Back to Article

  • tipoo - Wednesday, December 08, 2010 - link

    Yeah, its just a prototype to test the OS but I really wish manufacturers used this kind of design more often! No logos, no curves, no patters, no glossy black plastic, nothing but what matters. Reply
  • tipoo - Wednesday, December 08, 2010 - link

    *patterns Reply
  • yzkbug - Wednesday, December 08, 2010 - link

    Looks like a lot of us here share the same vision of how notebooks should be designed. Here is an idea. Let’s start an open-hardware project (analogous to an open-source project) defining what our notebook should be (high quality LCD, no 16:9 screen, no gloss, thin bezel, no-flex keyboard, etc.) May be one day, a notebook manufacturer will hear us and turn it into a real product. Anand, do you want to drive this? ;) Reply
  • Dug - Thursday, December 09, 2010 - link

    Hear hear!
    It seems so obvious, but good ol stupid marketing and project managers can't get it through their thick heads to listen to customers.
  • vol7ron - Tuesday, December 14, 2010 - link

    Perhaps your wants aren't what the majority of people want; and since price is based off supply, demand, and cost, perhaps they really don't want to lose.

    When you start specializing, you lose an economy to scale. There are higher manufacturing costs, which means it'd cost more for the rest of the people, which equals less sales, which equals less profits. This is one of the reasons why the Dell manufacturing process was so successful; they used only a couple of base models so that prices would not be as high.

    But I agree, having some variance in design would be nice. I would not call it "open-hardware", I'd call it "open-design", which could encompass hardware as well as software.
  • Computer Bottleneck - Thursday, December 09, 2010 - link

    I like that idea, but what platform/OS would that go best with? Reply
  • mrBug - Sunday, December 12, 2010 - link

    AROS !!!!!!!!!!!!!! Reply
  • gr00 - Friday, January 14, 2011 - link

    I wouldn't call it open hardware because open-source hardware already exists, more like "sensible notebook design initiative". Definitely agree on "no 16:9 screen, no gloss", many of those are just standards that I hope will come to pass. Reply
  • GullLars - Thursday, December 09, 2010 - link

    I liked the design, with exception of connectivity options (seriously 1 USB, and no external storage?), but the name is not thought through.
    The reference platform is called Cr-48, which is a very unstable radioactive isotope (λ < 24 hours) of the element Chrome (nr 24 in the periodic table)... Cr-52 is the most abuntant stable isotope, and would make a better name for a computer...
  • tipoo - Thursday, December 09, 2010 - link

    Nah. This is a public beta of sorts, its going to be buggy. Naming it after the stable molecule of Chrome would ruin its name, naming it after an unstable isotope with a short half-life makes sense for this :) Reply
  • Tleilaxu Ghola - Thursday, December 09, 2010 - link


    Out of the thousands of posts I have mulled through today throughout the internet, this post takes over the top spot as my post of the month. This thread makes me lol, literally.
  • mrBug - Sunday, December 12, 2010 - link

    Hehe obviously the stable version will be Cr-52 :-D Reply
  • seapeople - Thursday, December 09, 2010 - link

    12 inches? Come on, that's way too big. This thing is basically junk until they come out with a 7" version. Who wants to lug around a giant 12" computer all day? A significant portion of the population has bone cancer, some of them children. Why won't someone PLEASE think of the children! Reply
  • Griswold - Friday, December 10, 2010 - link

    Indeed. Unfortunately, Acer and Samsung will be doing their usual thing and sell us these cheap-ass looking, glossy toys instead. Reply
  • efeman - Wednesday, December 08, 2010 - link

    Anand, regarding the drive: the line "What did we leave out? Spinning disks, ..." in the above link implies an SSD.
  • kepstin - Wednesday, December 08, 2010 - link

    I've heard from someone I know at Google that not only does the pilot laptop use solid state storage, but all notebooks sold that want to use the Google Chrome branding will be required to have solid state, in order to meet the boot time targets. No idea if this will actually hold true, when the manufacturers want to start cutting costs... Reply
  • Taft12 - Wednesday, December 08, 2010 - link

    An OEM laptop HD bottoms out at about $40 at retail (lower for large PC hardware players). I'm not sure an 8GB SSD with terrible performance like the one in my Dell Mini 9 would be any more and might even be less. I like the direction this is pushing the market! Reply
  • Anand Lal Shimpi - Wednesday, December 08, 2010 - link

    Fixed! Thanks :) Reply
  • Roland00Address - Wednesday, December 08, 2010 - link

    Why would this computer be more advantageous than any other netbook and a simple dual boot (7 Starter and Chrome)? Reply
  • Taft12 - Wednesday, December 08, 2010 - link

    Your dollars that would go towards the Microsoft tax instead go towards a modem and data transfer. This is the easiest decision I've ever had to make. Reply
  • Roland00Address - Wednesday, December 08, 2010 - link

    Netbooks are routinely $300 or less now. $300 for a 6 cell, 160 gb hard drive for the everyday price of a Netbook in a retail store. If you wait for a sale the price is usually $249 to $279, and on a mega sale like black friday you can get a netbook for $199 (though usually a 3 cell battery). You can get a dual core atom n550 netbook for $329 to $349 (not on sale, the normal everday price at a retail location.).

    The cost of a Windows 7 Starter license is between $45 and $55

    Google is expect there chrome netbooks to be $300 to $400. Sure part of this cost is the obscene cost of a Gobi modem (which you can get for about $100 retail) but this obscene price for a Gobi modem eats away the microsoft tax and more.


    I am just trying to see the value of Chrome as it currently is implemented. I understand it will be virus free and feel faster than a typical netbook. The problem is you will be hard pressed to sell this to the normal individual. Furthermore with the upcoming AMD Brazo (Low Power fusion) coming out in q1 2011 and retailing in the $300 to $500 range netbooks are going to feel less slow then they do now. Thus the only real advantages is it boots faster and is virus free; what you lose is all the productivity that current windows offers.

    Right now Google is offering an all or nothing for $300 to $400 bucks you can have a windows netbook something you already know and understand or you can have a google chrome netbook, something that is new and at first glance to a "normal individual" looks more limited.

    Personally I think Chrome would make more sense as an add-on to existing netbooks. If google dropped the Gobi modem requirement, then all OEMs would have to do is add a few gbs of flash memory via a mini pci express slot. You can have your windows as well as your linux operating system that boots very quickly, feels faster, and has all these free google apps. Google will still get their fabalous data mining and advertising engine and they will get it into more people's hands and thus more eyeballs.
  • gr00 - Friday, January 14, 2011 - link

    I agree on the pricing calculation. In my book for such a device hardware-wise and software-wise should feel like a natural evolution of netbook. Therefore should cost the same since they offer same or trade-off features.
    Most mobile phones could do these things if there was need.

