems to appeal to people who have little knowledge of mail programs (the masses) so this example would say that we are dummying up computer software for the masses and creating standards that are substandard in quality.
So does every other mail client. What's the real benefit? Why are people using gmail? These are the same people who would use Chrome OS - so why would they choose it over Apple Mail, Thunderbird, etc.
Gmail is an actual Email Account service. Not a mail client.
I know you can use their mail service with a mail client, but that's not the discussion here. The browser version of gmail would be part of Chrome OS wouldn't it? I didn't know you are just using the service. That means you are not one of those who would use Chrome OS for email right?
The questions is why would someone choose Chrome OS over their computer apps and some people have chosen gmail web as their exclusive email. My girlfriend only uses hotmail even though she has Outlook on her computer. I see these people being Chrome OS users. I also see mobile apps using it to some degree based on the limitations of the device. More limited devices using the web os and devices like the iPhone using both.
I've got GMail set up in Apple Mail, but honestly I rarely use Mail. It's a nice client, but the GMail web client is so good in terms of functionality that I just use that. Having used mail clients from Outlook to Thunderbird to Evolution and Mail, I do know my way around e-mail clients (more than I want to know actually, when it comes to Outlook
).As for Chrome OS, I've been running it in Fusion for a couple days now, and well.....I don't see the point, at least not yet. While comparing it to Windows, OS X, or Linux at this point is silly because they've made the target very clear, it's in fact so limiting that even my Droid and iPT provide more elaborate "operating system" experiences.
The strength of the cloud, IMO, is not so much doing everything in it, but rather the backup and synchronization of apps utilizing it. For instance, DropBox and Evernote sync docs and notes from my work Mac to my personal Mac, to my DVR computer, and my iPT.
My wife wanted me to edit a photo for Christmas cards and then upload them to get printed, so she took the pic, dropped it in the Dropbox folder, I grabbed it at work, Shop'd it, then uploaded to MPix. Done. She saw the finished results in minutes, to give the okay (she's the boss, afterall
)When I first saw the Chrome OS demo video, I was thinking that this might be the solution that I need for the in-laws. Their very old iBook belongs in a museum and they can't afford a new Mac given their recession diminished income. Their needs are small ... web browsing, e-mail exchange, typing an occasional letter, and sharing pictures. They are leaning toward an el-cheapo Windows laptop or netbook, but I already have visions of viruses and other problems dancing in my head. BUT, Chrome OS appears to be non-functional if you don't have a network connection. Google lives in a magical world where everyone has a reliable, fast, always on internet connection. Unfortunately, my in-laws are still on dial up.
I think the concept of a thin client OS connected to the cloud will work for some people, but there are way too many cases where it will fall flat. I have been in the software development industry for more than 30 years. I have watched it wax and wane through the thick/thin client cycle. IMHO, the thick client's still win out in the long run for most people and uses.
I agree totally. that's why I think the synchronization aspect is the best thing about it for right now.
I think you should take a look at Ubuntu or Mint, its derivative. It passes the "mom" test, is easy to use, and virus-free. On a machine that supports it (which is most modern machines) it'll work great for what you describe, and definitely be a better fit than Chrome would have been.
are you serious? i've played with ubuntu and i can't imagine telling my inlaws how to install the new version of flash via the command line
Are you talking about the preview release, because installing Flash in Ubuntu is easier than either OSX or Windows. It installed as simply as any other plugin for Firefox. How long ago did you use Ubuntu?
Serious as a heart attack.
Me neither, that's why I use Ubuntu.
If you don't have experience setting it up, fine. If you do (like I do) then it works great. It's really not that hard. If you can Google it, you can do it. Flash under 64-bit is a little trickier to get working, but it works too. But under 32-bit it's dead simple.
i've installed it into VMWare to play with it and simulate a netbook. annoyed me as much as Red Hat.
i now run Windows 7 on all my computers and except for an iTunes issue with 9.0.2 i don't see any point in running Ubuntu. and i'm going to try to buy a MBP next year and junk my HP laptop that seems to be shedding parts like snake sheds skin
i now run Windows 7 on all my computers and except for an iTunes issue with 9.0.2 i don't see any point in running Ubuntu. and i'm going to try to buy a MBP next year and junk my HP laptop that seems to be shedding parts like snake sheds skin
Uhm, have you actually fired it up and logged in as root (which is what I just finished doing with virtualbox before posting)? It's Xorg using "chromewm".
Sorry to rain on your SDL or wX parade.
-Blake
To each their own I guess. Ubuntu is fast, easy to use, stable, no viruses or malware to speak of, and works with pretty much everything I've ever tried it on. Sure, it doesn't have the software titles like Windows or Mac, but if all your doing is Office/web/e-mail/photos it's a really strong system. Very different from Red Hat, IMO. I personally find .deb to be a lot more trouble-free than I ever did .rpm, and I dealt with that for years before switching over to .deb.
well this might work. we'll see how google does it. i do like to see that they are going open source though
With OpenSUSE and Linux Mint, everything is preconfigured.
