Motherboards Memory Storage Cases/Cooling/PSUs IT Computing Displays Mobile Mac CPUs & Chipsets Video Digital Cameras Linux Gadgets Systems Trade Shows Guides Home Increase Font Size Decrease Font Size Change Page Size
Google's Chrome OS Announced
Google's Chrome OS Announced
Date: July 8th, 2009
Author: Ryan Smith
Buy the STRTR KIT VPC Products TMOBILE G1
Blank
 
 

When I saw this come across my inbox a bit ago, I first thought this was a late-night prank being played on me. But as it turns out, it’s true: late this evening Google confirmed that they’re working on their own operating system for netbooks, tentatively titled Chrome OS.

Rather than rattle off the entire contents of their announcement, let’s hit the high points. Google's Chrome OS is an OS designed to do one thing and one thing only: run Google Chrome. It will be open source, it will run on ARM and x86, it’s Linux based, and it’s not going to launch until the second half of 2010. Taking a page out of Apple’s book, Google is announcing it now as a way to avoid another party spilling the beans before Google is ready.

The single most important thing to take from this announcement right now is just what Chrome OS will do. It won’t run an email client, it won’t run an office suite, and it won’t run games – it will only run Google Chrome. It’s Linux stripped to the bone, left with just enough to run Chrome, and nothing more.

Given this kind of a design, it should come as little surprise then that Chrome itself will be the platform through which additional applications will run. Google has been pushing the web application idea for years – indeed Chrome exists to further drive that goal – but previously this has always required accessing said web applications through a web browser running on a full-fledged OS. If nothing else it is somewhat redundant, not to mention the existence and use of native applications goes against Google’s grand unified vision for everything to be a web application.

Because Chrome will be available on Linux, Windows, and Mac OS X, developers will be able to create web applications targeting Chrome, and have it run on computers running any of the above operating systems, along with netbooks running Chrome OS. Along these lines, Google’s own web application suite finally left beta this week, where it’s entirely possible that this was intentional to coincide with the announcement of Chrome OS. Regardless, clearly Google’s application suite is going to be the center point of Chrome OS in order to flesh out the capabilities of Chrome OS-equipped netbooks to what’s expected of a modern computer.

The early announcement leaves plenty of time for more details to be refined and released, but this does raise a few core issues. First and foremost, will developers go with it? One of the most recent parallels to this is the original iPhone launch, where Apple pushed something very similar as the official way for developers to create applications for the iPhone, through creating web applications for Safari. It failed miserably, and a year later a real SDK was released for developers to create native applications. Chrome is better equipped than circa-2007 Safari for these matters (it has local storage capabilities, among other things) but the point still stands. Developers would be limited to AJAXy technologies, with no Adobe Flash to back them up. For the most part, developers would be looking at abilities below what Flash and Java are capable of, so not everyone would necessarily be happy about working with a limited toolkit.

The second issue is how consumers will respond. Chrome has been a tempered success as a browser, it’s bigger impact being to drive everyone else to improve their JavaScript performance. Just being Chrome won’t be enough for Chrome OS to succeed. Meanwhile Google’s web applications have been a smash hit – Gmail is the new standard for webmail interfaces, and other services like Google Docs have been picking up in usage. Google would be relying on their web applications to move consumers (and OEMs) to Chrome OS. But let’s also cut to the chase – this is the computer terminal/thin-client reborn, and history is littered with the carcasses of terminals and terminal-like computers that have died to full-fledged computers when consumers/users rejected going back to terminals. A complete thin-client system may be a gutsy move in modern times, but it's still a significant risk that is not in any way guaranteed to win over users.

And last but not least, we have Microsoft. The web browser replacing the OS has been Microsoft’s worst nightmare for well over a decade now. Much of their late-90’s anti-trust trial focused on how they attempted to drive Netscape out of business for fear of this exact situation arising. Microsoft won’t sit by idle, they will undoubtedly make a big move against Chrome OS, and they will try to not get dragged back in to court in the process. Whether that means just more cheap copies of Windows for netbooks or something more remains to be seen.