    The biggest strength of Chrome OS is the unification of tendencies during the last year or two: netbooks + web apps + cloud + ssd + new OS.
    It imho bases a new idea of casual un-personal trustfull computing which will soon become a rival to todays PC computing.
  • kmmatney - Wednesday, December 08, 2010 - link

    I personally removed the Caps lock key from my work keyboard - it did more harm than good. Reply
  • tipoo - Wednesday, December 08, 2010 - link

  • Exodite - Wednesday, December 08, 2010 - link

    Win of the day. Reply
  • racerx_is_alive - Wednesday, December 08, 2010 - link

    Removing the Caps Lock key is one thing, replacing it with a search button is something else entirely.

    Instead of having to go back and erase a few all caps letters, you get a brief lag while it brings up a search box? A browser window? Something that steals the focus either way, and keeps you letters from going where they are supposed to be.

    I'm not sure that's progress.
  • kmmatney - Wednesday, December 08, 2010 - link

    I need it on my home machine for games, though. Reply
  • mino - Wednesday, December 08, 2010 - link

    $20 for 1GB ? Reasonable ? Are hope you are not serious.

    wait, there is more:
    $50 for 5GB ? WTF ? and ZERO unlimited plans ? Are you joking ?

    OK, to be clear:
    I had $20 2GB plan in 2004(!) with USB EDGE modem in plan
    - mind you, it was in no way subsidized, they made big money on these)

    Now, I have, $15 plan, with 5GB FUP and no overcharge, USB 3G modem in plan
    - FUP == 64kbps after you go over it

    I can also upgrade to 20GB plan (FUP, no oevrcharge) for $30, just for kicks of it.

    All this in Slovakia, a VERY mountainous country, with 40% rural population (think <3000 villages), with 90% 3G/99% EDGE population coverage and ~$10k average yearly gross income.

    Why am I saying it ? Because from long-term mobile user experience 2GB plan, while OOK in 2004, is a joke in the time of YouTube. Hell those 5 gigs are barely there (so the FUP really helps me here).

    In the end they are selling a $400 "notebook" that is pretty much useless without $50 monthly "monopoly tax".
    Sound a real bargain up from here ...

    /sorry but I had to write this rant.
    The idea of respected journalist believing $20/GB rates are reasonable in 2010 is just SO WRONG.
  • Anand Lal Shimpi - Wednesday, December 08, 2010 - link

    I agree that data plans are way overpriced, my praise is really due to the free 100mb per month and no contract requirements. Those two make me happy, but yes I'd like to see an overhaul of the rest of the pricing structure.

    Take care,
  • mino - Thursday, December 09, 2010 - link

    In my experience 100MB is about 1/2 a day of conservative browsing so it is more of a teaser that anything.
    Well is actually the single good thing that no-agreement part. Otherwise this looks a pure cash cow for Telcos.
  • ant1pathy - Wednesday, December 08, 2010 - link

    I'm interested in how much government subsidy might have gone into the network build out in Slovakia, and how much government control goes into the telecomms. While the large US providers make some pretty ridiculous profits, they also cough up staggering amounts of cash for infrastructure and the latest spectrum bid, which I don't believe European companies have to pay for. Different markets to be sure, and there's no doubt which one consumers benefit from, but I'm not sure what the effect on innovation and progress would be if everything was government controlled. Reply
  • cubbs - Thursday, December 09, 2010 - link

    "they also cough up staggering amounts of cash for infrastructure and the latest spectrum bid, which I don't believe European companies have to pay for."

    Believe what you will - the EU is not as "socialist" as you think. In most countries the telecoms are hardly subsidized at all, and pay, as you put it, _staggering amounst of cash for infrastructure and the latest spectrum bid_. However, when the companies make bids for the wireless spectrums they also accept the regulations that come with a license - ie. coverage of XX% of the population in X years with a certain SERV_QUAL level.

    I'ld rather say that the differences in the markets is the _competition_. Right here and now I can pick between 15+ cellphone/data carriers. Those who bid at the 3G licenses havent even recovered the full costs yet, and just finished bidding on the 4G licenses being rolled out next year.
  • mino - Thursday, December 09, 2010 - link


    The (former) landline monopoly was making money even in the communist times and was sold to T-Com 10yrs ago, still making money (and screwing anyone they can as monopolies like todo).

    All three mobile networks (Orange biggest, T-Mobile/Com second and O2 third) are fully privately funded since inception.

    The plans I mentioned were from Orange which had made the biggest 3G (and now FTTH) push in vision for challenge T-Mobile. T-com is a bit (but a still competitive bit) more pricier. O2 is relative newcomer
  • mino - Thursday, December 09, 2010 - link

    Uh, and of course the spectrums (only 450/900/1800/2100) are sold too.

    The cost of network build-up in 5 mil mountainous country is priced in the licenses though. (For instance they to install several hundred base stations by helicopter.) So they are cheaper even on per-citizen basis.

    But the initial NMT/GSM licenses were awarded for free back in the day. Companies were "just" required to provide a certain minimal coverage within a given time-frame. AFAIR it was 90% of population covered within a year. Or something like that.
  • Penti - Friday, December 10, 2010 - link

    Lol, not even the former Soviet states have any subsidies for the private telecoms. In the wireless business at least. Funny how some Americans think sometimes. Mind you US has a lot of subsides for the old land lines and broadband connections. Not that it helps much there. The rest of the world isn't over-washed in subsides they simply do it better, and cheaper. And those in the US never see the full extent of their taxation as the money goes to private insurance and pensions instead, and school fees and so on. The labor cost for the companies aren't lower because the tax is lower then most of Europe, it's higher. But you don't see on your paycheck and you can't estimate it either how much goes to the health insurance, dental plan, pensions and other benefits that's payed through taxes in Europe. But in fact looking at the statistics you can see that your benefits costs more then the taxes for the same in European welfare states. But looking at statistics wouldn't come anybody to mind I guess. Reply
  • DLimmer - Wednesday, December 08, 2010 - link

    Do you really need more than 100MB / month roaming data?

    Maybe I'm atypical, but I do most of my browsing (and computing) at home or near free Wifi and wouldn't need to rely on the data plan for anything more than incidentals.

    This is a notebook, not an iPhone.
  • mino - Thursday, December 09, 2010 - link

    Well, 100MB is on the low side of my daily usage. Commonly it can become hourly usage.

    But you are right, maybe I am being a little "spoiled" by my options.
    (I have always thought) WWAN connectivity is there to keep me from hunting for hot-spots instead of accessing Internet and doing my work.