(With OpenSUSE you still need to install extra codecs and video card drivers but Novell has GUI style installers.)
I was interested enough in the concept of Chrome to give it a try...in a virtual machine of course
I posted a screen cast of Chrome OS on my site if anyone is interested in experiencing the OS first hand. You can find it here:
http://thetechguyblog.com
You can download a copy of the virtual machine for free from gdgt.com I believe. I'm running it using VMware Fusion. Everything works! Only problem is that there is no "shut down" option in the OS itself, you have to shut down via VMware. Let me know your thoughts on the video!
Josh
I posted a screen cast of Chrome OS on my site if anyone is interested in experiencing the OS first hand. You can find it here:
http://thetechguyblog.com
You can download a copy of the virtual machine for free from gdgt.com I believe. I'm running it using VMware Fusion. Everything works! Only problem is that there is no "shut down" option in the OS itself, you have to shut down via VMware. Let me know your thoughts on the video!
Josh
I don't think it's fair to ever say that "Microsoft will be in big trouble." Chrome OS is limited to strictly consumers and casual ones at that. If Google can convince the average customer that they have a faster, more stable OS that does everything they'd do anyways, convince them the cloud is the future, and demonstrate its potential to do documents, etc. then they could have a winner on their hands, but by no means would Microsoft have to worry with their 90% marketshare. I personally believe that marketing is the biggest challenge Google will have.
I have been downloading and building Chromium OS from the "git" source code so that I can better understand where they are going. I will make the following statements:
1. Chromium OS (what they are distributing now) is mostly Linux with a UI based on ... drum roll ... and X Windows window manager + the Chrome browser. This is not a "breakthrough" and it is not faster that other alternatives at the moment. Initial testing shows that it uses more power (shorter battery life) and CPU then Ubuntu 9.10 on which it is based. They have a long way to go.
2. The stated goal is a netbook os with a nearly instant on/instant off capability always connected to the net. They want systems with solid state storage. This will not work for many people.
3. Cloud based ... clouds might be great for sharing documents, etc. But, they will not work well for editing movies, extensive photo manipulation, and many other forms of content creation.
4. The UI experience for Chromium OS steals a lot (IMHO) from Ubuntu netbook remix (UNR). I have been running UNR on my netbook and using that to build Chromium OS. The only short fall for UNR is that the web browser (firefox) is not really adopting the screen real estate UI strategy that the rest of the UI is attempting to do.
In the end, I think the current cloud only strategy for Chrome OS will not make a big impact because most of us live more extensive/rich "computer" lives than the cloud model can support. That does not mean it will fail, but I really see the final result being a more blended experience of local and cloud.
1. Chromium OS (what they are distributing now) is mostly Linux with a UI based on ... drum roll ... and X Windows window manager + the Chrome browser. This is not a "breakthrough" and it is not faster that other alternatives at the moment. Initial testing shows that it uses more power (shorter battery life) and CPU then Ubuntu 9.10 on which it is based. They have a long way to go.
2. The stated goal is a netbook os with a nearly instant on/instant off capability always connected to the net. They want systems with solid state storage. This will not work for many people.
3. Cloud based ... clouds might be great for sharing documents, etc. But, they will not work well for editing movies, extensive photo manipulation, and many other forms of content creation.
4. The UI experience for Chromium OS steals a lot (IMHO) from Ubuntu netbook remix (UNR). I have been running UNR on my netbook and using that to build Chromium OS. The only short fall for UNR is that the web browser (firefox) is not really adopting the screen real estate UI strategy that the rest of the UI is attempting to do.
In the end, I think the current cloud only strategy for Chrome OS will not make a big impact because most of us live more extensive/rich "computer" lives than the cloud model can support. That does not mean it will fail, but I really see the final result being a more blended experience of local and cloud.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; U; Android 1.5; en-gb; HTC Hero Build/CUPCAKE) AppleWebKit/528.5+ (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.1.2 Mobile Safari/525.20.1)
You do have some valid points but I don't understand why you would ever criticise Chrome OS for editing movies and content creation?
Are people really editing Videos on netbooks as that goes way past the reason netbooks exist?
You do have some valid points but I don't understand why you would ever criticise Chrome OS for editing movies and content creation?
Are people really editing Videos on netbooks as that goes way past the reason netbooks exist?
netbooks are just a marketing gimmick. Years ago when computers broke the $1000 mark it was a big psychological barrier for a lot of people to buy a pc. Then laptops broke it. The trend was first the cheapo pc's broke the barrier then the good ones. Same thing with netbooks. Now they are cheap but in a year or two it will be good enough for almost everyone and they will play blu-rays.
Meanwhile chrome is crippled
But netbooks have small screens and no internal optical drives. They have low power processors. There are more things that define a netbook than just low price. They aren't expected to serve as a primary machine, just a highly mobile backup for light work. Of course they still fit the definition of a laptop but they are more than a marketing gimmick. They fill a niche nicely.