Quickly, it should also be noted that this is a separate effort from Google’s existing OS, Android. Android is similar in that it’s a Linux-based OS, but Android is targeted towards phones (even if it can be run on a netbook) and can run additional applications through Java. Chrome OS would be for more powerful devices, and as announced would not be able to run any applications other than AJAXy web applications through Chrome. Along these lines, it should be noted that Chrome OS is going to use a brand new windowing system. It's a bit of a generic statement, but we suspect that Google is going to keep the Linux standard of the X11 windowing system, but write their own window manager and GUI framework. If that is the case, then we won’t be seeing the usual suspects of KDE(Qt) or GNOME(GTK) here. This would also mean that even if Chrome OS could be manipulated in to running other programs, it would not have the ability to run the vast majority of Linux GUI applications without significant modification, as most applications use one of those two frameworks.

As always, we’ll have more on Chrome OS as it develops.


56 Comments
Username:
Password:
I can see how this would be useful as a second OS.. by Storkme, 136 days ago
I can see this being installed alongside windows, linux, etc as a easy fast-booting web sessions, but what about for the more techical user? They're not gonna want to drop the functionality of their primary OS for just a web browser, surely?

Reply
RE: I can see how this would be useful as a second OS.. by setzer, 135 days ago
well, the only time i'm out of my main OS and would actually use a *web* only OS, is when I'm having some issue with my computer, and even in that case i prefer to use my laptop with full blown OS just in case i need to do something other than browse sites...
I've dual booted before but unless you are running linux/osx and want to play some windows games what is the point of dual boot?
We already have linux on netbooks and it doesn't sell, regardless of the fact that it can run almost everything except games, it just doesn't sell. What chance does an underpowered OS has?
As for google apps, they are very nice for a quick fix and what not but they lack the power of a full office application.

To sum it up, I see no way in which this can prove successful. Like was said in the article unless it's to foster some development like Javascript engines and what not, this will fail and will join the long list of google projects that got scrapped.

but this is just my two cents.

Reply
depends by helms, 135 days ago
If its fast/low resource friendly then it could be used in very old computers e.g. 200mhz with 32mb ram. Then outdated pc's could be turned into internet terminals. Instead of being thrown away as trash.

Reply
RE: depends by ssj4Gogeta, 135 days ago
Just running the new tab page in Chrome uses 25 MB. There's no way those heavy web apps can fit inside 32 MB along with the Linux kernel and the window manager.

Reply
RE: depends by nilepez, 135 days ago
I doubt it will run on a 200mhz with 32mb of ram. Why would Google design an OS to run under constraints that haven't existed at least a decade? It's nice to save PCs from landfills, but the truth is the vast majority of those PC's haven't been used in years. My oldest working computer is an Athlon 1800+ XP. I'm sure it could run a Google OS, but it also has 512mb of ram (and he PC before that has 256, while the one before it had 128).

Reply
RE: depends by Parhel, 133 days ago
Why? So that the OS will run on the lowest spec'ed mobile devices, and still run quickly.

To the poster above, keep in mind that while Chrome is using 25MB, that's in a Windows environment. Who knows how much it will use under an OS designed to do just that one thing?

200mhz / 32mb may be a little on the low side, but not out of the ball park. At least if they're trying to do what I think they're trying to do.

Reply
RE: depends by Chadder007, 135 days ago
200mhz wouldn't run Javascript efficiently enough on pages either anymore...

Reply
handsy by prophet001, 135 days ago
isn't the end game of this to get their hands deeper into their user's lives and data?
i'm not getting on the web os bandwagon

Reply
RE: handsy by KidneyBean, 135 days ago
No soup for you!
-Nazi Soup Guy

Although I think the writers stole that concept from Milton Friedman's "There's no such thing as a free lunch".

Reply
RE: handsy by HavocX, 133 days ago
You mean Robert Heinlein's?

Reply
People like having XP on a netbook by ytoledano1, 135 days ago
It lets them feel that even though its small and cheap, it still looks similar to the PC they have at home.

Reply
Might work by nilepez, 135 days ago
As a netbook OS, it could work. IMO, that's about all netbooks are good for. If you need to do much more than some light typing or browsing, the small screen and keyboard are too much of a PITA.