    IMHO 100MB is just about enough for checking mails on a phone.
  • strikeback03 - Thursday, December 09, 2010 - link

    Well, given that I use email almost none, that would more than cover my email usage. But with ChromeOS being a different concept, where at least at the moment EVERYTHING has to come over the internet as there seems to be no access to local storage. Want to listen to music while writing? If the music were stored locally you could write for hours and use only a few hundred KB backing up your stuff, but if you are listening to Pandora that whole time make that a few hundred MB.

    At the same time, this isn't designed to be a primary computer, and users shouldn't necessarily need/expect to be downloading torrents or other high-bandwidth uses.
  • macandron - Monday, December 20, 2010 - link

    I must say I'm equally appalled at the data rates in the US. My god.

    I live in Finland and we can get any of the following deals:
    - limitless data at 1mbps for 10€/month (2-year contract)
    - limitless data at 15mbps for 14€/month (2-year contract)

    Flexible prepaid subscription (no contract) with following options:
    - 1 week prepaid limitless data at 4mbps, 7€
    - 1 month prepaid limitless data at 1mbps, 20€
    - 1 month prepaid limitless data at 4mbps, 30€

    In other words, for the same price Verizon offers an *extra* 3GB you can get 1 month of limitless prepaid data @ 4mbps :D

    And I bet Japan has even lower rates, with their incredible amount of phones and mobile services.

    It's like the US is 10 years behind in mobile data markets!
  • synaesthetic - Tuesday, December 21, 2010 - link

    It's ridiculous here... I use T-Mobile US, and I pay the LEAST for data among the Big 4. My plan is $65 US per month, and it gives me 500 minutes (unlimited nights and weekends, though), unlimited text and "unlimited" data which is really 5GB with a soft cap that drops you down to EDGE-ish speeds after you hit the cap.

    It's the cheapest absolutely. An equivalent plan from AT&T (with a lower HARD cap) is almost $90!
  • Matthew31 - Wednesday, December 08, 2010 - link


    It would be interesting to hear your take on how gaming fits into all this. Smartphones already have popular game apps comparable to traditional handhelds (with even better hardware available soon.) Also, games are a major reason to have an atx size computer around.
  • Anand Lal Shimpi - Wednesday, December 08, 2010 - link

    Gaming on Chrome OS will likely be limited to casual gaming, similar to what you get on a smartphone today.

    In 3-5 years however you'll easily have more GPU power than an Xbox 360 in a netbook. What happens at that point is really interesting. In a perfect world MS and other publishers would open up their game libraries to all platforms at that point, but that's just wishful thinking.

    Take care,
  • MFK - Thursday, December 09, 2010 - link

    That may be true.
    But in the short term, Chrome OS should support OnLive gaming right?
  • sviola - Thursday, December 09, 2010 - link

    Add wishful thinking there...Specially if you take into account that games from 10 years ago aren't available to competitor's plataforms. Reply
  • 5150Joker - Wednesday, December 08, 2010 - link

    I've noticed a general trend in the computing industry towards dumbing down end user control and assigning that responsibility to large corporations. Apple started this with iOS which was followed suite in party by Android and Windows Mobile 7. This Chrome OS takes a bigger leap forward with that by decentralizing everything and placing control entirely in their hands. Are consumers today so utterly misinformed that they cannot run a modern PC without compromising security? Since when was consumer notebook security such a huge issue to start with? MS has addressed that problem in part with it's MSE release which is for free, has a small footprint and is free.

    I don't think the Chrome OS is the step in the right direction, rather it is headed towards a "big brother" infrastructure which I dislike very much. Lastly, since it is a cloud based system, having to use traditional wireless phone data plans (along with their measely caps) to access data is a big letdown. Personally, I think it's a far better idea to have one's own hard drive store all their data than to rely on constant net access to get work done than to store potentially sensitive data on the internet.
  • cjb110 - Thursday, December 09, 2010 - link

    I'm sorry but you can't blame 'utterly misinformed users' for security issues.
    Not one of the current OS's has a modern design that gives security is due consideration. It's all been bolted on once it became an issue.

    I'm sure Microsoft would agree that in an ideal world, if they could develop the next Windows without time or profit concerns they would end up with something completly different to what we have now.

    Chrome OS has some of that luxury, and is benefiting greatly from hindsight, and based on that and short term usage predicitons Chrome OS could be very succesful. Of course in 10-20 years it might have all changed again...
  • hans007 - Wednesday, December 08, 2010 - link

    i dont think the argument that windows 7 is too slow to run on netbooks is particularly great.

    first off chrome notebooks do need to be online most of the time, and they will cost just as much , and probably more given they will have different economies of scale.

    that and by the time chrome OS is out, you'll have bobcat or faster netbook chips making windows 7 run faster.

    why would you buy a chrome OS netbook, if you could buy a windows 7 based bobcat one, that could ALSO runall your other apps, starcraft 2, and have the chrome browser on it.

    other than having to deal with a real OS, it would have almost all the advantages of a chrome OS netbook, and still be able to do things like... oh print to a real printer, play a real game, run real apps and backwards compatibility.

    i mean ubuntu can do some of those things and its netbook adoption rate is putrid. so mch so that companies started putting ancient windows xp home on the first bunch of netbooks after people complained so much and returned so many netbooks.

    chrome OS will be a failure probably.

    it just doesnt haveenough advantages over windows 7 + chrome browser (or another browser) to make up for all the crippling. the only people who could pull off chrome OS is apple because their loyal droves of lemmings would buy it even with all the drawbacks. plus they dont care about compatibility with existing software.
  • Penti - Friday, December 10, 2010 - link

    Having Windows 7 license plus Broadcom Crystal HD for Video acceleration, so you could use Flash player would cost like $125 bucks for W7HP and Crystal HD though, add in more ram and it's 150-200 dollars, instead of the old ~$25 dollars for the old time netbooks with Windows XP. A 100 dollar premium would yield you a CULV/ULV (C2D/Core2) laptop that handles multimedia much better and is a fully functioning computer. Simply put a netbook with an Atom CPU, 2GB ram, Intel chipset, harddrive, wireless, TFT-screen, touchpad, keyboard and Crystal HD together with a larger battery something the 200 or 300 dollar devices don't have would cost $500 easily with the OS license.

    So what you really argument against is Atom based netbooks nothing else. Running Chrome which still needs to be licensed in some form, video decoders and stuff aren't free but already payed for by Google when they build it, building Chrome yourself is criminal in that sense (with video support). And they still need large battery's and hardware video acceleration (bitstream decoding) even if they just run Chrome browser. You might get by with 1GB, but that's hardly an argument, and you might get by without any real storage as Chrome OS just needs to be a live distribution with an browser, but that's hardly an argument either as that doesn't save any money but that's not the point, it's really is that it's a proper thin client machine! Thin clients aren't free they offer other benefits, in the PC-world they still cost like $450 without screen, keyboard or mouse. Sometimes up to $499, why? Because they use normal PC-type parts, they use Atom with a XP or 7 Embedded OEM OS. If you want cheap, or rather cheap hardware you would just buy a $499 dollar business usable notebook instead. Getting a notebook with Windows 7 Pro (so you could use it in a corporate environment) would not cost much more then five hundreds if that was all you cared about. It wouldn't be too difficult getting that for around $500, and then you don't need any keyboard, mouse or screen.

    Also you have to add in also that a Gobi-card easily costs over $100 USD. $400 is not bad for that piece of tech. But it's simply not a portable PC. It's a thin client platform with a proper browser and local multimedia support that you use for remote apps. Be it via RDP/Citrix, web apps on company servers or webservices on the internet. Without having to manage an complete OS. But it's not to escape Microsoft. But in the roam or field of thin appliances it's a real step forward then to having some linux based thing without proper none remote client use or local browser, or customized XP/7 embedded devices with a local IE8 browser, but lacking the diversity of Chrome browser and HTML5 support. But cost saving always come from other places then in buying in the kit a computer is cheap compared to the software and licensing and the managing a few hundred bucks don't do any real difference there. And home users don't really have any Citrix to connect too for all the windows/real apps. Chrome with HTML5 w/ video acceleration and possibly flash player support is really all what many home users need though and something other thin client solutions haven't offered. But it is more like a thin client PC from the corporation they work at that they also can use for leisure then anything else. But that's still what was missing, doing all the boring stuff was already possible even on none-x86 based mobile thin clients.

    Ubuntu on the other hand can't do netbooks, they can't support the hardware dell isn't prepared to do anything so it doesn't amount to anything more then a community hobbyhack that you can't upgrade the OS on with bad drivers that isn't sold outside of the US. No GPS functionality to speak of built in, no gps maps, drivers don't support the Gobi's GPS, no H.264 video support for HTML5 browsers without Chrome installed by the user that uses for a netbook way to slow ffmpeg to decode it, no flash player with video acceleration OOB since the Linux options don't have the Crystal HD card or ION/ION-NG, and GMA4500 doesn't support it since they are on other APIs not supported by Adobe and Flash player is in a bad state on Linux still, it's just the beta that has got acceleration. It simply gets a unusable result out of the box so why would any body buy it? It's simply right that they don't. They shouldn't. As it's easier buying one with Windows and hacking in Ubuntu yourself. You could probably get that video acceleration support too then also. But that's not why they would buy something like this, Linux enthusiasts would VNC in to their linuxbox with Chrome/Chromeapp on the Chrome OS notebook not hack their own OS. But for the others it's simply a matter of it working out of the box. Something that is new even to Windows based stuff in this category. And as said those Linux boxes can't even be bought in most countries. A Chrome OS app with RDP support is also all that's needed to connect to their Windows home PC's to run Windows apps inside the chrome browser. It's not situated to be a complete computer replacement, but it doesn't need to be either. If it's working OOB, gets updated without problems and support all the basic stuff then it's miles from the badly designed Linux offers in the past. No offense to Linux here, just the OEM's that aren't trying and Canonical which the OEM's shouldn't entertain the thought with. And just look what they do with Android or Linux embedded in network/storage devices when they are trying. People will simply not buy something that aren't finished and supported. Unsupported software means the whole computer is EOL and thrown in the trash. Think of it in this way what use would the iPhone 1 gen been after a year if they hadn't updated the software from the first firmware it came with in 2007. None. Think how awful it had been to wait two years for 3GS to come out to get updated software. That's how badly the netbook linux debacle was handled. People would have returned the iPhone 1 gen if they couldn't update the software either, as it would been outdated in months unusable in a year prehistoric in two. But people aren't even aware of the fact that there is Ubuntu netbooks to begin with, you can't buy them in electronic stores. They rightly stayed away from the connmens of Xandros. One time hacks that aren't updated or maintained aren't enough. Of course everybody stayed away and nobody loved it. But that's not the case from all OEMs when building Linux products! Some are very in tune with the community, but also manage to create commercial products that everybody can use. So no rejection from users or community behind the software and philosophies. So in all what's running under Chrome is pretty unimportant, it's whats done with it that matters. That it's Linux doesn't yield disadvantage in this case. If you bought a XP computer where you couldn't update from SP1 you would have returned it too. That's how bad Asus handled it. Google just need to support a slim hardware choice it would work better then on the Android phones. OEM's would simply pick the compatible parts and Google would support and update the software. Something Canonical haven't been able to do in the consumer electronics field again. Moblin never got to the stage were it tried to do it, MeeGo hasn't either. There's always good potential when you have good vendors and support the stuff yourself though as an OEM. But you don't do it to save licensing money. Which is why Asus/Acer is so retarded and dropped it. A netbook or tablet isn't a desktop. That would be harder. But that's also no trouble buying if your a business. Just not from Canonical. Don't just judge out of that.
  • Aelinos - Wednesday, December 08, 2010 - link

    If Opera made an OS like this, I'd jump on it for a netbook. Seriously, you already have Widgets for Web Apps, and Opera Link for syncing information. On top of that, thanks to Opera Unite, I can share just about anything from any computer that I have Opera on, as long as I have internet.

    And the biggest pro of all? I wouldn't be bound to Google, Microsoft, or Apple.
  • strikeback03 - Thursday, December 09, 2010 - link

    No, you would be bound to Opera. How is that any different? Reply
  • dustcrusher - Thursday, December 09, 2010 - link

    I'd like to see some of the developers and designers at Opera come up with an Opera OS concept, just for kicks. It'd be an interesting read.

    Opera seems to be less...obnoxious about wanting user data than Microsoft, Google, or Apple do- I can't really back it up with facts, but it just seems like they wouldn't be as hellbent on getting as much marketing info on their users as possible.

    The real question (which you indirectly suggested) is would they be the same if they were able to release OperaOS, and the answer is probably "only slightly less so."
  • gr00 - Friday, January 14, 2011 - link

    Haha I was thinking the same thing when I heard about ChromeOS. Opera is my browser of choice.