Now will everyone move to web apps? That I don't know. I wouldn't feel comfortable having all my documents in Google's hands. I don't trust Google anymore than I trusted MS in the 90's...and MS didn't have access to my financial and personal info. What's more, even if i did trust google, I don't like the idea that even if I delete something, it will live on for years and could be grabbed by the Government for whatever purposes they may have (yes I know I'm being paranoid, but I prefer to keep personal info personal and out of reach of prying eyes).

Reply
RE: Might work by Xenoterranos, 135 days ago
I was about to post this. Netbooks are basically just thin clients anyway, and they've helped a lot of people realize that A) They don't really need as much computer as they thought they did, and B) Their pictures are safer of Flickr anyway where they won't go *poof* like they did the last time their hard drive died. I know tons of people who use Google Docs specifically for this reason.

(Mind you, they're latently paranoid, so if you mentioned the whole google=cthulhu thing to them, it'd probably obliterate their world-view.)

Reply
Will fail by SkullOne, 135 days ago
I think this will be a very small niche market for start up companies who need things like e-mail on the cheap in the beginning. If the company takes off you'll see them move to Windows, MS Exchange, Office and Blackberries.

Plus the world has already shown what they want on netbooks and that's Windows. Ubuntu captured what? Less then 5% of the netbook market?

The Average Joe doesn't want Linux in any way, shape or form.



Reply
RE: Will fail by daniel142005, 135 days ago
I work for a K-12 school and I think this would actually be useful. Almost everything we use now is web based... email, gradebook, and we are hopefully switching to google docs soon. Having the Chrome OS on our low end machines for teachers that use it for nothing more would be perfect. Of course Flash will have to be supported... but I think Google is smart enough to know that.

Also, "I don't like the idea that even if I delete something, it will live on for years and could be grabbed by the Government for whatever purposes they may have (yes I know I'm being paranoid, but I prefer to keep personal info personal and out of reach of prying eyes)."

When you delete something from Google's servers, it is deleted. They have no interest in keeping copies of your files after you have removed them. If you are that worried about personal info or prying eyes, then encrypt it or don't upload it. If you want to stick to this theory then you better unplug your computer from the internet, who knows what Microsoft is able to embed into their OS... they could have a way to access whatever file they want and just leave it inactive... (I doubt it... but you get the idea)

Reply
RE: Will fail by stromgald30, 134 days ago
Google actually doesn't delete stuff that you set for deletion. They have enough space on their servers that they only delete stuff some time after you hit delete. I'm not sure how long that time is, but there is a significant delay from what I've heard from google employees.

Secondly, your school might be switching over to Google Docs, but any serious user of an office suite, whether it's OpenOffice or MS Office, will tell you that Google Docs is missing alot of functionality. It's a nice start, but not suited for anything other than light use.

Reply
Pure niche market by psonice, 135 days ago
There's no way this will be widely taken up, although I expect it'll get massive publicity as it has the word "google" in it and it'll be seen as a challenger to windows.

It's great that it'll boot in seconds and run super fast, but there's a serious flaw in the plan. It'll only run web-based apps. You know, the apps that are like your normal desktop ones, except much less powerful, and much slower. And it'll be running them on a netbook, with a weak CPU, so it'll be even slower.

A netbook with windows or linux will run exactly the same apps at pretty much exactly the same speed, with the only disadvantage being longer boot times. Unless you use standby. The windows/linux machine will be able to run those fast and powerful native apps too. And the linux one at least will cost the same. And won't tie you in to google mail/docs/search/everything.

That said, it will be great for computers that ONLY need web access. Then you don't lose anything, and you gain speed + security. Small market unfortunately.

Reply
RE: Pure niche market by Mills, 135 days ago
Agreed, I think the main problem is it will not run Outlook, which tends to be critical in the business sector.

Maybe you'll get a few students on a budget buying this if the price is low enough, but otherwise I don't see this gaining any traction.

Mills

Reply
Still quite a ways away by captainBOB, 135 days ago
Its still a long time until we see Chrome OS, its still possible that Google will change the whole idea and go to a full OS with just the basics, file browser, Chrome, text editor, etc.