    How are opera different? Take a look at security concerns with google that everyone just seems to have forgotten by now. First googlemail, than chrome browser, then ChromeOS. And it's evolution of google's idea of privacy and what of your data actually belongs to them. Google is way above Microsoft and Apple in this respect. And now you put all your data on their servers, without the option to use only local storage. How is this better than a virus?
  • nitrousoxide - Wednesday, December 08, 2010 - link

    So Chrome OS is gonna use very little computing power, right? What level of computing power does it require? I guess a GPU capable of hardware acceleration is essential 'cuz we got lots of HD videos on Youtube today. Won't Ontario APU be a good choice? Atom is just uncapable of handling that. Reply
  • ckryan - Wednesday, December 08, 2010 - link

    I hope Chrome becomes a true netbook alternative. I like the developer version seen in the pictures. I hope the lack of branding and silly aesthetics are left out of the final designs. The pictured netbook looks awesome... simple, and while I like my function keys and ctr/alt keys, I like the restrained keyboard design. Can't wait to see how it shakes out. Reply
  • Kamen75 - Wednesday, December 08, 2010 - link

    I would hope that Google would build a Gaming service like OnLive into these netbooks or just use OnLive itself. With all the heavy lifting being done by their own servers today's standard $299 Atom or better based netbook would work for this service. Add in hdmi output and you could possibly have a console grade gaming device at no additional cost. Just buy some controllers and subscribe to the service. Reply
  • Ratman6161 - Wednesday, December 08, 2010 - link

    Lets put this idea of a "Microsoft Tax" to rest.

    At $299 - $399 for chrome based netbooks, they cost the same as a Windows 7 based netbook such as the HP Mini's. Obviously Microsoft must figure they are making some money off of the deal somehow, but where ever it is it isn't passed on to the customer since the prices are the same.

    So whee is this mysterious "tax" I keep hearing about if I pay the same for either one?
  • Akv - Wednesday, December 08, 2010 - link

    I'm not sure, I don't know but Google may be engaging in a gross missunderstanding.

    I mean since it is based on Moblin Linux, why not get a netbook with a light Linux that would let me install anything, retain full control on my files, access anything on the web, and even... access Google apps online if I wish ???
  • GeorgeH - Wednesday, December 08, 2010 - link

    Beyond the giant middle finger to Microsoft and possibly Intel if ARM takes off, what is Google getting out of this? Are you going to be locked in to Google services (Google search, Gmail, etc.) or will Bing and Hotmail work too? Does the OS include "anonymous" user tracking/profiling for targeted advertising like other Google services?

    Basically, what's Google's game here?
  • skjef - Thursday, December 09, 2010 - link

    From what I can tell so far, you _need_ a Google account just to boot the thing up. You'll be automatically logged into any Google services you use like Youtube or search, which track your activity anyway.

    The default email/docs/search is all Google, which most people won't bother to change. Google makes all their money on advertising, so it seems like their game is just to get more people browsing the web faster. More page views = more advertising dollars.
  • GeorgeH - Wednesday, December 08, 2010 - link

    I've gotten the same lame "Voice Five" popup (not a separate window, just slapped over the content) twice today, and only on Anandtech so I'm pretty sure it's on the AT side. Is it new AT policy to allow popup advertisements? Reply
  • Iketh - Thursday, December 09, 2010 - link

    never seen it Reply
  • Ryan Smith - Thursday, December 09, 2010 - link

    No, it is not. I'll talk to our ad people ASAP. Reply
  • GeorgeH - Thursday, December 09, 2010 - link

    Cool. I wasn't fast enough to grab a screenshot or anything else, but FWIW it's exactly the same as the one Quicksilver posted (#23) in this thread:
  • ProDigit - Wednesday, December 08, 2010 - link

    Quote: "The leaders in computing in the 1970s and 1980s are mostly gone today"
    Yes,that's why the software today is more like bloatware!

    In the early days software was created to function,and to be handy. Later, programs where improved in efficiency (lowest possible waste of time emulating or loading stuff) debugged and made to reach to a destination through various means (eg: some feats could be accessed by rightclicking the mouse, or taskbar,or hotkeys).

    After that (the milennia) programs where created to look nice, often running gigabytes of information running through the RAM and graphics card, for very simple instructions that would take a few megabytes at most with older software (say for instance running the OS).

    Now we're in an age where all these gigabytes are needed to be downloaded via the net.
    Stupid I'd say, why would you want to download a program over and over again, everytime you want to use it? Why would you want your computer to upload data to the net to be used for 'cloud' computing?
    As if a desktop does not have sufficient power, and your 1Mbit line has?

    The older computer guru's should re-enter the software market, because many of the newer guys really are messing up big time,wasting resources, creating stuff that is not necessary.
    If I wanted something that acts like linux, and looks like Linux, I would guess I would use linux. Not Chrome OS.
  • Morgalomaniac - Wednesday, December 08, 2010 - link

    This seems like a mobile phone OS on a netbook.

    Listing the current batch of devices from entertainment to productivity we already have:

    PMPs - Mobile Phones - Tablets - Netbooks - Laptops/PCs

    Do we really need to wedge something in-between Tablets and Netbooks? And, if so, must we adopt yet another distinct operating system? I assume that Android and Chrome OS are in no way mutually compatible.

    Currently I'm a little confused at how this is all supposed to fit together, but I guess I'll reassess when more details are released...
  • crazzeto - Wednesday, December 08, 2010 - link

    I think the Chrome notebook is interesting, something of a curiosity but that's really all it is to me. Frankly it doesn't fit in anywhere as far as I can tell. Sure there's an argument that perhaps it's a netbook replacement (as anand suggests), but then.... Why not just get one of the many Tablets that are getting ready to flood the market right now? Frankly you'll get a far richer experince, with something that really makes a statement about being a unique product class.

    Chrome notebook seems to pretend to be a notebook computer, with out actually being one.... At least for me, I don't see the point of this. If I'm going to have a notebook, I want windows 7 (interesting how that's exactly what they were running for a good portion of that first video demo).

    Honestly, this is something I really can't get excited about. I want a more powerful laptop with Windows 7, I want a tablet (probably the Moto Honeycomb tab).... But a Chrome notebook? Not so sure about that.

    But then agian that's just me, and I hate trying to do real work on the web. Ironic that I'm a web developer by trade.
  • StormyParis - Wednesday, December 08, 2010 - link

    100MB/mo free, which is not enough, for *** 2 years *** which is nowhere near the useful life of any PC. After that, it's $20/mo, which costs you more, per year, than a basic, much more versatile, netbook.

    the value in the Chrome proposition boggles my mind.
  • mi1stormilst - Wednesday, December 08, 2010 - link

    The ipad offers $15 a month and $25 a month...this is the one thing I think that all partners should embrace for global adoption. Cheap, fast enough data plans with no contracts. If those awesome new Archos tablets had 3g built in for $9.99-$25.00 a month I would never need a phone again. Reply
  • mi1stormilst - Wednesday, December 08, 2010 - link

    that this concept for an OS is utter failure without a network connection. So no 100MB will not be near enough if you are required to be connected to use the device. I live in Arizona in the Phoenix area and even in a huge metro population I have to constantly whip out my Cricket card for my laptop. If you plan on leaving it at home I suppose it may have a value as something to show your friends. Reply
  • JamaCheerio - Thursday, December 09, 2010 - link

    This is exactly what all the people I inevitably end up helping NEED! My wife, My mom, my sisters, my bone headed friends, friends of my bone headed friends. "Dude, I think I have a virus..." You know the drill. Show up to some bloated notebook just barely able to boot up. And they all do the same exact things. "I check my email, search for stuff, shop online, go on
    Facebook, print boarding passes, look at photos, type something in Office."

    If this pans out, I'm telling them all to get this. I just hope they have an elegant solution for photos & video...
  • zodiacfml - Thursday, December 09, 2010 - link

    Firstly, Anand presented the article nicely with good points that have nothing I disagree. I am sure, the OS will see success similar to netbooks or the Chrome browser, not for everybody, but works very well for some.

    Anyways, as JamaCheerio above, this will save me from being free support for many people regarding their machines. I could install this thing to people who only use a computer for getting online and also think that they're almost 90% of them.

    For personal use, I could use this in an old or low end notebook/netbook which can support digital cameras(for travel purpose) which could be already in the plans of Google as many people update their online presence with pictures.
  • R3MF - Thursday, December 09, 2010 - link

    i don't like it, and the failure of atom is not a failure of desktop OS's in light-weight platforms, fusion will fix that deficiency. Reply
  • MagmaTism - Thursday, December 09, 2010 - link

    Just install the latest Ubuntu and Chrome to get a feel for the performance.

    I'm using a first Gen ATOM on my netbook, and the experience in Chrome feels faster than my 2.4GHz Core2Duo laptop. DOM animations are buttery smooth as is scrolling. The entire experience is blazing fast and doesn't make me want in any one area. It even handles flash content very well with smooth operation on full screen animations. The canvas also performs quite well as tested against the popular chrome experiments site and heavy Javascript apps like Google Documents load quickly and interaction has been flawless.

    Let me say this again: On my first generation ATOM netbook, the experience is flawless.

    I expect that not only will CR48 have superior hardware, but the OS will be far more optimized than mine is now, in addition to SSD which will further reduce latency and improve perceived performance. Added on top of this, is an iteration of V8 which improves performance even further, and increased GPU acceleration of website content.

    Also, thanks to recent optimizations by Adobe, flash videos consume next to no CPU for 1080p video using GPU hardware.

    I fully expect chrome OS to put more powerful notebooks running windows to shame from a user-experience standpoint -- not raw computation, of course.
  • TonyY001 - Thursday, December 09, 2010 - link

    If apps can only be downloaded from the Chrome OS store how will companies build internal apps that they want to run on Chrome OS? Reply
  • iwodo - Thursday, December 09, 2010 - link

    $400 is too expensive Reply
  • iwodo - Thursday, December 09, 2010 - link

    Why does the stupid Filter continue to NOT ALLOW ME TO POST and say I post SPAM Reply
  • Shadowmaster625 - Thursday, December 09, 2010 - link

    "The selling point behind a netbook is that it’s small, cheap and fast enough for browsing the web. The problem is a netbook isn’t fast enough for running the OS that you need to run in order to get access to the web."

    The selling point behind a netbook is not "small, cheap and fast enough". If that was the selling point then they would have a low budget low capacity SSD installed. But they dont. They ALL have craptastic 250+GB 5400rpm hard drives. Why? What good does it do to have 238 more gigabytes than you need to surf the web on Windows 7? These guys could very easily stuff a windows 7 installation onto 12GB, including hibernation space. And you only need a few extra gigs for "surfing the web". So why are there no 30-40GB SSD options on netbooks? I know exactly why. Because people dont think. They hear that stupid Intel jingle on tv 200 times a year for 15 years, then they mindlessly buy it or market it even though it is just a scam. And everyone falls for it. Where is the critical analysis? Why can I not go anywhere and buy a cheap "netbook" for "surfing the web" that has a logical storage solution? (ie 30 gb SSD, which costs maybe $10 more than a 250GB notecrap 5400rpm hard drive.) Instead we are all stuck with something that crashes the moment you jostle it.
  • Shadowmaster625 - Thursday, December 09, 2010 - link

    Correction. I forgot about the plethora of craptastic 160GB 5400rpm hard drives. Reply
  • strikeback03 - Thursday, December 09, 2010 - link

    Do the Windows 7 Starter TOS say anything about shipping with SSDs? Obviously more than 1GB of RAM would help too, but they don't do that often. Reply
  • aapocketz - Thursday, December 09, 2010 - link


    The original eeepc netbook ran linux on a small low capacity SSD. Then people demanded windows and big HDDs, and now thats all they sell.

    However, I am glad Google is willing to push the original eeepc type concept, and with their software knowledge they may be able to pull it off better than ASUS did. The included cellular radio may help sell it too. Just don't count on it. Sometimes I think google has the throw a bunch of crap on the wall to see what sticks approach to innovation.
  • Incognitus - Thursday, December 09, 2010 - link

    So, what you get is a crippled computer for the price of a real one that is locked into a walled garden software environment controlled by a company that build its business model on digging personal data, while effectively re-introducing the dial-up era "pay-per-use" model of old ?

    Sorry, maybe I have not drunken enough cool aid to see why this is great for any user.

    One can only hope that MS stays in business and true to a business model that actually makes a PC a device that INCREASES freedom. And boy, if you would have told me 10 years ago that one time MS would become the last line of defense when it comes to freedom and privacy, I would have laughed you out of the door.
  • andrewbuchanan - Friday, December 10, 2010 - link

    Lol. how true. Reply
  • Murst - Thursday, December 09, 2010 - link

    Anand -

    Your comments about the performance hit due to Win7 seems to go directly against the comments about Moore's law.

    If Moore's law continues to apply, we should continue seeing massive performance increases in Netbooks at the same price points. By the end of next year (probably), it should mean that Netbooks should have absolutely no problem running Win7 (even if price continues to drop, it can't keep on dropping forever ). If that's the case, the performance advantage of Chrome OS disappears.

    It just seems like there was a market for Chrome OS, but Google was a couple years too slow. If this was released a couple years ago, it could have made a huge difference. However, if performance will no longer be a problem for Netbooks running Win7, the advantages of something like Chrome OS aren't so clear, especially at the same price points.
  • Spivonious - Thursday, December 09, 2010 - link

    Isn't Google giving away the OS somewhat anticompetitive? Apple and MS can't compete with that.

    Also, $400 is just way too much for what 1990s Sun would call an Internet appliance. For the same $400 I can get a CULV laptop and get a much better experience.
  • Zorblack1 - Thursday, December 09, 2010 - link

    So I can spend $50 more and get a netbook with Windows and DL Chrome and get the same experience + windows. What a joke.

    However that said the idea of a complete browser based OS is interesting and headed towards the future.