Reply
Lacking support for devices by bobjones32, 135 days ago
With hundreds of millions of people using iPods and iPhones, among other devices, I can't see this taking off. With no support for native applications, it means no support for iTunes (or similar apps), which means no support for syncing their data.

The general consumer doesn't want to mess around with multiple computers just so they can do what they want to do on each of them. They'll recognize that Chrome OS doesn't do what they want it to do, and opt for a netbook running XP or Windows 7 instead.

Reply
RE: Lacking support for devices by SkullOne, 135 days ago
If everything is a web application what happens when you can't access the Internet? ;)

Reply
RE: Lacking support for devices by medi01, 131 days ago
Hundreds of milions?

"According to this live blog of the Apple Quarterly conference call the sum of iPhone plus Touch iPods is now about 37 million units."
http://gregorykaiser.wordpress.com/2009...ow-many-iphones-and-itouch-ipods-sold/

And coupling with iTunes for me personally is a reason NOT to buy.

Reply
A few points by Rigan, 135 days ago
Point one, the Google article does not say flash will not be available. Flash works fine under Linux and fine under Chrome. The plug-in will most likely be installed.

Point two, the Google article does not say a new "window manager" it says a new "windowing system." In the Linux world X is the windowing system, but others exist. And, even if the writer of the Google article was being sloppy they have to build any sort of gui on a tool kit, which means GTK+ or QT. The Linux version of Chrome is built on GTK+, so you can be virtually certain that will be installed.

Reply
RE: A few points by Ryan Smith, 135 days ago
1) Flash is not open source, Chrome and Linux are. Canonical has pushed the issue some by including Flash with Ubuntu, but I don't see Google doing the same thing. Google's situation is particularly problematic since they would need Adobe to write a version of Flash specifically for the Linux/ARM combination they're going to be using. And Gnash isn't really an option either - it's buggy and likely will continue to be that way for the forseeable future. I would be genuinely surprised if Chrome OS came with Flash support.

2) Thanks for that, I had two thoughts run together on that one. Even though Chrome for Linux uses GTK+, both Qt and GTK+ are fairly hefty frameworks. Google can easily write a much smaller framework and desktop environment that will better fit the lightweight approach they're going for. GTK+ and Qt would be overkill for what Google wants to do - they don't need most of the functions, and they definitely don't need the extra resource usage that brings.

Reply
RE: A few points by KidneyBean, 135 days ago
Google has more leverage than Canonical.

Maybe Google will update Google Video and Youtube to HTML 5 for the release of Google Chrome OS. I think that would make it tolerable for many people not to have Flash. And things will only get better as time goes on.

Reply
RE: A few points by ianken, 135 days ago
The problem with HTML 5 is the pissing contest over codecs. Opera wants OGG, everyone else wants H.264. The spec guys threw in the towel.

Will these netbooks do either well? Not without GPU acceleration. ChromeOS have it? What API will they emply to support it?

This'll be like the "magic gate" option on Asus mainboards. The thing yhou use to go online when your real OS bites the dust.

Reply
RE: A few points by yyrkoon, 134 days ago
"2) Thanks for that, I had two thoughts run together on that one. Even though Chrome for Linux uses GTK+, both Qt and GTK+ are fairly hefty frameworks. Google can easily write a much smaller framework and desktop environment that will better fit the lightweight approach they're going for. GTK+ and Qt would be overkill for what Google wants to do - they don't need most of the functions, and they definitely don't need the extra resource usage that brings."

Why reinvent the wheel when something already exists? Sure, Google can do many a useful thing, but what about *programming* them self into a corner ? What you propose would not be very open ended, and could potentially lead to problematic code. Yes, any one could do the same, including the DEV teams for the above "frameworks".

I know very little about Qt, and GTK+, however I am sure there could be, or possibly already is a light framework. Just like the mobile .NET framework . . . Anything is possible, but one thing I do know for sure is that developers would be more likely to embrace a well known/established library than to embrace a new one, that has no proven track record, and offers very little aside from communicating/interacting with a proprietary web browser.