    Data rates in the US are outragous. They should never be refered to as reasonable even if they are inline with current pricing (raping?).
  • Radicchio - Thursday, December 09, 2010 - link

    As I see it, one big advantage of Chrome is the 'stateless' PC in that if you lose your laptop or it is corrupted, it will automatically download a new boot image and as soon as you log in, restore all your apps and settings.

    Windows 7 already provides very this functionality for your Office 2007 settings and Favourites via Live Mesh. What I would like to see is this extended so the entire user profile (up to 5GB) is synchronised automatically and transparently: if my laptop hard drive fails I still need to reinstall Win 7 and my apps, but I then log into Mesh and everything is restored.

    A small service running the Windows Easy Transfer utility and Mesh is all that is required and this would also be an ideal way to deal with the build-up of 'Windows cruft'...
  • ABR - Thursday, December 09, 2010 - link

    I don't get the "it's not the apps, it's the OS" argument. It might be that Windows bogs things down a lot by itself, but in most cases the reason for all the swapping, etc. is -- guess what -- the web browser. Web browsers increasingly attempt to provide a whole OS's worth of GUI and document manipulation possibilities, which are effectively layered over the same stuff provided by the OS. But because of constraints or unplanned development by small teams or whatever else, they've never been particularly efficient. It's not uncommon to see browsers consuming dozens of megabytes per tab. That's millions of bytes of information for a far less interactive display than provided by a typical desktop app.

    This is why Apple took the opposite approach with iOS: apps have only one layer of highly-optimized API before getting to the low-level OS and then the hardware. The smoothness i-devices have over others with better hardware is the result.

    But in computing, the higher-level model always wins, because hardware overtakes any inefficiency. The Chrome approach might be the future, but it will be in spite of bloat, not because of reducing it.
  • wumpus - Thursday, December 09, 2010 - link

    The opening statement claimed that you could reach 90% of personal computers in 1996 by writing for one OS seems unlikely. You could probably run a DOS program on 90%, but it would be much harder to get win 3.1 and windows95 users to run in the DOS penalty box. I know I still played plenty of games (Quake 1 and I'm sure plenty of glade games) in DOS but I think your hypothetical program would get more users if built for win3.1 (but would not be possible on >10% of boxes). Reply
  • andrewbuchanan - Thursday, December 09, 2010 - link

    I'd rather have a notebook with windows and run chrome in it.

    And at 12" you can get a notebook. Might cost alot more than $400, but it'd be able to do alot more as well.

    Also the new amd atom alternatives should be fast enough to run windows 7 better and still fall into the $400 price range.
  • MrSpadge - Thursday, December 09, 2010 - link

    This is really fascinating! If you trust Google this is.. dare I say the holy grail of computing? A system which just works and which is capable of almost any task most people need to do. Nevermind the curretn hardware implementation, cost for data transfer etc... this could change / improve any day.

    Just forget your well managed, high performance main rig for a moment and consider Joe Sixpack in all his computer-illiterate clumsy-ness and what this could do for him!
  • kevith - Thursday, December 09, 2010 - link

    Is it just me, or are the prices of data insanely expensive? 50 dollars pr month for 5 GB?!!

    In my country WLAN with a 4Mb/s usb 3G-modem and 10 GB/month is 160 DKR, which is around 30 USD. My daughter has it, and she has to be careful of what she's doing, because after 10 GB they will not charge extra, but simply lower the speed to 64 Kb/s...

    So 100 MB for free is almost a joke.

    And that's why I'm very sceptic to all cloudbased computing anyway, or Google OS and its eventual future competitors: We'l be even more tied up to these companies.

    (I've just gone totally Linux, can recommend it warmly, it's not that hard anymore, they too have developed.)
  • Mumrik - Thursday, December 09, 2010 - link

    "Every player in this space wants to be what Microsoft was during the PC era"

    Haha, I think claimed that era has passed might be jumping the gun a bit :-D
  • rs2 - Thursday, December 09, 2010 - link

    A smartphone is not a computer. A tablet might be, but not if it's running the same OS as an iPhone. Similarly, Android, iOS, webOS, BlackBerry OS, Symbian, and MeeGo are not "personal computer" operating systems. Your definition of "personal computer" is so broad that my TI-89 calculator is feeling snubbed for being left out of your article.

    Ubiquitous computing doesn't mean that all of a sudden everything that has a web browser in it is a personal computer. There also needs to be parity in terms of capabilities, and today there is definitely not. I wouldn't feel comfortable trying to compose a document or PowerPoint presentation on a smartphone, I wouldn't want to use anything short of a laptop or better for software development and coding, and I just plain can't play most games on anything short of a laptop or desktop either.

    Until such discrepancies in functionality are well and truly dealt with, a smartphone is not a tablet, and a tablet is not a personal computer.
  • name99 - Friday, December 10, 2010 - link

    The comments here are very short-sighted.
    The INTERESTING point here is the future of files.

    Google has gone down the same road as Apple here, trying to pretend that files do not exist, and providing pretty much zero concessions to their existence in the UI. Both, for example, provide extremely limited ways to share files between silos --- eg you can have multiple PDF readers on your iPad, but you can't read a file that is in one of their silos using one of the other PDF readers.

    Presumably Google's theoretical grand strategy here is the claim that you don't need files because whatever would be a file (the canonical example being, eg, a Google Docs spreadsheet) will instead be a whatever-you-call-it living in the cloud.
    Apple, in contrast appears to have not even this level of grand strategy to their thinking --- they are winging it month by month, and it will be very interesting to see what iPad2 + iOS5 bring in this regard in a few months.

    It's not at all clear that this desperate attempt to pretend that files don't exist is a good idea or something users have been crying out for. Users don't want the HASSLE of managing files, I agree, but I think we can do better than both these two options. Google's option, in particular, strikes me as having the potential for all sorts of future legal fun

    (a) Anti-trust --- if all your docs are locked up in Google Docs, they would appear to be a whole lot more securely locked up than anything MS ever achieved. How exactly does a competing spreadsheet/word processor/whatever get into such a market?

    (b) Interaction with other individuals --- If I want others to see work I've done on a file, the current paradigms are well understood. I email the file, or copy it to a public folder on a file server, or transfer it using a flash drive. Sharing a google docs type document with just one other person (as opposed to making it publicly viewable) requires a whole new set of paradigms, and while one solution is to send an email URL to the document, there are actually many situations where you what you want to send other people is exactly a static version of what the document looked like then, NOT a live version that reflects every change I (and others) will subsequently make.
    I suspect to see much fun and amusement over the next few years as doctors, lawyers, politicians et al discover various ways that Google Docs they try to share (and subsequently modify) leak those new changes to the rest of the world.

    (c) Sharing with other programs. I don't want to go all luddite here and go on about the perfection of the UNIX command-line and the way one can flow data through pipelines from one command to another, but I suspect that almost everyone is going to find in time some particular cross-application way of working they utilize, but which others don't know about or care about, so which is not supported in the various (limited and hardwired by the OS manufacturer) ways of sharing that are provided.