To everyone else:

The one immediate positive thing that I can think about this is that it is OSS, and people may want to toy around with the code, and possibly turn it into something else. Perhaps even learn a thing or two. Or even teach the people at Google something ( which is probably why Google software is OSS to begin with ).

However, I myself do use Chrome/gmail. Aside from that I not unlike many others would not want Google to have their hands in my business. I think web based mail is a great idea; for many reasons. On the flip side, Google could use this information for their own benefit, or just close shop and leave everyone out in the cold. This is why I believe it is a much better idea for people who need redundant copies of their own files, whatever they may be; that they should learn how, spend the money, and do it for themselves. If they do not care to learn how, pay someone else to do it for them. Someone who has no access to your data when they are finished.

What happens when you do not have internet ? Or when you need to do a serious edit of an image, or video file ? Do you have broadband, and if so would you trust just any Joe with your data whether you profit from it or not ?

Seeing both good and bad from this, I could go on all day. Unfortunately for Google, it is more bad than good.


Reply
default browser? by kevinkreiser, 135 days ago
it better not have google chrome as the default web browser. in fact, it should have no browser at all, in an effort to placate the EU. that way you can have a netbook that cant surf the net.

Reply
Something everyone is missing by techpops, 135 days ago
I think its safe to say that most people reading Anandtech are real techies or on the path to being one. Despite the tech bubble we live in giving us the feeling that this is just the norm, this tech bubble is very small.

The majority of computer users, the masses, they don't even know what a web browser is. Google launching an OS for Netbooks will surely work as even these masses are aware of Google. The fact they wont be able to run applications outside of the browser won't be an issue for this huge majority. In fact, having everything in one place under some Google dock of web apps will probably be all the majority need.

If i take my sister as an example, she has been using computers for many years now but has no interest in operating systems, the hardware or anything other than what she needs to click to get to Facebook. She shows no signs of ever learning more than she needs to get to a site like this. Many studies are out there showing just how little the majority of computer users know and how common this kind of thing is.

Netbooks are fast becoming the standard way people will access the net wirelessly. Aside from Smart phones, which are tied into horrible contracts that stifle the massive growth they could be having (I'm looking at you iPhone!) Laptop sales are dropping, the desktop hasn't seen a boost in sales since Windows XP launched, so it makes absolute sense to go for the Netbook market as the place to catch the largest number of new users over time.

With Googles OS being offered for free, I believe they would have a huge hit on their hands tying in large numbers of users to the Google brand, just like Microsoft does today.

Very smart move for Google as I don't see how Microsoft can compete with free, unless they also make Windows 7 free for Netbooks and I can't see that happening. Microsofts whole business model revolves around revenue from Windows and Office.

Also consider Google now has the biggest ad platform on the planet and you can see how selling this to the masses is not going to be too much of a headache.

I bet MS are sh***** themselves right now and Apple are breathing a sign of relief knowing they no longer rely on the desktop market.

Reply
blah by befair, 135 days ago
another lame post

Reply
Flash and Java: Why not? by Anonymous Freak, 135 days ago
Nowhere does Google say that ChromeOS won't support Flash and Java. Flash and Java are both available for Linux; and both for Linux/ARM as well as Linux/x86.

I see no reason Google would screw themselves by not including these two (still) vital web technologies. Especially vital when you can't run any 'native' apps, and all apps must be web-based.

Reply
RE: Flash and Java: Why not? by techpops, 135 days ago
I agree, it would be the kiss of death to ignore Flash right now. Java I don't see as important.

Reply
RE: Flash and Java: Why not? by yyrkoon, 134 days ago
I would like to point out that Java is not Java script, and really has nothing to do with any web browser.

I wanted to point this out to Ryan as well since "Java" is in his blog post. Java is a multi platform runtime environment, Javascript, is a scripting language supported by many browsers. Javascript also is probably needed more than flash as a side note . . .

Reply
I'm excited by KidneyBean, 135 days ago
I'm excited by this. I would love to have a little cube that I plug into the Internet as my computer. Something like this could run on a cell phone!

Hmmm... come to think of it, that solution already exists. Goodbye computer!

Now we just need a heads up display that I can wear like glasses. Whatever happened to that?

Reply
Cell Phone as my computer by KidneyBean, 135 days ago
On second thought, I haven't seen a cell phone with an HDMI or DisplayPort yet. Has anyone else seen or heard of that in the works?

Reply
RE: Cell Phone as my computer by medi01, 131 days ago
Well, actually some mobo makers (at least ASUS) ships this kind of "fast starting linux" with media player and web browser.

But nobody is making noise about it. Well, maybe because ASUS doesn't have 90% of the web search market.

Reply
And if you don't have internet access? by wicko, 135 days ago
Then it becomes absolutely useless. Netbooks are portable, and more than likely to come across situations without any internet access. Then what? You'll need a 2nd OS.

Reply
what will MS do next? by zerobug, 135 days ago
Now,what MS could do is to pick up a Linux kernel embed it with IE and announce their new MSChrome o/s. Providing they can disambiguate and open source IE,



Reply
Weird.. by winterspan, 135 days ago
This is very strange. Why on earth would you want a computer with LESS FUNCTIONALITY than your smartphone?

Given that I've heard of manufacturers playing around with Android on a smartphone, I figured that Google just put a new face on Android in order to run a desktop GUI. That is certainly what I think they should do if they want an OS. Either that, or work with Ubuntu and make a netbook version of Ubuntu that is heavily integrated Google applications and perhaps using a harddened security/sandboxing layer.

Reply
RE: Weird.. by techpops, 135 days ago
I don't think you or I would want this as a main computer, but people like us are in a minority.

Ubuntu would be a disaster and has already proved itself as one with current Netbooks. Again only a very tiny percentage of people would be interested in it and understand what the benefits were of having a full OS that you can run anything you like on from a vast catalog of software.

The majority of people just want to surf, use Facebook, email and have some kind of office suite. A stripped down Google OS would give you all that in a small footprint without any messing around with installations or even software upgrades. Google handle all the back end for you, they update the software, it's a complete no brainer for the non techies to get into this.

Reply
Shocked.... by brightstar, 135 days ago
Ya, didn't see that one coming....whatever.

Reply
The Revenge of Thin Client. by iwodo, 135 days ago
A few things to note. If Intel Manage to Boot up a General Netbook / PC in Less then 5 Seconds. Then I can see this Chrome OS boot up in less then that.

ARM will have a Dual Core Cortex A9 out first half next year. Which should be more then capable for what Chrome OS needs.

Flash for ARM is also coming out Next year..... Coincidence?

This Thin Client, with maybe 4GB of SSD, and 4GB of Memory. Should be very cheap to make.

Since College / School / Library / Office will need some computer only for Email. Google could subsidize the price of these clients into their Google Apps and Gmail contract.

Reply
RE: The Revenge of Thin Client. by iwodo, 135 days ago
I forgot to mention how library computers would save huge amount of electricity bills, ( Could be less then 20W compare to 50 - 90W Standby ) and less security concern.

Reply
RE: The Revenge of Thin Client. by techpops, 135 days ago
Agreed, the whole OS could be in memory and hit near instant on off speeds. Very cheap to run and make. Netbooks won't need to keep on driving for faster performance to handle things like Windows 7 when this tiny OS can work in very modest requirements.

The pluses are many the more I think about it.

Lowest power solution suitable for anyone.
Will run on any Netbook
Free
Massive brand behind it, should gain traction
more secure than windows
no software to upgrade yourself, everything auto updating for you on the front and back end


And to the person that wonders what happens if you go offline. Google Gears takes care of that. You can use gmail offline with that and other google apps. Web developers would soon catch on to this if they saw a hint of the platform gaining traction.

Reply
webOS by Diesel Donkey, 135 days ago
I find it interesting that the author draws a parallel between Chrome OS and Apple's failed attempts at web apps on the iPhone, but there is no mention whatsoever of Palm's webOS. As far as I can tell, Chrome OS and webOS operate on EXACTLY the same principals:

> GUI on top of a Linux kernel
> all apps written in HTML, Javascript, CSS

Reply
And Opera said that THEY reinvented the web.... by SirKronan, 135 days ago
This is the first news I've seen in a while that could potentially be game changing. This makes a netbook truly a "NETBOOK"!