    All of which makes me think that PCs are not going to go away. It makes sense to keep tablets and phones as simple as possible because the very point of these devices is their form factor. But it ALSO makes sense to retain PCs, with their rich keyboard input (not just typing but modifier keys, function keys etc), and rich UI (menus allow you to create large and powerful programs like Photoshop, or Mathematica, or Dev Studio --- no menus and no easy way of finding how to do things means much simpler programs).
    Apple, I think understand this. AND, I think, understand the value of having cloud services available for phones, pads and PCs, they just can't admit this until they have their own cloud infrastructure ready for the public.
    Google, I'm not so sure. Google has misfired with respect to UI so often that I'm not at all convinced they understand the needs and desires of most users. So it seems to me that here Google are solving what they think is a problem [and it is a problem], how can we provide a safer, easier, less hassle computing experience, but they AREN'T thinking of the flip side that Apple has more covered, namely what do our users do when they need more power? I suspect Google is being more condescending that Apple here, in that they are assuming most users just don't need "real computers", whereas Apple's strategy is more "use your phone for phone things, use your pad for pad things, and use your mac for everything else".
  • chewietobbacca - Friday, December 10, 2010 - link

    Is great for my mom, who doesn't use her computer for much more than online browsing and work things. But that's also the other problem - some work things won't work without Windows, and I don't see apps reaching what Excel can do for her (she's in accounting)

    Right now though, I'm just praying Fusion/Bobcat really are all they're hyped up to be, to take us away from this crap Atom has given us
  • maxusa - Friday, December 10, 2010 - link

    Lately Anand made several rather bold conclusions based on wishful thinking and hearsay. Come on, dude, pull your head out of the gutter, you, CEO and founder of one of the most popular technology review publications online.

    HINT: If you want to target 90% of personal computers 15 years ago and today, you still develop code against one platform only. Based on multiple sources, Microsoft commands 88-91% of the personal computer market share as of November 2010.

    Or, perhaps, Anand is just testing his readership for how much baloney it can swallow?
  • spiral529 - Friday, December 10, 2010 - link

    I think the Citrix Receiver implementation is one of the most exciting aspects of Chrome. Instant access to any enterprise application, including the MS Office suite, could really make it practical for enterprise users.

    There is a nice demo of Receiver for Chrome from Tuesday's event. You can view the video at the following URL (Citrix coverage starts around 21:30):
  • Conficio - Friday, December 10, 2010 - link

    Here is my list of things making this a No Go:
    * Configurable alternatives to the Google App Store
    * Basic upgradability, more RAM
    * Installable VPN, for Open Wifi access. I want to get to the web under my security control. Corporate anybody, enterprise?
    * Auto update ? NO, NO, NO! Can you hear me now? This is supposed ot be a "PC" as in personal computer and that is the one thing I won't give up on personal freedom. I want to be in charge as to when I take the risk that my system feezes or stops to function. Not in the midst of a meeting or vacation for that matter. Auto anything must be optional!
    * An array of server type apps for my desktops/home servers that make my data there accessible on demand remotely. Why? I can't control that my employer uses non cloud apps, but hopefully I can access those via such server programs I can install.
  • VooDooAddict - Saturday, December 11, 2010 - link

    What about dropping this OS on existing Netbooks?

    It would open up more potential buyers to the app store and put some of that hardware to use that otherwise sits there unused.
  • 529th - Sunday, December 12, 2010 - link

    This is like a kids OS in terms of being innocent of the other potentials of the internet. Its a good idea but this was the first thing I thought of after reading the app store section. LOL Reply
  • Hrel - Monday, December 13, 2010 - link

    I thought Microsoft was going to do that Sandboxed browser/apps thing way back when Vista came out. I remember specifically reading that that was one of the features of Vista and why it was so important to make sure your CPU supported virtualization.

    Alas that never came to pass; now we're here in Windows 7 reading leaked info about Windows 8 and it STILL hasn't happened. For shame $soft, for shame.
  • rscoot - Monday, December 13, 2010 - link

    The "I'm not an idiot, so I don't need to run antivirus" opinion is horribly outdated. With as many 0 day exploits and drive by hijackings from legitimate websites you can't just say, "I don't search for horse porn and download warez I'm ok" anymore. Unless you don't use any PDF or Flash software (just for a couple of examples) on your PC, you are going to be at risk. Is your risk as high as the average user's? Of course not, but considering how cheap good antivirus software is (Microsoft Security Essentials is free and low footprint), the only reason not to run AV is to cultivate the smug attitude that you're better than people who choose to protect themselves. Reply
  • TantrumusMaximus - Tuesday, December 14, 2010 - link

    To all of you who commented on the fact Google will house all your personal information... "I SALUTE YOU"

    I love my right, my personal right TO USE A CAPS LOCK key when I want to.

    I love my right on my PC - PERSONAL Computer to do things "I" want to do today without handing my data to big brother to review every last action I make.

    This world is soooooo moving towards the evil futures in many movies where the government makes all your choices for you, knows when you wipe your a$$, knows when you banged your wife, knows all.

    SCREW THIS. I hope it burns.
  • has407 - Saturday, January 01, 2011 - link

    Anand -- Thanks again for the food for thought. I too am impatient to get to the end of the story. But I think the trajectory is ordained; timing is the only question. (Timing, not trajectory, seems to always be the most difficult. I remember pontificating in 1998 that, "with 2MBps ubiquitous connectivity, I could jettison most of the weight, power and data storage I have to lug around with my laptop--which is always out of sync with my other machines--grrr. We should be there by 2004-2005". Hah! ever the techno-optimist. :)

    Will it replace everything else? No. But IMHO that is irrelevant. The relevant question is: Where will the growth be in the coming years? That growth will be--and demonstrably has been for some time--in services and apps that are web-based or anytime/anywhere (which is simply another way of saying "cloud-based"). That's where the developers and development $ will go, because that's what the vast majority of people want and expect (and will increasingly want and expect).

    Yeah, I'll still have my home-based Linux/Win/etc infrastructure, but for most tasks I don't need it, don't (and can't) want to have to lug it around when mobile. That's speaking as an individual... From a corporate perspective there are plenty of options, e.g., "hybrid clouds". But the hard facts are that most organizations--especially smaller organizations--can't provide equivalent SLA's or performance at equivalent cost as public cloud. The differences in economies are off-the-charts compared to what any but the largest organizations can achieve.

    See, e.g., "Above the Clouds: A Berkeley View of Cloud Computing":

    Maybe there will be a swing of the pendulum back towards something like "person clouds", but my crystal ball doesn't go that far out. :)

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now