Dumbing down Linux and making it as simple and idiot proof as possible, while allowing massive expansion via easily installed web apps and addons, many of which will undoubtedly be free, cheap, and others that will be user created, could point to some serious potential. With driver and app control all in-house, similar to the control Apple has, which ensures a smooth user experience, Google might actually be able to deliver a similar smooth, easy experience to the netbook user, but it wouldn't be limited to specific Google hardware. The netbooks are already limited simply by hardware pricing constraints, thus limiting the variety of hardware Google will have to make their OS support.

And if they can add future support based on demand/request from the owners of netbooks, and make it point and click easy for those same owners, they will have a win. I really hope they make something successful and competitive out of this.

Linux might be great for Anand fans, but it still intimidates a lot of basic users, and wouldn't it be nice to have even more alternatives that are popular and well supported than just OSX or Windows?? I can't see this doing anything but really helping the customer in the long run, unless they don't support it or market it properly.

Reply
Screw Netbooks, I want this on my terminals. by nubie, 135 days ago
Screw Netbooks, I want this on my terminals.

There are a large percentage of users who would benefit from this.

I have been wondering when Microsoft will jump on the "browser OS" market that they could foster if they tried. Make it simple, make it cheap, make it ubiquitous, then you will make money and make people happy. Most people "new" to PC's, (AKA older people), just want to reach the facetube myplace and don't want a bunch of stuff with the potential for failure.

It does need to have basic functionality, even if it is just embedded in the browser, such as file management and simple programs to run. Open Office and Pidgin come to mind as the most needed.

Reply
it can work, if... by Stas, 135 days ago
Google needs to be careful with this. Most people are too stupid to realize that with Google Search, Gmail, Google Docs, etc. all aspects of their lives come under the eye of 1 multi-billion dollar company: banking, personal emails, important documents (wills, taxes, certificates, etc), anything you would have on a computer is accessible by Google. So, with a terminal client like this, they better distract people with, "Oh, look Android! This new xxx phone is so sick!" "These thin clients are so cheap! Save the Earth!" blah, blah, blah, as long as no one looks over and sees Google's hands full of private information of half the people on the planet and asks, "Umm... What are you doing with that, and why should we trust you?" So far Google hasn't failed. And I don't see why people would suddenly start paying attention. So, good game, Google, good game.

Reply
Summary by Griswold, 134 days ago
Its great for Netbook junkies and everyone who blindly steps into the cloud trap set up for them not only by google.

Totally not interesting for me and certainly quite a few others who value their data, privacy and work higher than buzz-words.

Reply
RE: Summary by SirKronan, 134 days ago
You know, you and another above poster mention something important - so much personal information in one centralized location.

As long as this web based OS has the ability to run completely offline with local files, apps, etc. Applications and addons are downloaded from the internet and added via Google's interface, but can be ran locally and independent of an internet connection. If this is the way it's done then I still see some privacy as being possible. Shut off your Wi Fi and no one can get in to what personal information is stored on your computer. It shouldn't be mandatory for us to store ALL personal information and important documents completely on the web. I still want all my stuff on a local disk, and I think they'll have it this way.... hope so, anyways.

Reply
Comments Page 1 of 2





AnandTech.com Blog Categories
All categories
Anand's Macdates
Anand's Theater Construction
Anand's Updates
Cases and Power Supplies
CeBIT 2008
CES 2008
Computex 2009
Derek Decanted
Eddie's Got Game
Gary's First Looks
IT Computing general
Jarred's Musings
Kris's Corner
Raja's Ramblings
Rob's Experiences...
Ryan's Ramblings
Virtualization
What's New with Wes
Blank
Blank

Blank

Latest news by
DailyTech

 November 20, 2009

Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank

 November 19, 2009

Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank


more Blogs Discussions



pipeboost
Copyright © 1997-2009 AnandTech, Inc. All rights reserved. Terms, Conditions and Privacy Information.
Click Here for Advertising Information